Ilford Delta 400 in DDX - problems

Hi all - new to this forum so thanks for listening. I've run into a problem developing Ilford Delta 400 (36mm) in DDX. I love what this developer does for Delta 100 (my choice film for medium format). I get excellent speed: box speed gives me .10 density in tests - with Zone VIII density right on the money around 1.30. And I get this by developing for 9.5 minutes (@68F) - which is a full two minutes BELOW Ilford's recommended time.

But Delta 400 (36mm) is a different story in DDX. Ilford recommends 8 minutes (@68F) for EI 400. But I've found -- with repeated densitometer tests -- that I have to develop for at least 11 minutes to get Zone VIII density above 1.2.

I've scrubbed the forums and it seems nobody else has had this problem.

I say "problem." Of course I know the mfg. recommended times are starting points only. But my worry is that increasing the rec. time by so much, I'll spike the grain and negate the low-grain benefits of delta film.

Thanks to you all. I've benefited much from this forum and this is my first foray.


Jacob

If you are running Delta 100 for 9.5 minutes, then 11 minutes for Delta 400 doesn't sound unreasonable. Have you tried printing the Delta 400 negatives yet? - scanning can sometimes give misleading results.

blyndon, Ilford's data sheet states that Delta 400 needs to be slightly pushed to El 500 to be developed in DD-X with "optimal" contrast. TBH this film+developer is my "workhorse" combination (I bulk-load this film) and I was always happy with the results. But I do not own a densitometer, I scan and never print, so maybe I don't know what I'm missing

I have also experimented with 1:9 dilution of DD-X with Delta 400 (11 minutes) and got a very "gentle" negs, quite malleable in post without noticeable increase in grain.

blyndon said:

Hi all - new to this forum so thanks for listening. I've run into a problem developing Ilford Delta 400 (36mm) in DDX. I love what this developer does for Delta 100 (my choice film for medium format). I get excellent speed: box speed gives me .10 density in tests - with Zone VIII density right on the money around 1.30. And I get this by developing for 9.5 minutes (@68F) - which is a full two minutes BELOW Ilford's recommended time.

But Delta 400 (36mm) is a different story in DDX. Ilford recommends 8 minutes (@68F) for EI 400. But I've found -- with repeated densitometer tests -- that I have to develop for at least 11 minutes to get Zone VIII density above 1.2.

I've scrubbed the forums and it seems nobody else has had this problem.

I say "problem." Of course I know the mfg. recommended times are starting points only. But my worry is that increasing the rec. time by so much, I'll spike the grain and negate the low-grain benefits of delta film.

Thanks to you all. I've benefited much from this forum and this is my first foray.


Jacob

Click to expand...

delta 400s characteristic curve is somewhat S-shaped. Zone 8 might not be the density you’re looking for because of that. What density is zone V at 8 minutes?

The tech sheet: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1915/product/684/ shows 9 minutes in DD-X to get a G-bar of 0.60, which is about average zone system contrast, so the 8 minutes probably gives mid 50s G-bar. Maybe try a run at 9 minutes with zone 3, 5, and 8 densities and see what those are. If all is well, zone 5 should be 0.70 to 0.80 above film base plus fog. Zone 8 may differ to what you’re expecting due to the shoulder in the s curve.

I wish they published similar curves for HP5+. I am tired of experimenting... It just looks bleak in DD-X when using their recommended time. Even the markings on perforations look pale, compared to ID-11.

Bormental said:

I wish they published similar curves for HP5+. I am tired of experimenting... It just looks bleak in DD-X when using their recommended time. Even the markings on perforations look pale, compared to ID-11.

Click to expand...

Hp5 is pretty straight once you get off the toe. If it’s too flat, just add time in 30-60 second increments until you’re happy. It won’t take much more than 2-3 rolls before you start to think it’s too much contrast if you’re shooting at box speed and giving good agitation.

You could also try keeping the same time and agitating more. Whenever I do hand inversions, I generally do 4 inversions at the top of every minute. If the advertised time comes out flat, on the next roll, I keep the same time but then step it up to 2 inversions every 30 seconds. If that is still flat, then on the next roll, I step it up to 1 inversion every 15 seconds. If that is still too flat, then I add a full minute and go back to inverting once a minute and add time in full minute increments until I’m happy. This is for my film I process at home in my Paterson tank. How frequently you agitate won’t have a huge effect on the shadows, but it does affect the mid-tones and highlights.

Adrian, is there a trade-off between agitation and development time? I would much prefer to keep as many variables constant as possible, so if I stick to my standard 4-inversions-per-minute routine, but increase the development time, what am I losing compared to same time, but more frequent agitation?

Bormental said:

Adrian, is there a trade-off between agitation and development time? I would much prefer to keep as many variables constant as possible, so if I stick to my standard 4-inversions-per-minute routine, but increase the development time, what am I losing compared to same time, but more frequent agitation?

Click to expand...

No you're not losing anything. You can just keep everything the same and add time. The reason why I do it the way described above is because every manufacturer specifies different agitations. For example, Foma specifies agitating once a minute, Kodak says agitate every 30 seconds, etc. The times they specify are if you match their agitation routine.

My normal is once a minute, and more often than not, I end up just adding time because I'm lazy and don't want to have to keep remembering to agitate every 15 or 30 seconds, especially if the dev time is longer than 10 minutes. If it's a short dev time though, I'd rather bump up the agitation frequency and keep the shorter dev time. That's just me though, I develop with a lot of different stuff at home simply because I stock it in my lab and have to use it before it goes bad, so once a developer is starting to get a little old, I order in a new batch and take the old one home and use it up on my film. Right now I'm finishing up a bottle of Ilfosol S (it's actually a lot nicer than I thought it would be), and I have a bottle of DD-X queued up and a whole pile of Tmax P3200 and HP5 sitting on the shelf that I've been working through with documenting home life during our shelter in place order that is in effect. After the DD-X, I've got a box of Microphen that's getting old, then I'll have to look at what else is getting old. I prefer the liquid concentrates for home because I don't have to mix up and store a largish amount of fluid, so once that's used up, I may cycle in either more Ilfosol S, or do something like Ilfotec HC or HC110, or maybe Rodinal. It'll depend on what I'm shooting then.

Development times can vary a lot from person to person. Water quality, thermometer accuracy, and several other things can conspire to make your personal time different from even a person using the same equipment in the same darkroom. More time in the developer is the best way to add density to negatives but beware adding too much agitation as it will boost grain and provide you with undesirably bullet proof highlights. I also like Ilfosol 3 and it is proving very easy to get on with. I can see me using it a lot more.

Firstly, you need to be aware that Ilford recommends different times depending where you look on their website (on their processing chart they list Delta 100 in DDX as being 10.5 minutes but on the product description page they state 12 minutes).

Secondly, as John Bragg mentioned development times do vary from person to person for the reasons he stated.

Thirdly, slower ISO films build density and contrast quicker than faster films. So, depending on what you like to photograph, the subject brightness of the scene, your meter and metering technique and accuracy of your camera's shutter/aperture it would not be very surprising if, for a given scene photographed with a 100 and 400 film, you may need to reduce the recommended development time for the 100 film and increase the recommended development time for the 400 film.

Bests,

David.

Thanks to you all. Apologies for the lapse but I got a little sidetracked patching holes in the shed I'm trying to make into a darkroom. On that point, I'm about to start printing. We'll see what that grain really looks like -- scanning, as I've been doing, is such a wet-blanket experience -- as I don't suppose I need to convince you all.

Time to put away the densitometer and make some prints.

Thanks again to you all. Much to digest here.

Bormental said:

blyndon, Ilford's data sheet states that Delta 400 needs to be slightly pushed to El 500 to be developed in DD-X with "optimal" contrast. TBH this film+developer is my "workhorse" combination (I bulk-load this film) and I was always happy with the results. But I do not own a densitometer, I scan and never print, so maybe I don't know what I'm missing

I have also experimented with 1:9 dilution of DD-X with Delta 400 (11 minutes) and got a very "gentle" negs, quite malleable in post without noticeable increase in grain.

Click to expand...

Yes, I love this combination. That's why I've been trying so hard to make it work. Or maybe it is working and I need to get out and print. Am intrigued by your 1:9 solution. Will give it a shot!

Adrian Bacon said:

delta 400s characteristic curve is somewhat S-shaped. Zone 8 might not be the density you’re looking for because of that. What density is zone V at 8 minutes?

Click to expand...

Good point. I need to do a test of all densities. Will go back and run some 8 minute times to see what it gives on zone Five.