Thin negatives - Delta 3200 in Ilfotec DD ?

[Matus Kalisky]

Hi,

I just recived my Ilford Delta 3200 from the lab that uses Ilfotec DD for their BW developement. The negatives are pretty thin. I exposed the film at ISO 3200 and from this forum know that one needs to over-develope one stop usually (or shoot at ISO 1600). Is this supposed to be the case also with this developer?

Also - the PanF the same lab developed is on the thin side. Exposed at ISO 50. Is this also supposed to be the case? - I mean should one also either use lower EI or developer a bit longer?

Both films were 120 format and exposed with Rolleiflex T. Exposure was measured with DSLR (not for the first time - usually good exposures). Just to mention - I already got from this combination (Rolleiflex T + DSLR) properly exposed chromes.

hmmm....

 

[Neal]

Dear Matus,

If you have used this lab, film and exposure combination (in similar lighting situations) before with success then I would lean towards the lab as the problem. If this is one of your first few attempts at metering in either of those two ranges or lighting condition then that may be the problem. It's hard to determine something like this from one event.

Neal Wydra

 

[Harry Lime]

Delta 3200 is a very thin emulsion. I noticed the same thing.

Delta3200@1600/3200 in DD-X produces very thin looking negs,
but they print and scan without a problem.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

- Neal -

no - I have used the lab for the first time. They did good job with my 4x5 color negs and chromes though.

As I said - I am not so surprised that the Delta came out thin - I learned that about this film after shooting it. I am surprized by the PanF. I do not suspect the metering - as I mentioned this I have aredy tested the camera/lightmeter with chromes.

- Harry -

Do you think that shooting the Delta @ 1600 instead of 3200 and leaving the lab to develope it for standard (3200) times would be helpful next time?
I am about to start to develope BW at home in Pyrocat HD but thought that these two films are a bit out of range - I want to concentrate on Tmax 400 and FP4+ (both in medium and large fortmat).

thanks

 

[Harry Lime]

To be honest, I'm not sure.

I mostly shoot Delta3200 @ 1600. Better shadow and highlight detail. Also nicer tonality. I've heard from several sources that the sweet spot for this film is between 1200 and 2000 asa. DD-X seems to be the perfect match for this film. I've tried others, but DD-X seems to work the best, although I would bet that XTOL would also do a very good job.

I haven't shot it in a while at 3200, but I do seem to remember the negs coming out thinner.

Right now I'm shooting it at 1600 and developing for 8 min (not counting filling and emptying the tank) in DD-X. So, the time is probably closer to 8:30-8:45 min.

Full inversion for the first 60 seconds, then for 5-8 seconds every minute.

The water here in London seems softer than it was on Los Angeles. Water temp is around 20-25C.

 

[Matthijs]

- Neal -
I am about to start to develope BW at home in Pyrocat HD but thought that these two films are a bit out of range - I want to concentrate on Tmax 400 and FP4+ (both in medium and large fortmat).

To save you any potential future trouble, I can say out of personal experience that Delta 3200 and Pyrocat-HD are not a good combination. After various tests using various methods, I couldn't get more than E.I. 400 out of it.

 

[Neal]

Hi Matus,

As this is your first time with the lab, you may have to zero in your exposure method to get good results with them. The beauty of color film is that the process is "canned". As long as they follow the rules everyone is happy. In any case, as it seems you are going to develop on your own from now on, I'm sure you will quickly get everything adjusted to suit your needs.

Neal Wydra

 

[Michael W]

As I said - I am not so surprised that the Delta came out thin - I learned that about this film after shooting it. I am surprized by the PanF. I do not suspect the metering - as I mentioned this I have aredy tested the camera/lightmeter with chromes.

What makes a correct exposure on transparency may make for underexposure on B&W neg. You can easily give the B&W one stop more exposure than the transparency in the same light. If the negs look thin (ie no shadow detail) then it's an exposure issue, not the lab.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

Thank you for all your answers - very helpfull indeed.

If I will decide to shoot the delta again I will go EI 1600 and see what it does. As I do not plat to use this film excessively I will keep sending it to the lab. Otherwise I will consider getting the Ilfotec DD.

I still have to find out about the (rather) thin PanF - although not as thin as the delta. But I plan to develope it in Pyrocat HD soon anyhow - so I will have to test.

Thank you again.

 

[titrisol]

1. Before sending to the lab over expose a few frames at 800, 1200, 1600 and check which one you like best.... so you can expose your film like that next time

2. Ilfotec DD for amateur use is called DD-X

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

Your lab probably went straight from the box instructions concerning the development times for this film. I haven't used this combo for a few years, but at the time the box instructions were about one stop off (on the underdevelopment side.) Id ergo, if you shoot at 1600, develop as if you shot at 3200. If you shot at 3200, then use the 6400 times, etc. Don't give up on this film, it just needs more development than what the box says (or used to say).