Ilford Delta 400 pushed to 800 / Not happy, advice?

[RWJgr]

Hey fellow forum members Hope everyone’s doing well! Newbie here; I recently shot with a Delta 400, which I pushed to 800. I developed 1+9 with Ilfosol 3 for 14 min, agitated per every minute. (Which probably may have been too much as the negatives themselves seem very dark (I’d say overdeveloped probably compared to other films I’ve done)

I am really disappointed with the results, (too grainy, overall quality, and somewhat of “wave” marks probably during development.

Can anyone more experienced notice any particular areas that I could improve for next time? Many thanks for all your time and help!


PS. I am shooting with a Praktica** MTL50, with a 50mm/1.8 Pentacon and most of the photos where shot with my teleconverter attached (Tamron MC 2x).

 

[Doremus Scudder]

RWJgr,

Let's see the negatives themselves. Make a photo of them backlit by something (light table, computer screen on white, etc.). Then we'll be able to diagnose the problems better.

FWIW, graininess increases with "push-processing," but this amount of graininess is also from underexposure. I'm betting the negatives are thin.

But, let's see them first.

Doremus

 

[xkaes]

I'm familiar with a Praktica MTL 50, but not a Minolta MTL 50. So what is it? -- not that it makes any difference.

Are these images cropped? How much?

They appear under-exposed (which they are since they are PUSHED, and possibly over-developed. That grain seems high -- that's why I asked about cropping.

How are you metering these scenes -- they are not easy ones. How did you determine the developer to use -- and the developing time???

We need details.

 

[RWJgr]

Hi Doremus & xkaes,

First of all, I corrected the camera, I meant to write Praktica MTL 50, not sure why Minolta came to my mind

Attached is one of the negatives for reference.

Images are not cropped. I also scanned them with an Epson 600, at 1200dpi. In terms of metering, I mostly go by the camera’s built in metering system, and on occasion I try to expose for the shadows. Maybe it’s a metering problem for starters? Could be.

@xkaes, in regards to developing time, I may have misinterpreted the data sheet from Ilford, where it has the developing times and I used the 14min that’s stated in page 3 for Ilfosol3 for 800/30…assuming that’s for pushing.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1915/product/684/

 

[RWJgr]

Adding also a close up

 

[koraks]

That's a massive load of b+f. That's part of your problem; underexposure is the other part.

Was this very old/expired film?

If not, did you fly through Schiphol airport and did the film go through those fancy new CT scanners....?

Fresh fixer was used, and sufficient fixing time was allowed for...yes? There's no milky appearance to the negatives...?

 

[jimjm]

Since the entire negative appears too dark, it's probably more of a processing rather than an exposure problem. Another cause could be if the film was fogged, but it might not appear this consistently dark if it was X-rays or a light leak.
Your developing time/agitation sounds OK. Was the developer temp close to 20c? Check that your dilution was also 1+9.
Make sure your fixer is fresh, the correct dilution for film, and you fixed for a long enough time. I suspect these might be under-fixed, in which case you may be able to recover them by re-fixing and re washing the negatives.

 

[RWJgr]

@koraks film wasn’t expired yet, due in a couple of months though, stored in the fridge in the meantime. I indeed passed them through Schiphol, heh. But I didn’t see this result in my Delta 100 development though so I assume that wasn’t the case. Unless that ISO difference mattered.

@jimjim, to be honest, I did not follow a respective stop/fix time compared to developing. While I dev for 14 min, I stopped & fixed at 3.5 min

 

[1kgcoffee]

you want to use ddx if pushing delta 400

 

[koraks]

I indeed passed them through Schiphol, heh. But I didn’t see this result in my Delta 100 development though so I assume that wasn’t the case. Unless that ISO difference mattered.

Yes, film speed does matter. 400 is 2 stops more sensitive, also to xrays, than 100. And the push development will further lift this base density.

And @jimjm CT doesn't make the same wavy patterns that old fashioned x-ray tends to give. I guess we're still waiting for Mirko Boedecker's wife to post her findings (sorry, forgot her name; the Italian woman), but the images posted so far on her Instagram are very alike to what we see here. It's also consistent to what Kodak people have posted in the past on e.g. photo.net with x-ray especially raising base density and resulting in grainy shadows.

Fuethermore, a processing error generally doesn't produce a very consistent and high base fog. It's either uneven, or it's not present in unexposed areas. Chemical fogging is actually pretty rare if you look at the problems people tend to run into.

My money is on CT scanner damage.
I bet the Delta 100 that went through the scanner also has relatively high b+f, but this may have gone unnoticed. Compare to a roll from the same batch that didn't go through a scanner and see if there's a difference.

 

[xkaes]

This is GAMMA at 5.00. This is more what it should look like. Try a very small piece of film -- no exposure -- and processed the way you did. Does it come out pretty clear, like this, or DARK, like yours???

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Push development at one stop usually results in acceptable results with D400. I tested it along with HP5 a while back... https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/ilford-delta-400-vs-hp5.196389/

 

[GregY]

Yes, film speed does matter. 400 is 2 stops more sensitive, also to xrays, than 100. And the push development will further lift this base density.

And @jimjm CT doesn't make the same wavy patterns that old fashioned x-ray tends to give. I guess we're still waiting for Mirko Boedecker's wife to post her findings (sorry, forgot her name; the Italian woman), but the images posted so far on her Instagram are very alike to what we see here. It's also consistent to what Kodak people have posted in the past on e.g. photo.net with x-ray especially raising base density and resulting in grainy shadows.

Fuethermore, a processing error generally doesn't produce a very consistent and high base fog. It's either uneven, or it's not present in unexposed areas. Chemical fogging is actually pretty rare if you look at the problems people tend to run into.

My money is on CT scanner damage.
I bet the Delta 100 that went through the scanner also has relatively high b+f, but this may have gone unnoticed. Compare to a roll from the same batch that didn't go through a scanner and see if there's a difference.

Lina Bessanova is actually russian-born and was living in Florence. I'm also looking forward to her results. The negatives do look over-developed.

 

[Ian Grant]

A one stop push as Andrew says is nothing that would cause this. And then it's not expired film, I have some HP5 from I think 2003 with a high base fog and it still prints well (I'm just using it for lens tests now).

There's something else going on here, aside from the horrific base fog there's under exposure and over development as well.

Ian

 

[xkaes]

The only way to confirm the horrific base + fog is to develop a piece the same way -- but unexposed.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Although many people "push" film, it really does not achieve what they desire. Film needs a certain minimum of exposure, and extending development cannot compensate for underexposure, no matter how fervently one believes it. Super-speed films such as T-Max 3200 and Delta 3200 (whose true speed is around ISO 1000) are designed to allow for extended development.

 

[awty]

Delta 400 does that when over developed.
Ilfosal 3 is a very aggressive developer, 14 minutes seems too long for that developer. Ifosal is best used on films @100 iso or less.
I would try a different developer for high iso film, especially when using Delta 400.
If you want more speed try Delta 3200 in microphen.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Although many people "push" film, it really does not achieve what they desire. Film needs a certain minimum of exposure, and extending development cannot compensate for underexposure, no matter how fervently one believes it. Super-speed films such as T-Max 3200 and Delta 3200 (whose true speed is around ISO 1000) are designed to allow for extended development.

I was always a "shoot at half box speed and nothing else" person since I got into photography, but now I see that there is more than one way to expose film. Push developing is fine up to a point. Normally, I work with HP5 at EI 250, but sometimes, to achieve a desired look, I'll set my light meter to EI 800, or even 1600. There are those who use this technique to obtain a certain look, not just to get more speed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I was always a "shoot at half box speed and nothing else" person since I got into photography, but now I see that there is more than one way to expose film. Push developing is fine up to a point. Normally, I work with HP5 at EI 250, but sometimes, to achieve a desired look, I'll set my light meter to EI 800, or even 1600. There are those who use this technique to obtain a certain look, not just to get more speed.

I shoot at box speed and when appropriate I adjust the exposure for shadow detail using the Zone System and for any filter corrections. I eschew the automatic ISO reduction.

 

[pentaxuser]

This is GAMMA at 5.00. This is more what it should look like. Try a very small piece of film -- no exposure -- and processed the way you did. Does it come out pretty clear, like this, or DARK, like yours???

View attachment 358735

I am a little confused about this Can I ask what is "GAMMA at 5.00?" and are those negatives examples of a film with no exposure?

I am sure I have misunderstood what you meant but if you can clarify for me, I'd appreciate it

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Agulliver]

I know @koraks and I will disagree on that, but CT scanners absolutely do produce wavey patterns of fog on film. The whole point of the CT scanner is that it scans in slices via a very narrow beam which is rotated 360 degrees and the computer then generates a cross-sectional image. By very definition that will produce lines or wavy lines and not uniform fog.

But, as per Koraks' recent experience that Schipol airport....*something* odd can happen to film there. So do not discount this completely.

The film is fogged, for sure. How it became fogged is curious. a one stop push really should not cause this. Delta 400 is regularly pushed two or even three stops. Is there any chance that light entered your developing tank at some point?

I've not "achieved" a similar result by accidentally over developing Delta 400, but I use Microphen or ID-11 which might have a different effect.

Can we also see the roll of Delta 100 that you shot?

And +1 on the idea of developing a short piece of Delta 400 in the same manner in the same equipment to see if you get similar base fog.

 

[koraks]

I know @koraks and I will disagree on that

Probably, yeah.
Look at Mrs. Bessanova's film.
I understand your reasoning, but it appears that the fogging of CT turns out to be pretty even.

The thing with CT is for it to work, you need a lot of samples, essentially. Apparently the old school x-ray equipment would just pulse the radiation source in sync with the periodic detection/sampling. It looks like CT just leaves the exposure running and then samples at high frequency to get the desired resolution.

stannous chloride fumes

Stannous chloride does not fume. There's in fact very little in a typical darkroom that would fume and fog, with the possible exception of the old fashioned smelly sepia toning that virtually nobody's using. And you'd have to pull some really weird tricks to get 35mm film inside a casette to fog as a result. It's not fumes, this much is safe to assume.

 

[xkaes]

I am a little confused about this Can I ask what is "GAMMA at 5.00?" and are those negatives examples of a film with no exposure?

I am sure I have misunderstood what you meant but if you can clarify for me, I'd appreciate it

Thanks

pentaxuser

All I did was use gamma correction (decreasing the density of the shadows) on the original dark negatives -- Post #4 -- to approximate what a normal negative strip would look like. A gamma of 5.0 is a pretty severe correction. To need that either the film is really messed up, or the development -- or both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction

 

[pentaxuser]

All I did was use gamma correction (decreasing the density of the shadows) on the original dark negatives -- Post #4 -- to approximate what a normal negative strip would look like. A gamma of 5.0 is a pretty severe correction. To need that either the film is really messed up, or the development -- or both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction

Thanks for the reply. Gamma is a way to measure negative contrast so I just wondered how you got to a figure of 5 but I hadn't thought of what GAMMA meant in scanning terms as it's something I don't do. The negatives and the "prints" from those look as if they might be underexposed and slightly overdeveloped but not excessively so in either case. In fact were it to be a dark overcast day then the prints appear to have come out fairly close to being OK but I have no idea if that was the light conditions at the time of exposure

pentaxuser

 

[Anon Ymous]

Sure it does when heated...

To hundreds of degrees C, not at room temperature.