Pushing Ilford Delta 400 two stops with Ilfosol 3

Marc Estalella · Jul 2, 2020

Hello everyone!

I couldn't find the times to push Ilfrod Delta 400 two stops with Ilfosol 3.

Anyone has done it? I already shot two rolls and Ilfosol 3 is the only developer I have right now...

Thanks!

pentaxuser · Jul 2, 2020

There probably isn't any times on the MDC because Ilfosol 3 is not meant to be used at 1600 with Delta 400. Based on Ilfosol 3 times for 400 to then 800 I'd be inclined to add 70% to the 800 time. An interesting experiment so lets us know and see digital pics of the resulting negs. It is isn't an experiment but the light conditions meant that you had no choice but to use 1600 and you can foresee situations in the future when 1600 is going to be needed then I'd try and get hold of another developer more suited to high speed. The great all-rounder that is the most versatile developer in the Ilford range is ID11 it has times for Delta 400 at 1600

Microphen or DD-X are other choices but both may be more difficult to get and DD-X is probably more expensive in Spain. It is in the U.K.

pentaxuser

Paul Howell · Jul 2, 2020

The rule of thumb is a 50% increase in time for each push but the massive development chart lists a doubling of time for 1 push, so a very good question. If following the massive development chart delta 400 at 1600 should be at 1:9 28 minutes, which seems like a very long time. Following the 50% for each push, 1:9 should be 14 minutes. At this point all you do is test, shoot a 3rd roll, load about a 1/3 on a reel and test at 14 minutes, then add time until you find the best time. Any reason you are pushing Delta 400 rather than using Delta or Tmax 3200?

Donald Qualls · Jul 2, 2020

If you have vitamin C powder, instant coffee, and laundry soda (aka soda ash, sodium carbonate) available, you can make a version of Caffenol that will give you that push in less time than what people are giving for Ilfosol 3 with that Delta 400. It's not my favorite developer (it literally stinks!) but it is an alternative to what you have, and might be something you have the ingredients on hand for.

NB23 · Jul 2, 2020

Double the time.
Ilfosol-3 is an excellent developer and chances are you will be happy with results.

pentaxuser · Jul 2, 2020

NB23 said:
Double the time.
Ilfosol-3 is an excellent developer and chances are you will be happy with results.

Interesting. I take it you mean double the time for 800 so that's 28 mins. Have you tried this yourself? It does seem a lot of time but on the other hand it is only doing what is suggested for 800 which is exactly double what the 400 time is.

Thanks

pentaxuser

NB23 · Jul 2, 2020

pentaxuser said:
Interesting. I take it you mean double the time for 800 so that's 28 mins. Have you tried this yourself? It does seem a lot of time but on the other hand it is only doing what is suggested for 800 which is exactly double what the 400 time is.

Thanks

pentaxuser

ilfosol is highly potent, and I love it. One of my main developers for years now.

For 1600, Double the time for 400 iso.

pentaxuser · Jul 2, 2020

NB23 said:
For 1600, Double the time for 400 iso.

So use the Ilford time for 800|? This time is already double that for 400?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill · Jul 2, 2020

NB23 said:
ilfosol is highly potent, and I love it. One of my main developers for years now.

For 1600, Double the time for 400 iso.

according the MDC, that doesn't jive. I've used this developer and lot but not for pushing. I would probably try 18:00 @20C, for a 1600 push.... dilution 1+9.

NB23 · Jul 2, 2020

Andrew O'Neill said:
according the MDC, that doesn't jive. I've used this developer and lot but not for pushing. I would probably try 18:00 @20C, for a 1600 push.... dilution 1+9.

You can tell MDC that my TMZ negatives rated at 3200 are rocking, thanks to Ilfosol-3.

NB23 · Jul 2, 2020

pentaxuser said:
So use the Ilford time for 800|? This time is already double that for 400?

Thanks

pentaxuser

This is what I’d do

foc · Jul 2, 2020

I have used Ilfosol 3 for many years commercially and I have push processed 400 to 1600 (2 stops).
I have used this rule of thumb. 2 stop push x2.25 time increase as per MDC and it always worked out fine for me.

So for 1+14 @20C for 25 mins

I have found Ilfosol 3 a very good developer and no customer ever complained.

pentaxuser · Jul 2, 2020

NB23 said:
This is what I’d do

Your tense indicates that this is something you haven't done but would do? Does this mean that you believe Ilford has over-egged the time for 800 or that the 800 Ilford time is about right and any increase in development time beyond that specified for 800 achieves nothing that can be beneficial for the negatives?

Thanks

pentaxuser

NB23 · Jul 2, 2020

My experience is talking.

1- Ilfosol is highly potent.

2- as a rule of thumb, add 50% per stop, and this is already a high percentage. I’d go 35% for any other film but not Delta 40 because I’m also judging Ilford’s recomendation (which seems overboard).

3- delta 400 doesn’t push well in the highlights. They burn sooooo easily it’s insane. I can’t burn my prints enough in the darkroom, it’s simply totally washed out. By this experience, it is better to be conservative. My experience woth Delta 400 @ 1600 was frustrating.

4- an overcooked negative is the worst. Err on the safe side.

5-safe side is all the above. Double the development time is already A LOT for any negative. But Delta’s highlight quickly become ugly when pushed.

This is exclusively my opinion on the matter. And I do my best to give GOOD infirmation.

pentaxuser said:
Your tense indicates that this is something you haven't done but would do? Does this mean that you believe Ilford has over-egged the time for 800 or that the 800 Ilford time is about right and any increase in development time beyond that specified for 800 achieves nothing that can be beneficial for the negatives?

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser · Jul 3, 2020

Thanks NB23. The problem for the OP who asked the question is one that arises a lot on Photrio and quite likely on other forums. We have a wide range of times being recommended from yours which is the Ilford time for 800 at 14 mins to Andrew's at 18 mins and foc's at 25 mins. While Andrew's is theoretical as he hasn't done 1600, both you and foc have. His worked out fine for him at 25 mins whereas you were frustrated at 1600 and with as little as 14 mins.

So what figure is he to believe? You may say that is his problem and it is in the sense that anyone with a problem on any forum, it remains his problem.

It may not be possible to do this unless the negatives and better still the prints can be shown but unless this is possible, it seems to me that the OP in seeking help is no further forward than he was before he asked the question.

It's nobody's fault and no-one is trying not to help him but it is a pity that those whose solutions differ greatly cannot help more with "evidence" should they have it

pentaxuser

Donald Qualls · Jul 3, 2020

pentaxuser said:
Thanks NB23.So what figure is he to believe?

I'm pretty sure Saint Ansel encountered this kind of problem when he was still shooting on glass plates. Only then, it was "this magazine recommends 6:30, but that one says I need 8:00 -- and in that letter from Steiglitz last month, he said he was giving 10:30."

His solution, along with the other Zone founders, was to test the combinations he'd use himself, to his standards. Not much help when you've already exposed the film, but it's the long term solution, especially if for some reason you're going off the beaten path. Of course, Ansel's testing always led to personal EI ratings well below ASA box speed -- in part because he had to "underdevelop" to get the contrast where he wanted it, but also in part because he had a very stringent standard for shadow detail.

For the OP, it's going to be a gamble. If the images are very important to you, I'd suggest shooting a test roll in similar lighting conditions, at the same EI, and developing half with the EI 800 time as suggested by some posters above, and if that isn't quite enough, the other half at double that time. If the latter is too much, split the difference, otherwise you'll have the information you need to develop your important film to be at least printable.

foc · Jul 3, 2020

pentaxuser said:
His worked out fine for him at 25 mins whereas you were frustrated at 1600 and with as little as 14 mins.

1600 for 14 mins sounds to me a brief time, considering that Ilford recommend Delta 400 rated at 800, time 14 mins 1+9 @20C
Given that Ilfosol can be used at either 1+9 or 1+14 it might be handy to have the times, dilutions and temps. when posting a comment.

NB23 · Jul 3, 2020

I despise the “digital truth” times because they are Incongruent. I don’t rely on those.

Also, Kodak prefers that you not push by one stop but to compensate in the darkroom instead. Actually Kodak doesn’t recomend overdeveloping a film that has been underexposed by 1 stop. Over-developing (pushing) would make you lose quality information. According to Kodak, working with an under-developed negative (by 1 stop) will keep most of the useful information.

Now kodak, too, is filling us with incongruent informations if you dig here and there, so it becomes difficult to separate the bullshit from the good.

But there are a few things that I know from experience, and overcooking negatives is to be avoided. Developing for double the time is already quite a lot! And there is the native flexibility of a negative, to start with!

And Ilfosol really cooks. It boosts contrast. So I don’t see where this could go wrong, I woudn’t develop it more as I’m sure it would go overboard. But then again, this is totally and only my opinion. And I’ve had my share of blasted and super muddy negatives!

In the end, one thing is for sure, the results will be usable.

Bormental · Jul 3, 2020

Let me offer a contrarian opinion here: if the final destination is "scanning" with a modern digital camera, some overdevelopment and extra density only help. Modern sensors have a ton of dynamic range and they're especially good at dealing with the shadows. It is trivial to get the detail and contrast you desire from denser negatives in a decent RAW converter. Set it to "linear" mode and play with the curves, your mind will be blown.

With the possible exception of Foma, I find it nearly impossible to "blow highlights" with modern B&W films when scanning with a camera. Density also lowers grain.

NB23 said:
I despise the “digital truth” times because they are Incongruent.

First of all, I suggest taking a look at this. MDC is a perfectly fine starting point, usually it just repeats manufacturer's suggested times. Sometimes it allows you to catch typos in manufacturer's data sheets (Ultrafine Extreme film is one example). Everything else is just a personal preference.

Finn lyle · Jul 3, 2020

foc said:
I have used this rule of thumb. 2 stop push x2.25 time increase as per MDC and it always worked out fine for me.

So for 1+14 @20C for 25 mins

The 2.25x for two stops has underdeveloped with Ilfosol 3 in my experience, closer to 2.5 or 2.7x with the 1:14 dilution has given excellent results however. I have pushed Kentmere 400 and HP5+ up to 3200 on Ilfosol 3 with no real issues besides grain, though these are inherently more forgiving than delta 400 so take this for a grain of salt. IIRC Ilford does not recommend Ilfosol 3 for pushing film on their own website, but what fun would it be to not try anyway?

NB23 · Jul 3, 2020

Finn lyle said:
The 2.25x for two stops has underdeveloped with Ilfosol 3 in my experience, closer to 2.5 or 2.7x with the 1:14 dilution has given excellent results however. I have pushed Kentmere 400 and HP5+ up to 3200 on Ilfosol 3 with no real issues besides grain, though these are inherently more forgiving than delta 400 so take this for a grain of salt. IIRC Ilford does not recommend Ilfosol 3 for pushing film on their own website, but what fun would it be to not try anyway?

3x with a 1:14 Dilution is the direct equivalent of 2x at a 1:9 dilution. Unless I’m drunk and I don’t know it...

foc · Jul 3, 2020

I have always found that when shooting a negative film (B&W or C41) that it is better to have an overexposed neg that an underexposed one.
I also found the same for pushing B&W film, that it was better to have a slightly denser a negative than a thin neg.
You can always print (or scan) a dense neg by simple adding more light or adding more printing time exposure as the denser neg has the detail in it.
A thin neg has very little detail.

NB23 · Jul 3, 2020

foc said:
I have always found that when shooting a negative film (B&W or C41) that it is better to have an overexposed neg that an underexposed one.
I also found the same for pushing B&W film, that it was better to have a slightly denser a negative than a thin neg.
You can always print (or scan) a dense neg by simple adding more light or adding more printing time exposure as the denser neg has the detail in it.
A thin neg has very little detail.

kodak is actually right on this one, better a slightly underexposed negative.
A perfect negative will always look underexposed to the eye. That was always the case.

But yeah, this might be different for scanning. I’m not sure if Kodak or Ilford have modified their target curves to satisfy the digital crowd, but maybe?

Pushing Ilford Delta 400 two stops with Ilfosol 3

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency