Ilfosol Developer and Delta 400

pentaxuser · Mar 19, 2007

I used the above for the first time the other night. D400 was shot at box speed and developed at 20C, using Ilford's recommended agitation and the 1:9 ratio of dilution.

I had seen a comment on the "Answers" page of last week's Amateur Photographer, complaining about thin negs with Ilfosol and manufacturers' dev times,so decided to extend developement from the recommended 9 mins to 10.5 mins.

The negs seem quite good on shadow detail and print OK at between grades 2-3. I am no expert but I suspect that 11mins might have been even better, although I can only talk of my experience at 10.5 mins

Interestingly Ilford recommend 10 mins for D400 120 film.

The intention of the thread is simply to say that if my negs are not over developed at 10.5 mins and I don't think they are, then I'd caution against 9 mins as a full 1.5 mins less(9 mins as opposed to 10.5 mins) is likely to produce thinnish negs, I would have thought.

Equally interestingly Roger Hicks also suggests that manufacturers' times may benefit from 10-15% more development and his experience is very extensive.

My experience of Ilfosol, AP's comments and the negs produced would appear to back this up, at least in the case of Ilfosol and D400.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

Steve Smith · Apr 25, 2007

I used Delta 400 for the first time last weekend to take some pictures of classic 1950's American cars and hot rods using my Rolleicord hand held on a slightly overcast but bright day.

I have not printed them yet but the negatives look fantastic on a light box - sharp and with a good range of tones with both shadow and highlight detail showing well.

They appear better than anything I have ever achieved with HP5. Possibly (likely), I was just lucky this time. I used it at EI400 and developed in LC-29 at Ilford's reccomended time.

Steve.

Keith Tapscott. · Apr 25, 2007

pentaxuser said:
I used the above for the first time the other night. D400 was shot at box speed and developed at 20C, using Ilford's recommended agitation and the 1:9 ratio of dilution.

I had seen a comment on the "Answers" page of last week's Amateur Photographer, complaining about thin negs with Ilfosol and manufacturers' dev times,so decided to extend developement from the recommended 9 mins to 10.5 mins.

The negs seem quite good on shadow detail and print OK at between grades 2-3. I am no expert but I suspect that 11mins might have been even better, although I can only talk of my experience at 10.5 mins

Interestingly Ilford recommend 10 mins for D400 120 film.

The intention of the thread is simply to say that if my negs are not over developed at 10.5 mins and I don't think they are, then I'd caution against 9 mins as a full 1.5 mins less(9 mins as opposed to 10.5 mins) is likely to produce thinnish negs, I would have thought.

Equally interestingly Roger Hicks also suggests that manufacturers' times may benefit from 10-15% more development and his experience is very extensive.

My experience of Ilfosol, AP's comments and the negs produced would appear to back this up, at least in the case of Ilfosol and D400.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

I read some where ( it may have been on this forum) that Ilfosol S is the least robust of the Ilford developers. The thin negatives might be due to the developer starting to go off.
Perhaps a trait of some commercial developers that use an ascorbic acid type developing agent?

Steve Smith · Apr 25, 2007

Keith Tapscott. said:
I read some where ( it may have been on this forum) that Ilfosol S is the least robust of the Ilford developers. The thin negatives might be due to the developer starting to go off.

I had a query about Ilfosol S which I asked Ilford about. In the reply was a statement that Ilfosol 3 would be available soon which would be a more robust version of Ilfosol S. I have posted this before so you probably did read it here.

I haven't seen any yet though.

Steve.

Keith Tapscott. · Apr 25, 2007

pentaxuser said:
Equally interestingly Roger Hicks also suggests that manufacturers' times may benefit from 10-15% more development and his experience is very extensive.

My experience of Ilfosol, AP's comments and the negs produced would appear to back this up, at least in the case of Ilfosol and D400.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

It`s best to start with the times suggested by the manufacturer and then adjust the times to suit the desired contrast for your own needs and preference.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 25, 2007

So now you know that 10.5m @ 20*C produces slightly thin negs. Is it thin in the shadow areas or in the highlights? Shadows - increase exposure, highlights - increase developer concentration (less dilution) or time or temp. That's what I gather from the original post. Adjust to your needs. When you know your standard time, you can also adjust for low light scenes as well as very bright scenes where you decrease or increase development to achieve the density you want.

I haven't used Delta 400 all that much. Too hooked on Tri-X and Neopan 400. I'm sure it's a wonderful film.

- Thomas

gbroadbridge · May 8, 2007

Infosol S is a notoriously short lived developer (even when unopened). There are quite a few threads here on APUG where people have ended up with blank negs.

It's much better to use somthing like ID-11 or Kodak D-76 if you are happy to mix it, or perhaps a concentrate if you prefer.

Tom Stanworth · May 9, 2007

short lived maybe, but most related devs have ben blamed for sudden death not gradual decay. I have used D400 and Pan F with Ilfosol and found both required LOADS more development than recommended unlike FP4, APX100 etc which were OK at the recc times. I have no idea why but D400 @320 looked 30% underdeveloped and I never bothered again as it was only a loose roll and I settled on other films. The Fp4 and APX100 that went well were dev'd in the same dev (same bottle) as the D400 and Pan F that was woefully undercooked. I have since used Pan F with other bottles and various batches of film and founf that my extended times still hold true. I know I like dense negs but the FP4 etc no probs!

steven_e007 · May 9, 2007

I am a fan of Ilfosol S and am very happy with it for FP4+ and other slow Ilford films.

It does go off, but is cheap and supplied in small quantities, so I chuck it when it is time expired.

A habit I have got into is to write the purchase date on the bottle of any developer when I buy it (and make a note of when it was opened). After a few months open I discard it. Half a bottle of Ilfosol S is only worth just over a pound - it isn't worth worrying about or risking developing films that cost several times as much with images that at least took a fair bit of time to take but may be irreplaceable. I have learned the hard way that stretching out chemistry is very false economy!

Steve

Ilfosol Developer and Delta 400

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency