• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Ilford Delta in Perceptol

Latest Gallery

Flooded woodland

Flooded woodland

  • 9
  • 0
  • 75
Babylon

D
Babylon

  • 3
  • 1
  • 70

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,836
Messages
2,846,277
Members
101,559
Latest member
gnafin61
Recent bookmarks
0

oxcanary

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
75
I have been very pleased with Perceptol with the other Ilford films. Can I ask the collective wisdom about how they would use Perceptol with Delta 400 (Both 35mm and 120). I.E. iso setting, time, dilutions and temperature.

Many thanks in advance
 
The Ilford data sheets on D400 and Perceptol give pretty good info on all of your above questions

pentaxuser
 
Perceptol like Kodak's Microdol X were designed to minimize grain, when used at higher dilutions 1:2 and 1:3 the solvent effect on grain is not as great. Barry Thornton recommended Perceptol in high dilution for edge sharpness. Of course Delta and Tmax use tgrain technology, grain is much smaller than traditionally gain films. I don't use much Delta, with Tmax I have not found any advantage of using Microdol X, currently I use HC 110 dilution E with Tmax 400 and Rodinal with Tmax 100. If I were to use Microdol X or Perceptol with Tmax or Delta 400, 1:3 at 68 F, largest drawback is extended time in developer and risk of increased base fog.
 
I would advise to start with 200asa in that case, Perceptol is not particularly a good pusher, but excellent in subtle grey values
 
This combination (Delta 400 + Perceptol) is very high on my list of things to try.

Agree with @pentaxuser - the <Ilford data sheet> is an excellent place to start. Ilford has combined information about Perceptol, ID-11, and Microphen all in the same document.

A careful study of that information is interesting.

For example, I notice Ilford does not show any times for Delta 400 developed in Perceptol if metered at box ISO of 400 or higher. They do show times for EI 200 and 250 in stock Perceptol, and for EI 320 and 200 in Perceptol at 1+1.
 
Last edited:
Don't use Perceptol 1:3 with Delta 100 or it will exaggerate the grain. 1:1 would be preferable. But with TMax 100 I want a little more grain "tooth" and edge definition, so do use 1:3 in its case. There are a number of significant differences between D 100 and
TMX; but grain-wise, D100 is intermediate between TMX100 and TMT400 in grain size. (Delta 400 is a completely different animal,
and it just depends what kind of look you want out of it; but it's one of my least favorite films ever.)
 
DREW WILEY said:
(Delta 400 is a completely different animal,
and it just depends what kind of look you want out of it; but it's one of my least favorite films ever.)
Click to expand...

Least favourite ever? I do wish you wouldn't "beat around the bush" about it😁 but why is this, Drew?

Thanks

pentaxuser
 
It's the profile of it - an especially long toe with short straight line, and the fact that there is a true 400 speed film out there which is far more versatile, namely, TMY400. Delta 400 struggles at 400; and in Perceptol, I'd rate it at half that speed. The three different speeds of "Delta" film are so dissimilar from each other that I don't know why they even share a commonality of label. I simply found D400 to be blaah - neither fish nor fowl. At least D3200 has some real "character" to it.
 
Last edited:
My experience is the opposite. I used to buy 100ft rolls of it and shoot exclusively in my 35mm cameras. I found Delta 400 to be more malleable in Xtol than TMY, and also less demanding from exposure/development perspective: almost impossible to lose highlights.

Also, D400 is definitely not slower than TMY. If anything, I have more TMY negatives with crushed shadows than D400. You can blame my exposure skills and lack of patience, but that won't explain the difference. IIRC even Ilford's datasheet rates it as ISO 500 in some developers. Maybe Delta 400 doesn't like Drew's pyro treatment? It shines in Xtol but looks like shit in DD-X which is supposedly Ilford's best/recommended developer for it. And when developed in ID-11/D76 it doesn't really feature finer grain than HP5+. Go figure.

Excellent film but prickly. Its grain changes appearance dramatically in different developers. I do agree with the point of Delta 400 sort of lacking identity. It's not as boring and clinical as TMY, but also lacks the grit of HP5+, so it sits in the middle looking simliar to the new Tri-X in some developers, or similar to HP5+ in others, but doesn't have its own consistent signature look.

Delta 100 on the other hand... The best B&W film currently available in my humble opinion.
 
Last edited:
DREW WILEY said:
It's the profile of it - an especially long toe with short straight line, and the fact that there is a true 400 speed film out there which is far more versatile, namely, TMY400. Delta 400 struggles at 400; and in Perceptol, I'd rate it at half that speed. The three different speeds of "Delta" film are so dissimilar from each other that I don't know why they even share a commonality of label. I simply found D400 to be blaah - neither fish nor fowl. At least D3200 has some real "character" to it.
Click to expand...

Thanks

pentaxuser
 
It all depends. Delta 100 has a little more native edge acutance than TMX100. So I like to use Perceptol 1:3 with TMY to give it just enough grain growth to enhance the edges. With Delta 100, however, I prefer the results of my standard developer instead (PMK pyro), and find Perceptol 1:3 a little too grainy in that case.
But yes, if you want to stick solely with Perceptol, you might like what it does at 1:3 with Delta 100 rather than at 1:1 or 1:2. You can experiment to find your own preference.
 
Last edited:
Up to now my best results were at box speed in FX39II. But I wondered if I could get a finer grain result in Perceptol. Or a sharper result in Perceptol 1:3, albeit with speed loss. Up for experimenting but good to get opinions first
 
oxcanary said:
Up to now my best results were at box speed in FX39II. But I wondered if I could get a finer grain result in Perceptol. Or a sharper result in Perceptol 1:3, albeit with speed loss. Up for experimenting but good to get opinions first
Click to expand...

Just guessing, but FX developers are very sharp, not sure is Perceptol 1:3 would be any sharper, for finer gain any number of middle of road developers, XTOL, D76, HC 110 will produce finer grain.
 
That was my question too. Why do people dilute Perceptol 1:3 for higher sharpness if that's not the design goal of this developer? We have dedicated high-acutance options such as Rodinal, Ilfosol 3, and FX-39.

My question is sparked purely by curiosity. I have no personal experience with high-acutance developers for pictorial photography. I only use Rodinal to test used equipment.
 
It works, that's why. Others have explained it better than I can. But at higher dilution, Perceptol changes its personality, acts more slowly, and allows more grain growth without need of a separate special developer. And it does so in a semi-compensating manner. The proof is in the pudding. I've got a set of 6X7 TMX negs I'm going to print this afternoon based on it. Rodinal etc would do something quite different, and not to my liking. The whole point is, Perceptol diluted 1:1 would render TOO FINE a grain in TMX;
plenty of detail, yes, but optimal edge acutance, no. But at 1:3, it behaves quite differently. The effect with Delta 100 is somewhat analogous; but like I already stated, I prefer D100 souped in PMK pyro instead.

I shoot Delta 100 at 50 simply to boost the shadow values further up onto the straight line, regardless of developer type, in order to better simulate what TMX100 does at full box speed due to its shorter toe and longer straight line. In general, staining pyro developers render better highlight control than ordinary developers. Therefore, nowadays I only use Perceptol for TMax 100, and only at 1:3. For all other pictorial films, including TMY400, I prefer pyro. There was a time when I tried numerous developers for all kinds of films, including FP4, but struggled with highlights back in those graded paper days, and often had to resort to masking if I wanted a full range of crisp tonal separation.

But I do keep a number of other developers on hand, or the chemicals to mix them, for various lab purposes or special applications.
The results of Perceptol can allegedly be replicated by higher dilutions of Microdol (like Nicholas noted). But Perceptol is a popular developer which can still be picked up at the local camera shop if needed. Lots of locals have defaulted to it in preference to D76.
 
Last edited:
Steven Lee said:
That was my question too. Why do people dilute Perceptol 1:3 for higher sharpness if that's not the design goal of this developer?
Click to expand...

From my limited experience, it strikes a good balance between fine grain and sharpness, without losing much speed. It doesn't become Rodinal, or any other high acutance developer.
 
Delta 400 has been my choice for landscapes for more than 20 years on account of its tonality, which may be helped by its extended red sensitivity. I have tried it in Perceptol but I prefer the overall "look" when it's exposed at EI 200 and developed in ID-11/D76 1+1, 8 min at 20 deg C. Grain is fine enough for me, but I don't enlarge beyond 6x. If I want sharpness I would choose another film such as HP5+.
 
If you think HP5 is going to look sharper in small format, I dread to think what you're getting out of Delta 400. You might want to take a serious look at TMY400 if you need that kind of speed.
 
DREW WILEY said:
If you think HP5 is going to look sharper in small format, I dread to think what you're getting out of Delta 400. You might want to take a serious look at TMY400 if you need that kind of speed.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you'd require a serious look at your bank account as well when buying TMY400 in the U.K. ☹️ even assuming the result was more to your liking

pentaxuser
 
Following the thread for insights, but I am a HC110 and XTOL (XT3) user so my contribution will be to convolute and mess up a bit 😁.

I'm picking up on B&W again and found myself with some of my 2020 bought stock. Back then I thought moving towards Delta for the premium qualities of it, aka fine grain and more enlargability. But for some reason, I go through the Deltas much more slowly compared to HP5/FP4. I seem to subconsciously save it for more special occasions. I'm actually starting to have a "moving target" situation between different development and EI regimes.

Ilford is offering 3 films counting Kentmere!!

Delta 100 is beautiful, I somehow still have rolls expiring 2020. I still have to shoot and soup it in XTOL/XT3, HC110 gave nice contrast but at EI80-100 it is a sign of speed loss. I do site track the discussion, as am a fan of avoiding any speed loss and "easy" development (HC110, XTOL, D76).
For D400 I have to run through my current stash. Souped some recently in XT3 at box speed, 11:30. Still have to print the negatives but they seem slightly flat and with slighter gray/higher base fog (vs HP5 in HC110), might have pulled them inadvertently -- as @Steven Lee points out, D400 is marked as higher than box speed with XTOL at 500 for "negatives of normal contrast (Gbar 0.62)". The bolded out combinations in the table are not provided in the datasheet of the rest of films!

For a long time I've been genuinely curious about TMY400, but in Europe it comes at a hefty premium which I rather use towards Kodak colour film, and while at it support Ilford with their offering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom