Ilford delta 400 HC-110 starting point

[npl]

Hello,

I recently developed a roll of 35mm Ilford delta 400 shot at box speed in HC-110 dilution b (1:31) for 7.5min at 20°c, based on what i found on the massive dev chart and other sources. The negative ended up overdeveloped.

Now, i'm not sure if it was user error or if my dev time is off. Of course i could have made a mistake, but i remember checking the temperature and my agitation wasn't harsh : 30s initial agitation, 10s agitation at the start of every minutes, pretty slow and gentle turns has i'm used to with rodinal. Water stop bath.

I'm currently shooting a new roll, again at box speed. Could more experienced users share their time, dilution and agitation routine with ilford delta 400 @400 and HC-110 ?

Thank you !

Nicolas

 

[pentaxuser]

Well what you used as a time accords with Covington Innovations section on HC110 as well so unless that and the MDC is clearly at odds with official Kodak times it would seem unlikely that your dev time is the problem. Your agitation routine looks as close to what's normally recommended as makes no difference

That leaves your meter as the unknown but if this is a separate meter or an in-camera meter then I'd expect other films to be overdeveloped as well.

So other than saying what I think isn't the problem based on what you have said I can't say what is the likely cause

Digital pics of your negatives on a lightbox or against paper on a window might help. Are the negs so overdeveloped that printing or scanning for a positive is a problem?

pentaxuser

 

[DMJ]

Kodak does not provide times for Ilford films in their datasheet. If you take a look at Covington's section on HC110, you will notice that you are using the times for Tri-x. It should be 5 minutes at 20c for HP5. Your agitation is fine. I use Patterson tanks so I twirl the stick for the first 30 seconds and do 3 inversions at the start of every minute.

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

We need to see a negative. How do you meter?

 

[pentaxuser]

The OP is using D400 and not HP5 at 20 C so the time in your link which is what I checked as well looks to be 7.5 mins and that's what he is using, In fact the Covington time is for 320 so if anything he has underexposed at 400 and requires, marginally at least, more time than 7.5 so on dev time alone overdevelopment should not be the outcome

As I said it would look as if he needs to look elsewhere for his issue, assuming what he sees as overdevelopment is genuine overdevelopment but sight of the negs would be helpful

pentaxuser

 

[DMJ]

The OP is using D400

Obviously I don't know how to read

 

[madNbad]

Ifrords' information sheet included with the film recommends Ilfotec HC at 1:31 for 7.5 minutes at 20° C. Ilfotec HC and HC-110 are not significantly different so there must be some other variable like exposure or as mentioned above, the water stop bath. It's worth the money, which isn't much, for an indicator stop bath. When I first started developing at home after many years away, I used a water stop. Between the amount of water that was used and the extra time, I bought a bottle of Foma Stop Bath. It saves time and water and I know it stops the development.

 

[pentaxuser]

Obviously I don't know how to read

I have been guilty of this myself as well as writing things that do not make sense. To that end I have just modified a few words as what I wrote originally seems to mean the opposite of what I was trying to say.

pentaxuser

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Don't make this more complicated than it need be. First, learn to tell the difference between overdeveloped and overexposed. Then simply adjust as needed. Overdeveloped? Reduce development time till you get the right development, and vice-versa. Overexposed? Adjust the E.I. on your meter till you get a workable personal E.I. Note that overexposure with b&w materials is less of a problem than underexposure. In my experience, it's underexposure that causes more problems, especially for beginning photographers.

Very contrasty scenes can result in negatives with quite dense highlights. With modern VC papers, this is less of a problem than it used to be, but if you consistently end up with unprintable negs in contrasty situations, learn to recognize these and compensate by reducing development time for such situations.

You already have a starting point (that gives too much development, if you've assessed the situation correctly), so use that as a basis for finding your next, shorter, development time.

Best,

Doremus

 

[MattKing]

And of course, it is always worthwhile to check the accuracy of your thermometer.

 

[gone]

As people point out, the whole process has to work, all the way down the line. Confirm that the meter is accurate on the camera and the shutter is operating properly. Then, using the chosen EI, take your shots. Then mix your chemicals as you did, keep your temp within a few degrees of where it's supposed to be (I only worry about the developing temp, others have their own ideas), agitate, etc etc, it should work fine.

 

[MattKing]

It is much easier to see underdevelopment (edge markings, lots of 100% transparent shadows).

Actually, "lots of 100% transparent shadows" says under-exposure to me.
Which at least partially highlights the fact that we all tend to respond differently to the visual clues.
And I am always cautious about relying on edge marking densities, although that may be a function of a lot of historical factors that aren't as relevant with fresh, modern film.
The graphic (in particular) on this linked website isn't perfect, but it does at least provide a reference:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682
To the OP: may we see a backlit digital image of your negatives, showing the film rebate and edge markings, as well as the space between frames?
In addition, it is important to take into account that the Delta films will appear different to the eye than other, more traditional emulsions, and that films developed in rodinal can appear somewhat different than films developed in HC-110. Those differences in appearance aren't as important though as a difference in either printing or difference in (The Other Place ).
(Smiley and reference to the House of Lords/Canadian Senate for Old Gregg's benefit)

 

[madNbad]

I do hope the OP is reading our suggestions.

 

[MattKing]

If you have reasonably fresh film from the same bulk roll or batch to compare with, the edge marking density is helpful.
I used to print from other people's negatives - there is nothing in edge printing densities that helps you with those!
Visual evaluation of negatives is a learned skill - it helps if you are methodical about it, and it helps even more if you print the negatives you develop. The feedback loop one establishes by exposing film, developing film and then printing film and carefully observing the results is the best teacher of all.
My less than positive feelings about using a scanner or attempting to digitize with a camera most likely relate to the disruption to that feedback loop that I seem to experience.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Visual evaluation of negatives is a learned skill - it helps if you are methodical about it, and it helps even more if you print the negatives you develop. The feedback loop one establishes by exposing film, developing film and then printing film and carefully observing the results is the best teacher of all.
My less than positive feelings about using a scanner or attempting to digitize with a camera most likely relate to the disruption to that feedback loop that I seem to experience.

I would agree with this. Printing negatives in the darkroom feels like a much more direct experience, and you get an immediate output for your efforts.
On the HC-110 / Ilfotec HC side, when I used these developers I eventually went over to a 1+49 dilution which I found gave more manageable process times.

 

[MattKing]

Phew... I'm trying! But don't different films have their own "normal" look even when developed to the same contrast? After all, the characteristic curves of HP5+ and Delta 400 aren't the same.

It is more a case of appearance to the eye than an accurate measure of the characteristic curve.
You get used to how the shadows, mid-tones and highlights appear with a particular film and with a film plus developer combination. With the exception of staining developers, the developer makes less of a difference.
As you are scanning, you don't get the immediate visual reinforcement of a negative plus contact proof pair, but if you work it backwards - take a negative that scanned easily and well with only the most standard post processing inversion steps - and look at it carefully, matching in your mind's eye the appearance of the shadows, mid-tones and highlights on the positive with the appearance of the corresponding parts on the negative.

 

[npl]

Hello !

First, thanks everyone for your input and suggestions, it's much appreciated. I finally had a chance to get to my computer and upload some of the scans :

https://ibb.co/k8ZknR2
https://ibb.co/SfMLDhX
https://ibb.co/PYPv3Pd
https://ibb.co/bsf9DhX

That bad ? maybe you'll think "where is the problem". Well, they're not terrible, i'm just not happy with them. As i'll explain below, they look overcooked to my eyes.

Overdevelopment vs overexposure : yes, it's possible i'm confusing the former with the later. My initial interpretation is based on the fact that i used my Mamiya NC 1000s in semi-automatic shutter priority mode like i do 98% of the time, so even if it's not perfect in contrasty situation and i still can mess up my exposure, it's a safe base that i'm familiar with. Also, I always scan an edit the same way, using the same gear and software, and for me the negatives had this "overcooked" and grainy look i didn't expected with a high quality film like this. Lots of details in the shadows, hard highlights ... not what i'm used to. I have experience with fomapan 400, AgfaPhoto APX 400, HP5+ , Tmax 400 and Kentmere 400, so based on what i read about Delta 400 i was expecting less grain and better handling of the highlights. So that's why i thought my dev time was off.

Development during water stop bath : i thought about it. 7.5min is short, HC-110 1:31 is "hot" compared to my usual rodinal 1:50/1:100, so maybe it's a factor and it would be safer to buy stop bath chemicals to eliminate that variable in the future.

Side note : i developed twice Tmax 400 in HC-110 (h) 1:63 for 10min at 20°c following what i read at http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html, using the same thermometer, agitation routine, water stop bath, scanning method .. and i got very very good results ! no harsh highlights !

So .. i'm leaning toward the idea that i simply messed up somewhere during the dev (dilution, temperature ...) while overexposing some of the shots.

Thanks again !

 

[MattKing]

If those are scans rather than backlit digital photographs showing the rebate, edge markings and the space between the frames, they don't really show us what we need to see.

 

[madNbad]

Photography is a constant learning process. Thanks for the update and a glimpse at your method of development. For future use you may want to have a bottle of stop bath on hand.Fomacitro is not very expensive, last a long time and is odorless: https://www.foma.cz/en/catalogue-fomacitro-detail-407. Good luck and come back and post some results.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

OP,

Assuming your scans are representative of the densities on the negatives themselves, all I can say is that I think I could make good prints from all of them. The last on seems a tad harsh, but nothing a low contrast setting and some soft-working developer couldn't handle. That said, I like rather dense negatives and I like to err on the side of overexposure. Still, I print most of my stuff with 50M or a bit more. If you're scanning then someone else will have to add their expertise.

Best,

Doremus

 

[npl]

So it took me weeks to finish my second roll of ilford delta 400 but dev is now done so here's an update for anyones who may find this thread while searching for delta 400 and HC-110

I didn't change my time nor the dilution, folllowing comments here about how the time should be correct. I wanted to do an actual stop bath this time but couldn't find the time to buy the chemicals at my local shop, so did a water stop bath.

* no prewash
* HC-110 dilution b 1:31 500ml solution at 20°c
* agitation for the first 30s
* 10s agitation (3 turn) at the start of every minutes
* total dev time = 7.5min
* dump, 4 quick changes of water
* fix

And it was fine, really happy with the results. Not much grain for a 400 ISO film, great range of tonality, lots of details in the shadows, and even in harsh situation the highlights were not blown out (or when they were, it was bad metering on my part).

So i definitely screw up somewhere in my first attempt, like a water too hot maybe.