Pushing Delta 100 to 1600

[nathan.]

Last week I was enjoying a shoot so much that I ended up shooting all the film I had with me, except for a couple rolls of Delta 100 (120 format). I really wanted to use existing light, but there wasn't much available. I've never tried pushing Delta 100 before, but I've pushed HP5 to 1600 & 3200 and loved the results. So, without doing any research I metered for about 1600 and shot the rolls. I know, I know: This is not a great idea. Still, the worst case scenario is I get nothing useable and I wasted two rolls of film. No big deal.

So, anyone have a suggested development time for pushing it to 1600? Should I just estimate and go for it? I've got some Ilfosol 3 that I'll probably use because it's nearing expiry, anyway.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

Why not shoot Ilford Delta 3200 at box speed instead of pushing film? After all you just load the extra film back with Ilford Delta 3200, swap backs and remove the dark slide. How hard can that be?

 

[markbarendt]

Develop one at a time. Add a little extra time and call it good. Adjust accordingly for the next roll

 

[nathan.]

Welcome to APUG

Why not shoot Ilford Delta 3200 at box speed instead of pushing film? After all you just load the extra film back with Ilford Delta 3200, swap backs and remove the dark slide. How hard can that be?

Yes, I know. The only reason I shot Delta 100 is that it was all I had left in my bag. There was no opportunity to buy more film on location.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

That's a four-stop push. It's not recommended. You may get something useable, but you'll definitely have ZERO shadow detail. You may like the look, you may not. To be on the safe side, add 50% to your stock development time. If these are just experiments for the heck of it, then go ahead and use the Ilfosol 3. The downside is if the developer is going bad from expiration, the results you get will not be repeatable/predictable. That makes for a bad learning experience. To be honest, I'd use fresh in-date developer so you know the result you got was due solely to the underexposure, and not a side-effect of a developer gone bad.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I was writing tongue in cheek implying that anyone who was shooting 120 film would of course have a camera with changeable film backs. Just a quick jab at C330 and Rollei TLR owners.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Welcome to APUG

Why not shoot Ilford Delta 3200 at box speed instead of pushing film? After all you just load the extra film back with Ilford Delta 3200, swap backs and remove the dark slide. How hard can that be?

Delta 3200, much like the Kodak Tmax 3200, isn't really a 3200 speed film. It's a 1000 speed film that when developed and exposed according to the instructions, gives you a 1.5 stop push.

 

[MattKing]

You will almost never hear this from me...

I'd wait to hear from some of the "stand" development fans.

Desperate under-exposure requires desperate means

 

[nathan.]

That's a four-stop push. It's not recommended. You may get something useable, but you'll definitely have ZERO shadow detail. You may like the look, you may not. To be on the safe side, add 50% to your stock development time. If these are just experiments for the heck of it, then go ahead and use the Ilfosol 3. The downside is if the developer is going bad from expiration, the results you get will not be repeatable/predictable. That makes for a bad learning experience. To be honest, I'd use fresh in-date developer so you know the result you got was due solely to the underexposure, and not a side-effect of a developer gone bad.

That's good advice, thanks. Maybe I'll grab some fresh developer, but I'm not too worried about repeating the process, as I have a feeling it's not going to be something I ever want to do again. The real lesson here is: Always bring more film.

 

[RobC]

This would be my guesstimate and not actual experience.
I would suggest you get some microphen which will give a stop of extra shadow speed for starters and use it at stock (undiluted). Look at the ilford data sheet for microphen (powdered developers) and see the times for delta 400 and add a bit and pray. Ilford don't even give figures for more than EI 200 for Delta 100 in their push developer. I suppose they would expect people to use 400 film for 1600 push.

Negs will be hellish contrasty unless subject was very flat contrast.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There is an old American saying that goes; "You can order Maine lobster in the middle of Kansas. You will probably get it and you will deserve it." Here the OP will probably get an image ...

 

[pentaxuser]

There is an old American saying that goes; "You can order Maine lobster in the middle of Kansas. You will probably get it and you will deserve it."

Sound like the line in "Best In the West" series where "Catch of the Day" in the saloon was pork chop


pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Realistically, this is five stops of underexposure. So you might get something in the highlights, little else. Sounds like a waste of time trying to salvage
the film, but whatever.

 

[markbarendt]

Realistically, this is five stops of underexposure. So you might get something in the highlights, little else. Sounds like a waste of time trying to salvage
the film, but whatever.

Yeah, regardless of how it gets developed.

 

[anfenglin]

Why are you all so negative? He shot the film and wants it developed. It's all part of the learning experience and you all never made any mistakes, huh?
Anyway, I recommend stand development, maybe in hc-110.
I shot a roll of tri-x I think at 6400 and developed it in hc-110 stand. The grain was brutal but I had usable negatives. I can look up the recipe when I get home.
You could also try caffenol, I've seen it compensate for almost anything and it is my no.1 developer.
Prepare for very dark shadows, lots of fog and thin shadows. But hey, experience!

 

[Ome Kees]

I shoot 100 asa film @ 1600 and develop for 90 min. at 20 C° in E76 1+1 with cont.agg.with useable result.

 

[Neal]

Dear nathan.,

I would use Xtol diluted 1+1 and develop for 22 minutes at 68°F. Over the years I have extrapolated times from the Xtol data sheet with reasonably good success. As noted above, develop the first one, then decide what to do for the second.

Good luck and please post the results of your efforts.

Neal Wydra

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Why are you all so negative? He shot the film and wants it developed. It's all part of the learning experience and you all never made any mistakes, huh?

It's also unfair to raise someone's hopes. The learning experience here is to be more careful. Had the under-exposure been less severe there might have been a learning experience here.

 

[MartinP]

I'd certainly say that expecting it to look like TechPan might be slightly optimistic.... However, accepting that you have nothing to lose, and having two rolls to play with, why not go crazy?

Remember all those tales of press-photographers (allegedly) dunking TriX in hot print developer? Try to cut a clip test of the roll having the most representative scene at one end, then develop it in a reel as usual but with a print developer at 24C. How long for? Try eight minutes, just because it sounds a nice number. Test and adjust from the clip-test to do the rest of the roll(s).

If you have any ID11, or D76, then Ilford recommend stock at 10 1/2 minutes for EI200. Extrapolating somewhat (as everyones' metering will vary a bit) giving 30% extra per stop suggests about 25 minutes, but you can't really change the speed, only the contrast of course. Whichever method you use, you may as well accentuate the contrast of whatever you have, because there will be nothing but the bottom stop (approx.) of exposure on the film curve.

Good luck and post results!!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I shoot 100 asa film @ 1600 and develop for 90 min. at 20 C° in E76 1+1 with cont.agg.with useable result.

NINETY MINUTES? You must have bulletproof highlights, no mid-tones, and inky black shadows if you develop for 90 minutes with continuous agitation. Also, what is E-76? I'm guessing that's a typo.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'd certainly say that expecting it to look like TechPan might be slightly optimistic.... However, accepting that you have nothing to lose, and having two rolls to play with, why not go crazy?

Remember all those tales of press-photographers (allegedly) dunking TriX in hot print developer? Try to cut a clip test of the roll having the most representative scene at one end, then develop it in a reel as usual but with a print developer at 24C. How long for? Try eight minutes, just because it sounds a nice number. Test and adjust from the clip-test to do the rest of the roll(s).

If you have any ID11, or D76, then Ilford recommend stock at 10 1/2 minutes for EI200. Extrapolating somewhat (as everyones' metering will vary a bit) giving 30% extra per stop suggests about 25 minutes, but you can't really change the speed, only the contrast of course. Whichever method you use, you may as well accentuate the contrast of whatever you have, because there will be nothing but the bottom stop (approx.) of exposure on the film curve.

Good luck and post results!!

I've used hot (75+ F) Dektol 1:3 as a film developer before. Grain the size of golf balls, but interesting tonality. That was with negatives that were properly exposed, however (Tmax 3200 shot at ISO 1000 - which is its nominal speed anyway). That regimen was 3 1/2 minutes, so you had to be pretty careful on the timing to not overcook or undercook the film.

 

[pgomena]

Search for Donald Qualls' Super Soup in this forum. And may the gods be with you.

 

[Xmas]

Why are you all so negative? He shot the film and wants it developed. It's all part of the learning experience and you all never made any mistakes, huh?
Anyway, I recommend stand development, maybe in hc-110.
I shot a roll of tri-x I think at 6400 and developed it in hc-110 stand. The grain was brutal but I had usable negatives. I can look up the recipe when I get home.
You could also try caffenol, I've seen it compensate for almost anything and it is my no.1 developer.
Prepare for very dark shadows, lots of fog and thin shadows. But hey, experience!

He should have gone to coffee house or pub instead.
The rule is don't underexpose and overdevelope.

 

[Trask]

Yeah, I don't get the negativity. He knew going in that he was underexposing, and now all he wants is to build on the experience of others to develop it. If it turns out to be a waste of time, again, that's his choice -- and who knows maybe we and future users of APUG will learn something back from him. If it were me, I'd try 510-Pyro 1:300 stand for maybe 50 minutes, as pyro isn't susceptible to bromide drag (or so I read). Or Caffenol, which sometimes can surprise you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm not a golfer, but a fellow here at work who is has a saying, "a lost ball in tall grass". Guess if you have enough time.... But sometimes it's wiser
just to start over.