Settling on Delta and maybe Rodinal...

markbarendt · Jan 23, 2009

Okay,

After playing around on my own some and looking at many examples of other peoples work I've decided to settle down with Ilford's Delta films and get good at them. All 35mm BTW.

First a bit a background.

To start with:

Delta 100 will normally be shot at box speed or slower.

Delta 400 will get the most use between 400 and 800.

Delta 3200 will be probably be used mostly between 800 and 3200, sometimes 6400.

I started this quest with ID-11 but one of the struggles I have is that sometimes I have time to develop right away and, probably like many others here, sometimes I don't. I tend not to take some opportunities to develop because I don't want to mix up a batch of developer and have it go bad so I tend to save up rolls in the freezer.

So, now I'm looking to settle on one developer to get good at with these films. I'm considering Rodinal because of it's "immortality", the ability to mix as I go, and because it looks to me like technique, start to finish, has more effect on the final product than which developer I use. I also don't have the time or inclination to test every developer.

So your help is requested.

Is technique (my skill) the real issue here or are there real drawbacks with Rodinal that are going to bite me?

Any thoughts appreciated!

Paul Howell · Jan 23, 2009

I like Rodinal with slow films, but for my tast too grainy for high speed film. You might want to compare Delta with Rodinal and Delta with HC 110 or DDX, both have a very long shelf life. An alterantive is Edwal FG7 which can be used with and without sulfite and has a long shelf life. Clayton F76 and 60 do not have the shelf life of HC110 or DDX but are inexpensive.

Pete H · Jan 23, 2009

I agree with Paul Howell. I like Delta 100 (usually rated at 80) with Rodinal 1+50: nice tonality.

For Delta 400 (especially if it's pushed to 800) and Delta 3200 (usually I rate it at 1000) DDX gives nice results, but is fairly expensive.

I sometimes use Rodinal with Delta 3200 if I'm after the grainy look, but it's not my standard choice.

david b · Jan 23, 2009

T-Grain films such as T-Max and Delta, love Kodaks XTOL.

Give it a try

fschifano · Jan 23, 2009

Honestly, I don't like Rodinal with any of the Delta or TMax films. These are films designed to give good speed with low grain. Rodinal does not allow either to achieve those goals. Rodinal can be really nice with some slower films that I've used. It is nice with PanF+, if you give it an extra stop of exposure over box speed. Still, I've done better using D-76 1+3 with that film. It's nice with Foma 100 if you do the same thing. Using Rodinal with film shot in hard contrasty light will always be an extra challenge, unless you go to extraordinary lengths like stand development with highly dilute working solutions of 1+100. Then you run the risk of uneven development because you're not performing any agitation.

If you want something that's long lasting and convenient, then try HC-110. It's not as good as XTOL or D-76, but it is miles better than Rodinal for these films.

D-76, XTOL, or ID-11 will last at least 6 months in completely full and closed bottles. Here in the US, at least, D-76 is cheap and works well with anything you care to throw at it. Rodinal is a specialty item. When it was developed in the 19th century, it was the bee's knees. By contrast, there is not a film made today that is not designed to work well with D-76.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 23, 2009

I don't know, Frank. I've had absolutely wonderful results with Tmax 100 & 400 with Rodinal, and like everything else it's a matter of taste.

To the OP - Rodinal is not a very good choice to get good speed out of Delta 3200; shooting it above its actual speed of about 800-1000 will probably not give you very good negatives.

HC-110 is a little bit better in the speed department. I've successfully shot D3200 @ EI 3200, and developed it according to Ilford's instructions for EI 6400. That gives a nice punchy negative with enough shadow detail. For longevity, speed, and being a useful alternative - HC-110 (or Ilfotec HC, which should be similar) is probably a good all-round alternative for you.
If you tweak dilution, exposure, and development time, I'm sure you'll be able to produce very fine results using this developer.

- Thomas

WGibsonPhotography · Jan 23, 2009

markbarendt said:
Okay,

After playing around on my own some and looking at many examples of other peoples work I've decided to settle down with Ilford's Delta films and get good at them. All 35mm BTW.

First a bit a background.

To start with:

Delta 100 will normally be shot at box speed or slower.

Delta 400 will get the most use between 400 and 800.

Delta 3200 will be probably be used mostly between 800 and 3200, sometimes 6400.

I started this quest with ID-11 but one of the struggles I have is that sometimes I have time to develop right away and, probably like many others here, sometimes I don't. I tend not to take some opportunities to develop because I don't want to mix up a batch of developer and have it go bad so I tend to save up rolls in the freezer.

So, now I'm looking to settle on one developer to get good at with these films. I'm considering Rodinal because of it's "immortality", the ability to mix as I go, and because it looks to me like technique, start to finish, has more effect on the final product than which developer I use. I also don't have the time or inclination to test every developer.

So your help is requested.

Is technique (my skill) the real issue here or are there real drawbacks with Rodinal that are going to bite me?

Any thoughts appreciated!

I just posted some scans of prints made with Delta 400 developed in rodinal 1+50 here. I hope this link works... (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Phillip P. Dimor · Jan 23, 2009

I'd use Microphen with the 3200 but that's just me. I find rodinal very easy to use, the dilutions are simple and it's a thin liquid unlike hc110 (maple syrup!) I like it with 400 speed film, 100 speed film.. but with 3200 (and pushing 400 speed to 1200/1600) I go with microphen or acufine.

trexx · Jan 23, 2009

As others have mentioned there are better choices then Rodinal. I really like Rodinal for some of it's effects and it always has a place on my film developer shelf. There are many other choices to use as the standard developer. You should start with one of those, in my stable of standard developers are XTOL, MICRODOL-X, HC-110, among. There are similar found in the Ilford line. As are there a lot of formula to mix up yourself if your are so inclined.

If the ease of mixing oneshot is a main criteria the hc-110 might be the choice.

Shangheye · Jan 23, 2009

I have to agree with the view that modern T-grain films really don't work as well with Rodinal as with other developers. The grain structure in my opinion is different than that you would get with emulsions like HP5 (a very distinctive look) and FP4. In the end this is about tastes, and you can only but try, but it did not work for me. Delta films in DDx (especially if pushed) are favoured by me.

Rich Ullsmith · Jan 23, 2009

Shooting any T-grain films at or faster than what is on the box, then developing in Rodinal, I can only assume you would be doing that for the challenge, Mark.

fschifano · Jan 23, 2009

Well, I'll tell you Tom, it is a question of taste and there is no accounting for personal preference. No doubt that good results can be had with TMax and Delta films when paired with Rodinal. I've seen it. I've even made a few images with TMX souped in Rodial that I thought were pretty good. But having tried it more than a few times under various and sometimes less than ideal lighting conditions, I've found that the combination is not all that reliable. Works ok if the lighting is nice and even, and you can give up the film speed. Works ok if you want the extra grain. Move up from 35 mm. to medium format and the grain issues become moot. These are situations that an experienced photographer with some darkroom work under his or her belt can exploit to the fullest. For the inexperienced worker, the result will more likely be disappointing. There is also no denying that TMax and Delta films, and TMax especially, are more sensitive to exposure and development variations than their older technology counterparts. It is all to easy for the highlight densities to block up in response to relatively small inreases in development times or temperatures. It is also no secret that, in order to reach box speed, the development times for Rodinal result in contrast indices higher than those specified for developers like D-76, XTOL, and similar formulae. It is not a developer that readily lends itself to enhancing shadow densities, which is where the film's true speed is measured. So when you start adding up all the factors, Rodinal doesn't look so attractive for the majority of applications. You take a hit on film speed. You take a hit on dense highlights. You take a hit on grain. When all is said and done, maybe you get a couple or three negatives with a good density range that are easy to print out of 36. The odds are more in your favor with a more general purpose developer.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 23, 2009

I'll agree to disagree with you Frank. For me Rodinal is the perfect all-round developer. To each their own.

To the OP. I'm sorry for confusing the matters for you. I use Rodinal a lot, and think it's the best all-round developer. No kidding. But the majority doesn't agree with me, so you should probably listen to them. Seriously. No sour grapes. I just want what's best for you.

The bid for HC-110 is still a good one, though.

- Thomas

jim appleyard · Jan 23, 2009

Frank, as always, you're not wrong! However, my best T-Max 100 negs were with Rodinal, and on a whim, too.

Like I've said a million times before, I'm not a t-grain fan; don't like the muddy contrast and tonality, but when a friend gave me a couple of rolls of T-Max, I thought, "gee I've never done it in Rodinal". So, I look up times and, shot it at EI 64 and they are the best T-Max negs I've ever produced and probably the only dev I'd ever use for it again.

But isn't this why there are many, many choices of film and devs out there?

aligndont · Jan 23, 2009

markbarendt said:
Okay,

After playing around on my own some and looking at many examples of other peoples work I've decided to settle down with Ilford's Delta films and get good at them. All 35mm BTW.

First a bit a background.

To start with:

Delta 100 will normally be shot at box speed or slower.

Delta 400 will get the most use between 400 and 800.

Delta 3200 will be probably be used mostly between 800 and 3200, sometimes 6400.

I started this quest with ID-11 but one of the struggles I have is that sometimes I have time to develop right away and, probably like many others here, sometimes I don't. I tend not to take some opportunities to develop because I don't want to mix up a batch of developer and have it go bad so I tend to save up rolls in the freezer.

So, now I'm looking to settle on one developer to get good at with these films. I'm considering Rodinal because of it's "immortality", the ability to mix as I go, and because it looks to me like technique, start to finish, has more effect on the final product than which developer I use. I also don't have the time or inclination to test every developer.

So your help is requested.

Is technique (my skill) the real issue here or are there real drawbacks with Rodinal that are going to bite me?

Any thoughts appreciated!

With Delta 100 in 35mm I have been very happy with this development method: Delta 100 rated at 80 in 75ml xtol + 2.5 ml rodinal with water to make 400 ml solution, 23C, 20 sec. initial agitation then 1 inversion / min. for a total time of 9 minutes. Use 300ml of this in a stainless steel 35mm. tank.
The beauty of this is that you obtain the rodinal look with really fine grain. I should mention that use 24 exposure rolls. I've also tried this with Plus X and apx 100 with times of 7min and 10.5 min. respectively. Extremely sharp.

Anscojohn · Jan 23, 2009

markbarendt said:
Okay,

After playing around on my own some and looking at many examples of other peoples work I've decided to settle down with Ilford's Delta films and get good at them. All 35mm BTW.

******
You are better off "getting good" with one film and the one developer first.

markbarendt · Jan 24, 2009

Okay so now settling on Delta and now maybe DD-X?

Hey everybody,

Thanks for the input!

Okay the impression I'm getting here is that Rodinal might be workable, even just right in some situations, but it may take some serious acrobatics to make it work well at the faster speeds; at 51 I'm not into recreational acrobatics. :rolleyes:

I'm going to write off XTOL because I don't want to mess with powder, ID-11 taught me that.

I'm also not real interested in having a variety of developers, I'd rather adjust with technique than chemicals for now.

I need something I can grow with and reliably create good results at all the speeds I shoot.

It sounds like I'll actually have to deal with the shelf life issue through discipline and by shooting more; darn.

One bottle of DD-X will do about 20 rolls of film in my SS tanks, if I don't try to stretch it any with reuse. So if I shoot about 1-2 rolls a week I can use up a bottle of DD-X about every 4 months. I can also just mix what I need from stock as I go. End of shelf life issue.

I also did the math on the cost. With Delta 100 and 400 36 exposure rolls the hard cost of a roll developed in DD-X is about $6.55, so $40to $60 bucks a month; in Ilfotec HC it's about $6.02 a roll. At 53 cents extra a roll for DD-X that's only $5/month so the cost difference isn't a big issue either. Delta 3200 is a buck extra on top of that.

I have also thought a bit about John's thought of sticking to one film.

This would put me squarely in Delta 400's range because I do some portraiture that I want minimal grain with for enlargements, not looking for no grain, just don't want the grain to be the subject. The 100 is too slow for most of my shooting and the 3200 is going to be to grainy for a significant amount of work.

With D400 and DD-X "supposedly" I should be able to shoot and get good workable results from EI 200 to EI 3200. Obviously the results will depend on developing my skills and techniques and notes.

Given this refinement in my thought, is there anything about the D400/DD-X combo that I should think about before stocking up?

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 24, 2009

I like DD-X better than HC-110, but HC-110 is much more economical, and you don't have to worry about shelf life. Photographers like Bill Schwab use HC-110, so I'm dumbfounded with the question why you or I should need something better. The answer lies in how you use it.
If you use dilution H, you have a concentration of 1+63 or so. That means you use about 8 ml per roll of film. From a 500ml bottle, that gives you 62 rolls, for about $20 or so. Although with D3200 you probably want to use Dilution B at double concentration of Dilution H. That's dirt cheap, and the results are pleasing. It works well with films of all speeds, while my favorite results with it have been with high speed film, like Ilford HP5+ and Delta 3200.

Just trying to save you some time, money, and headache with storage life.

- Thomas

markbarendt · Jan 24, 2009

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I like DD-X better than HC-110,

Okay, so what specifically do you like better?

Thomas Bertilsson said:
but HC-110 is much more economical, and you don't have to worry about shelf life. Photographers like Bill Schwab use HC-110, so I'm dumbfounded with the question why you or I should need something better. The answer lies in how you use it.

So with practice and experience, I should see little if any difference?

Thomas Bertilsson said:
If you use dilution H, you have a concentration of 1+63 or so. That means you use about 8 ml per roll of film. From a 500ml bottle, that gives you 62 rolls, for about $20 or so.

Just want to check the math here, I'm coming up with ~4ml for my 250ml tank, not 8, or 16ml for my 1 liter tank. HC-110 is $14.69 at Freestyle for 16oz/473ml which would theoretically get me about 118 rolls. 13 cents a roll.

The DD-X by itself is about 85 cents a roll so the HC-110 would save 72 cents a roll.

The other thought I have here is it might be nice to shoot 24's instead of 36's and that would save another $1.50 per roll and let me rotate the film quicker.

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Although with D3200 you probably want to use Dilution B at double concentration of Dilution H.

Good info but for the time being I think John's idea of sticking to one film makes sense.

Thomas Bertilsson said:
That's dirt cheap, and the results are pleasing. It works well with films of all speeds, while my favorite results with it have been with high speed film, like Ilford HP5+ and Delta 3200.

Just trying to save you some time, money, and headache with storage life.

- Thomas

That is very much appreciated! I just don't want to be penny wise and pound foolish.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 24, 2009

Hi Mark,

Ilfotec DD-X has finer grain than HC-110, and a highlight rendition that I find better defined in its tonal separation. To me, HC-110 is prone to producing denser, and marginally more difficult to print, highlights.

I don't know if my math makes sense. But you have to use somewhere in the neighborhood of (I hope I remember correctly) about 4-5 ml of concentrate per film, regardless of how you dilute it. I've been using it at 1+100 dilution, with 500ml per film, which makes 5ml per film. So you're correct that with 500ml at dilution H (1+63) you would require 8ml of concentrate.
It's still cheap!

And yes - the differences between Ilfotec DD-X and Kodak HC-110 are not insurmountable; they are fairly minor. Your skill with using them matters a lot more. They are both good at getting decent film speed, and with enough practice and use of either one or the other, you will get fantastic results. It's not ideal, but in an effort to illustrate what I mean, I have attached scans of two prints from Delta 3200 negatives. The lighting conditions are dissimilar with direct light from one direction in the portrait, and a lot of ambient light in the wedding picture. But I am perfectly happy with both of the images, and can honestly say I don't dwell over which developer I used.

- Thomas

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 24, 2009

I should add that they are both from 645 120 negatives, shot with the same Mamiya 150mm C-lens. So the right hand side image is a cropped 645 neg, the left one is full frame.

Vincent Brady · Jan 24, 2009

If Ilford make Delta 400 and tell you you the best developer for it is stock ID11, why would you want to try something else. Do you think that they are telling lies and if so , is it about the film or the developer? Maybe the best solution is to manufacture your own film and best developer for it.

Cheers
TEX

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 24, 2009

Vincent, post #17 says OP does not want to deal with powders.

waynecrider · Jan 24, 2009

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Vincent, post #17 says OP does not want to deal with powders.

Dealing with powdered Xtol is easier then others and the solution does last up to a year. It also dilutes real well. I think Xtol and Delta is real nice match and it only takes a few minutes to mix it.

markbarendt · Jan 24, 2009

waynecrider said:
Dealing with powdered Xtol is easier then others and the solution does last up to a year. It also dilutes real well. I think Xtol and Delta is real nice match and it only takes a few minutes to mix it.

Wayne,

It's my understanding that the HC-110 concentrate will last almost indefinitely and that DD-X in a partially filled bottle will go 6 months. I just mix up what I need that day with either.

Kodak actually claims 2 months in partially filled bottles of XTOL stock solutions, 6 months in full sealed bottles. 5 liters of stock mixed 1 & 1 means I need to be shooting 40 rolls in 2 months or I'd have to decant into various bottles that would need to be kept at a well controlled temp, a temp that would be tough to manage in my home. This is a pretty tight time line and a hassle.

Which brings me to Tex,

TEX said:
If Ilford make Delta 400 and tell you you the best developer for it is stock ID11, why would you want to try something else. Do you think that they are telling lies and if so , is it about the film or the developer? Maybe the best solution is to manufacture your own film and best developer for it.

Cheers
TEX

The reason I don't like ID-11 so much is that I don't use it fast enough to keep up with it's shelf life once it's mixed. That means I store up films rather than developing as I go. That's a real pain.

I want to be able to mix for 1, 2, or 4 rolls, whatever I shot over the last week, without worrying that I need to shoot 16 more in the next 30 days.

Staying with Ilford is why I thought about DD-X. I still like the idea.

Settling on Delta and maybe Rodinal...

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency