Pull Delta 3200, push Delta 400... or use Neopan 1600?

Toffle · Mar 18, 2009

Just following up on this. Almost one year ago exactly (March 15, according to my notes) I processed a roll of Delta 3200 shot at 1600 and developed in HC-110 at 9 min - the time recommended on the MDC. The resulting negatives were almost unprintably thin. Well, I just got back from a trip to Toronto, where I shot another roll at 1600. I'm considering using the full ISO 3200 time of 14.5 min, minimal agitation... I can't imagine they could turn out worse than the last set.

So... before I mix my developer, somebody tell me if I'm seriously mis-calculating.

Cheers,

Medusa83 · Mar 18, 2009

This is delta 400 pushed to 1600 in DDX. http://www.flickr.com/photos/medusa83/522795042/

DaveOttawa · Mar 18, 2009

john_s said:
Whatever film you decide to use, try to take a test roll in the church and develop it before the wedding. You can learn a lot from that one roll.

Above is possibly the best piece of advice in this thread so far

Exposure guide giving exposures for various hard to meter available light situations is here::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value
about 1/3 way down the page.

agooder · Feb 14, 2010

Right on!

You are so right! Thanks for the tip. Delta 400 rated at 1600 and pushed with DDX is lovely, and exactly what I wanted. Way sharper than traditional films (ie HP5), nice contrast and grain.

Medusa83 said:
I love pushing delta 400 to 1600. It is the only film I like to push. It has a beautiful old grain look to it and very nice tonality. I develop it in DDX.

radekone · Feb 10, 2011

df cardwell said:
If you use Delta 400, expose it at 1600, and develop it in DD-X
(using minimal agitation technique, which effectively 'pushes' the shadows whilst 'pulling' the shadows)
you end up with a fine grained image that naturally places the tones of a wedding where they are easier to print
than had you shot them on a low contrast film with a severe shoulder. The tone curve of the Delta 400 will be only slightly more contrasty than normal,and can easily be accommodated by using a half grade softer paper.

Hi all,
It's my first post here. My name is Radek, I live in Edinburgh and also don't shoot digital.. And have a question:

I've started a project shoot on Deltas 400@1600 (120) and now I'm looking for the best developer solution. It contains close-up portraits in room light, without flash. I know about DDX but I have some fresh XTOL and I'm wondering if the results would difer much? I'm looking for no grain preferably

Thanks.

softshock · Feb 10, 2011

radekone said:
Hi all,
It's my first post here. My name is Radek, I live in Edinburgh and also don't shoot digital.. And have a question:

I've started a project shoot on Deltas 400@1600 (120) and now I'm looking for the best developer solution. It contains close-up portraits in room light, without flash. I know about DDX but I have some fresh XTOL and I'm wondering if the results would difer much? I'm looking for no grain preferably

Thanks.

Hi,
You might actually be better off starting a new thread more specific to your topic!

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 10, 2011

First: Welcome to APUG. Please continue to contribute to the forums.

No grain is, as you know, not possible. Kodak TMax 400 or Ilford Delta 400 are going to be your best bets, however, in minimizing grain when underexposed two stops. I don't think you will find any other film that does better in that regard.

Cardwell's advice to slow down agitation is a good one. I do it myself all the time, and it really does work. Read his post again and take not of what he says. He is the kind of guy that proves by doing, not by theorizing, and I try to do the same.

Ilfotec DD-X and Xtol are fairly alike, in that they give lots of shadow detail and prevent highlights from blocking up. Xtol will give slightly finer grain, but the difference isn't really important.

Thoughts on grain: Grain is what makes a picture, it's inherent to the film based photography we all love. It's supposed to be there. Focus on content, and getting good tonality, interesting compositions, interesting expressions, and make every print as good as you possibly can. That's what matters. Thinking about grain while photographing in the conditions you are is almost like a contradiction in terms.

- Thomas

radekone said:
Hi all,
It's my first post here. My name is Radek, I live in Edinburgh and also don't shoot digital.. And have a question:

I've started a project shoot on Deltas 400@1600 (120) and now I'm looking for the best developer solution. It contains close-up portraits in room light, without flash. I know about DDX but I have some fresh XTOL and I'm wondering if the results would difer much? I'm looking for no grain preferably

Thanks.

radekone · Feb 10, 2011

'No grain' meant the finest grain as possible. I do like grain of course, however, this time I'd prefer fine grain for these dimmed portraits as I will be doing big size enlargements. If I wouldn't like grain I'd go digital..

Good to know Xtol will do the work, think 1+1 shoudl be ok?
I'm also having Acu-1 and Microphen but won't be bothered about them. And I've never heard about this way of agitation but I believe it will produce the film less contrasty?

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 10, 2011

Understood about grain...

Xtol 1+1 is perfect for pushing.

Agitation is a tool and a variable in processing film, same as exposure, developer dilution, developing time, and developer temperature is. It would be a shame to not let it work for you.
1. When you agitate less frequently, you have to compensate by developing longer. This in turn gives better shadow detail, and is one reason why this is great for pushing.
2. When you agitate less frequently, with a developer like Rodinal, HC-110, and Xtol, your highlight density gets lowered and less dense, which mean you approach a normal tone curve like when you expose normally and develop normally.
You do get a slight S-curve, like traditional films, from Delta 400 or TMax 400, but what's not to like about that? Looks fabulous in a print.

- Thomas

radekone · Feb 11, 2011

Thanks for being so helpful!

I have one more question about the temperature: what would be the difference between developing in 20C and in 24C (68F vs 75F) - with time adjustment of course?

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 11, 2011

Time adjustments occur when you raise the temperature. When you push film, this would counteract the agitation alterations already discussed. So you may not be able to get as much shadow detail out of the film as if processing at 20C. Time really is the factor that helps your shadow detail.
If you have a lot of film to process, I understand why you might want a shorter developing time. But to me it would be worth it to spend extra time at 20C.

Do test rolls before you develop anything important. Adjust as necessary.

- Thomas

radekone · Feb 11, 2011

There's no rush. I was just curious how the temperature influences grain, shadows, etc.
I'll do it your way at 20C. On a test roll. Thanks!

topoxforddoc · Feb 11, 2011

I push HP5 and Neopan 400 routinely to 1600 in XTOL 1:1 using Kodak's published times at 20/21C with 3-4 inversions per minute. Both films still give fine grain when processed like this.

Here are a couple of shots
No 1 is HP5 @ 1600 in XTOL 1:1
No 2 is Neopan 400 @ 1600 in XTOL 1:1

Hope that helps

Charlie
www.charlie-chan.co.uk

radekone · Mar 20, 2011

That was a great advice.
I've used Delta 400@1600, Xtol 1:1, 20C, 25 min. agitation every 5 min.
Shadows are bit grainy (as expected, there was not much light) but medium tones are rich and the highlights not overburned. Thanks.

df cardwell said:
The first big mistake we can make is to look at the numbers on a film box and think that they describe the pictures we want to make. Neopan 1600 and Delta 3200 are both 'push films', low contrast films meant for maximum speed,
and speed isn't necessarily all that we want. We want a 'portrait curve' which lightly compresses the shadows, renders midtones naturally, and opens up the highlights without making them too dense to print. The problem with using D3200 or Neopan1600 is they tend to expand the shadows and midtones while compressing the highlights. So, we print on a higher contrast paper to make the faces look nice,and burn in the shadows. And compared to D400 @1600, they are grainy with low acutance/

If you use Delta 400, expose it at 1600, and develop it in DD-X
(using minimal agitation technique, which effectively 'pushes' the shadows whilst 'pulling' the shadows)
you end up with a fine grained image that naturally places the tones of a wedding where they are easier to print
than had you shot them on a low contrast film with a severe shoulder. The tone curve of the Delta 400 will be only slightly more contrasty than normal,and can easily be accommodated by using a half grade softer paper.

A good starting point for DD-X and Delta 400 @ 1600 would be 16' @ 20˚, and agitate the film
for ten seconds at the beginning, then at the 5th, 10th, and 15th minute. The result will be a nice, clean image, that is easy to print. The biggest reason that this works is the long, linear scale of D400 (and TMY2) that is easy to manipulate.

mouren · Mar 23, 2011

I do most of my shooting at night or in lowlight situations, and I have been using pretty much only Arista Premium 400(Tri-X) and Legacy Pro 400(Neopan 400) pushed to 3200. I was pushing using 2 hr stand dev with Rodinal, but recently have switched to Xtol, using time given on Massive DevChart.

Focus · Mar 23, 2011

Without starting a new thread.

I recently shot a roll of 3200.

Is there a recommended temperature outside of the standard 20?

Steve Smith · Mar 23, 2011

Focus said:
Is there a recommended temperature outside of the standard 20?

The data sheets with most developers show a graph with the temperature compensation required for a range of temperature.

Steve.

Pull Delta 3200, push Delta 400... or use Neopan 1600?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency