Stand Development & DELTA 3200

[Tom Stanworth]

In a bid to see how much speed I could get from my usual films for some really low light work, I tried stand development. I did not need perfectly even development, even skies etc because I was looking for techniques suited to interiors or messy dark environments, like subways, street scenes etc.

I decided to use Xtol 1+2 because this is my standard and it is also relatively soft working so I figured it would be kind on highlights.

Initially I tried Delta 3200 rated at 2000 on a Leica M. I generally find I need to rate films 1/3 stop slower on the M compared to my other cameras so 2400 in my Mamiya 7 or Eos. I shot a frame at the rated speed then gave 2/3 stop additional exposure. I did this because 1000-1200 is my normal speed for this film in the same dev, but with a normal agitation regime and shorter times of course.

30 agitation, then 50 mins standing at 19 degs C. The results are remarkably good. I am very surprised to see a worthwhile increase in shadow speed. I shot in a variety of scenarios, from flat dingy interiors to shaded areas with window highlights or artificial lights and its good to see the highlights are not off the scale. Dense, yes, but certainly printable. Shadows have decent separation and while grain is large, it is also very crisp. Its certainly a great combo for when there is no objection to grain and a need to absolute maximum speed. There may well be better high speed devs out there for D3200 (DDX gives no more speed than Xtol 1+X tho) but this one allows me to use my regular dev. Grain is a fair bit smaller at EI 1000 and agitation on the minute but speed is a clearly lower too.

I have another half roll to play with and might try that in 1+1 or straight to see what happens with the grain.

 

[jbl]

Can you post some examples?

-jbl

 

[pentaxuser]

Tom your thread is very a propos for me as I have just done a search to see if I could compare XTol with DDX( DDX or Perceptol is my normal dev for D3200). I note that XTol at 1+1 gives the same speed as DDX from your experience. Can you say if there is any difference in grain. Is Xtol better/same/worse than DDX in that respect and are you saying that your normal speed for D3200 for normal developement i.e. without stand development is 2400? I try not to use D3200 above 1600 but it is nice to know what is possible with stand development at what I think was EI3200.

I am seriously considering XTol as it seems to cover a good range of films, has very comprehensive instructions and is quite a lot cheaper from ApPhotographic than DDX. However I am grain averse and wouldn't want to sacrifice the relatively fine grain with DDX even for the sake of economy.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Tom Stanworth]

jbl,

I can't post examples unfortunately bec I'm in Afghanistan. I can develop my negs and inspect them on the light box, but not print.

pentaxuser,

I don't really use Xtol 1+1 any more because I found 1+2 to be more economical and give slightly more crisp grain. Subtle, but for my reportage/documentary images I like some grain visible or at least for the image to have a little bite. As for times, my 1+2 times are longer than DDX 1+7 (I use this for greater economy with quality appearing essentially the same as 1+4). At the dilutions I use, I would say the difference between DDX and Xtol is this:

No difference in speed at all: This is an opinion borne out of extensive use of both and about 50 test rolls over the last few years (when I cannot shoot real pics I experiment and test to ensure that I keep improving my understanding of my materials) in addition to 'real use'. I test almost all new films I use in Xtol and DDX so I know that even if one disappears I have a familiar dev I can use. In practice I have not been able to find any extra speed from DDX from negs that otherwise appear essentially identical and to same approx contrast. Some say DDX gives more speed, but I think this may be the eye seeing things that the head expects to find.

Finer grain with Xtol: I find Xtol 1+2 to have finer grain than DDX 1+7 (and from my memory it is finer than 1+4 too). Not a huge difference, but I find it (as expected) more visible with faster films like Neopan 1600 or D3200 where I do for Xtol.

Apparent sharpness & Look: I think they are similar in terms of bite, but with DDX having a little more sparkle from the slightly larger grain. Xtol has a very smooth look with slower films, 'gentler' perhaps and with good highlight control so super for very high contrast conditions.

My normal speed for D3200 is 1000 (Leica) -1200 (everything else) in Xtol 1+2 or DDX 1+7. Xtol has finer grain.

Xtol works well on almost everything. My only issue can be that with some films the tonality ends up so smooth, images lack any bite. I often mix it with Rodinal for slow films for more bite. Foma 100 and APX100 end up grainless in Xtol 1+2.

 

[pentaxuser]

Many thanks Tom for that reply.

pentaxuser