my first roll of Delta 400

[WGibsonPhotography]

I developed my first roll of Delta 400 a few days ago. I used Rodinal 1:50 for 20 minutes with agitation the first ten seconds and then ten seconds every minute (suggested by DigitalTruth with agitation suggestion from the box of film). I'm actually suprised by the results. From what I've heard about Rodinal and Delta 400, I was expecting total crap.

It's hard for me to judge 35mm negatives, but there seems to be good shadow detail and highlight detail, but there doesnt seem to be a lot of midtones. Hopefully I'll get in to a darkroom pretty soon to make a few prints. I'll scan any prints I make and post.

if I am lacking in midtones, like I suspect I am, would less agitation help to bring out the midtones? I think I read somewhere that less agitation helps bring out the midtones, but I dont remember exactly what I read. Any suggestions is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[George Collier]

Some missing info -
Exposure film speed - although if you got shadow detail, it should be at least enough. Not knowing exposure placement makes it hard to know what a "shadow" is.
Lighting / subject conditions - sunny, cloudy, inside, etc?
Seems like it would be hard to get shadow and highlight detail and miss the midrange - a scan would help, even of the neg.
I would print on grade 2, and see..

 

[WGibsonPhotography]

Some missing info -
Exposure film speed - although if you got shadow detail, it should be at least enough. Not knowing exposure placement makes it hard to know what a "shadow" is.
Lighting / subject conditions - sunny, cloudy, inside, etc?
Seems like it would be hard to get shadow and highlight detail and miss the midrange - a scan would help, even of the neg.
I would print on grade 2, and see..

I'll try to print on Thursday or some time next week since I'm back at school now. when I get some prints, I will scan and post them as soon as they dry.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear WGibson

I am so pleased to hear it wasn't 'crap'....!

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Martin Aislabie]

If you have shaddow detail then you have your exposure right

If you have good highlight detail then you have your development time right

(Expose for the shaddows & develop for the highlights - by some bloke called A Adams)

What is in between is almost wholey dependant upon the two above factors and the subject matter

However, the real test is - how does it print?

Martin

 

[WGibsonPhotography]

If you have shaddow detail then you have your exposure right

If you have good highlight detail then you have your development time right

(Expose for the shaddows & develop for the highlights - by some bloke called A Adams)

What is in between is almost wholey dependant upon the two above factors and the subject matter

However, the real test is - how does it print?

Martin

I made some prints today. I used Arista VC paper with no contrast filters (except for one just for fun). some of my prints are pretty contrasty, but I didnt adjust contrast any because I didnt have enough paper. I bought a pack of 25 sheets at the bookstore at school, which cost me $25.

The contrasty ones are cityscapes that I took in Huntsville, Alabama. If I had enough paper (and time in the darkroom today), I probably could have fixed that with contrast filters. Honestly, this roll of film was a test roll for me to see how Delta 400 looks developed in Rodinal. I was looking more for grain structure and tonal range more than I was looking for a perfect print. In fact, I didnt even clean the dust off the negatives. there are a few shots on that roll that I really like, and I'll actually put forth the effort to make them perfect next time I get a chance to print.

I'll post scans of the prints tomorrow at school since I dont have high speed internet at my house (I live out in the middle of nowhere).

 

[WGibsonPhotography]

I developed my first roll of Delta 400 a few days ago. I used Rodinal 1:50 for 20 minutes with agitation the first ten seconds and then ten seconds every minute (suggested by DigitalTruth with agitation suggestion from the box of film). I'm actually suprised by the results. From what I've heard about Rodinal and Delta 400, I was expecting total crap.

It's hard for me to judge 35mm negatives, but there seems to be good shadow detail and highlight detail, but there doesnt seem to be a lot of midtones. Hopefully I'll get in to a darkroom pretty soon to make a few prints. I'll scan any prints I make and post.

if I am lacking in midtones, like I suspect I am, would less agitation help to bring out the midtones? I think I read somewhere that less agitation helps bring out the midtones, but I dont remember exactly what I read. Any suggestions is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Ok, so here's the prints

I was playing around with contrast filters on this one. I used a grade 5 contrast filter. this picture is actually the side of a building and the sky...
<a href="http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/Chronictown82/Delta%20400%20Test%20Prints/?action=view&current=IMG_0006.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/Chronictown82/Delta%20400%20Test%20Prints/IMG_0006.jpg" border="0" alt="Abstraction"></a>


I know these pictures arent great (I didnt even clean the dust off the negatives), but great photos were not what I was going for. Before I started using this film/developer combo to do any professional prints or for my school portfolio, I wanted to shoot a test roll and see if I liked it. I was looking for grain structure, tonality, contrast, and all that fun stuff. (I've stated all this before, but I just felt like sating it again.)

the first picture is contrasty. There is a little highlight detail on the side of the buildings facing the sun, but I dont think it showed up in the scan.

The second one is dark with not much detail in the shadows. I actually like this one. I know it would have looked "better" by most people's standards if I lowered the contrast and perfectly exposed the negative, but I think this print has a dark, ominous look, which I like.

The third one is a picture of my girlfriend. That was just a random picture I took. I didnt pose her or anything. it was like "Hey, look!" and then I took the picture. I think this film/developer is too grainy for portrait work.

The last picture is the only picture I used a contrast filter. It's actually the side of a building and the sky. I used a grade 5 contrast filter.



Overall, I like the grain and contrast, but I dont think I'll use it for portraits. Now that I know how Delta 400 in Rodinal looks, I'm going to spend some time perfecting the combination, and i'll try to post some more professional-looking photos soon.

(Edited to say that Photobucket is acting up. I rotated the images correctly in photobucket, but some are sideways here. I'll fix it when I find out what the problem is)

 

[PhotoJim]

That's pretty grainy, but black and white tends to scan a bit grainily, and Rodinal makes no effort in hiding grain either. Decent results for your first efforts!

 

[WGibsonPhotography]

That's pretty grainy, but black and white tends to scan a bit grainily, and Rodinal makes no effort in hiding grain either. Decent results for your first efforts!

Yeah, it is pretty grainy. I do like that gritty look, though. This isnt a film/developer combination that I would use for landscapes or portraiture (unless that's the look i'm going for).

I think it scanned pretty accurately with the exception that it blew out the highlights a little.

 

[PhotoJim]

Rodinal is good with slow films (in my opinion) but it wouldn't be my first choice with a faster film.

Try a roll in D-76 or ID-11 diluted 1:1 (undiluted will be slightly less grainy but slightly less sharp). The grain should be much less noticeable.

 

[pgomena]

I'd say your images are underexposed and overdeveloped for the scene contrast range you were recording. Printing an underexposed negative with enough contrast to make the lighter tones look right will give you a lot of apparent grain and some pretty harsh contrast. Rodinal is a good developer but it takes some time and experience to tame it. Rate your film at EI 200 and agitate very gently in the developer and see what happens. There's nothing wrong with IS0 400 film for portraits if the lighting, exposure and development are handled properly. It takes time and practice. You did well for a first effort!

Peter Gomena

 

[WGibsonPhotography]

Rodinal is good with slow films (in my opinion) but it wouldn't be my first choice with a faster film.

Try a roll in D-76 or ID-11 diluted 1:1 (undiluted will be slightly less grainy but slightly less sharp). The grain should be much less noticeable.

I chose to do Delta 400 in Rodinal out of curiosity. I've read some posts here and elsewhere, and I've noticed that people really liked it or really hated it. That got me wondering what it looked like. Honestly, I like the grain, but I dont think it would look good in all applications. I might use this combo if I was shooting a heavy metal concert or something like that where I wanted a harsh look or if I wanted something impressionistic. If I was shooting wedding portraits, I would try to shoot Delta 100 or Delta 400 in D-76 or ID-11 as you suggested.

 

[WGibsonPhotography]

I'd say your images are underexposed and overdeveloped for the scene contrast range you were recording. Printing an underexposed negative with enough contrast to make the lighter tones look right will give you a lot of apparent grain and some pretty harsh contrast. Rodinal is a good developer but it takes some time and experience to tame it. Rate your film at EI 200 and agitate very gently in the developer and see what happens. There's nothing wrong with IS0 400 film for portraits if the lighting, exposure and development are handled properly. It takes time and practice. You did well for a first effort!

Peter Gomena

I used the meter in my camera for determining exposure, which I think it part of the problem. I've learned that the meter in my camera doesnt work well with cityscapes/landscapes or anything with a good bit of contrast (which I expected when I shot this roll).

I found an article about how to find the "true film speed." I might give that a try for my next roll so I'll know exactly what ISO to set my meter to next time I'm shooting. That should help with the exposure. Hopefully I'll have some more pictures up soon

 

[PhotoJim]

I chose to do Delta 400 in Rodinal out of curiosity. I've read some posts here and elsewhere, and I've noticed that people really liked it or really hated it. That got me wondering what it looked like. Honestly, I like the grain, but I dont think it would look good in all applications. I might use this combo if I was shooting a heavy metal concert or something like that where I wanted a harsh look or if I wanted something impressionistic. If I was shooting wedding portraits, I would try to shoot Delta 100 or Delta 400 in D-76 or ID-11 as you suggested.

That's the perfect reason to try something. And now you know!

 

[WGibsonPhotography]

That's the perfect reason to try something. And now you know!

I agree



:munch:

 

[WGibsonPhotography]

Just for comparison, I shot a roll of HP5+ in Jacksonville, Alabama yesterday. I'm going to develop it in Rodinal as well, just to see which film I like better. Whichever film I like best I'll continue using to perfect my EI and development time