Delta 3200 Fine Grain Developer

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Ara Ghajanian, Nov 18, 2005.

  1. Ara Ghajanian

    Ara Ghajanian Member

    Messages:
    368
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Location:
    Providence,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Good morning,
    I'm shooting some Delta 3200 for indoor available light nudes this weekend. I'm looking for a developer that will produce fine grain with this type of film. What do you recommend for Delta 3200? I've been using Rodinal with medium speed films lately and I feel it would be a bad choice since the high accutance charateristics will only make the grain appear more pronounced. I want results that are not only fine grain, but that have good tonal gradations. I'll be shooting 35mm and 120, by the way. I want to get away from the Rodinal look also, so any developer you can recommend that will work well with other Ilford films is fine too. I've never tried the Ilford brand of chemicals and would be interested in supporting this fine company.
    Thanks in advance,
    Ara
     
  2. jim appleyard

    jim appleyard Member

    Messages:
    2,126
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    You've got a bunch to choose from: D-76, D-23, D-25, Microdol-X, Perceptol, X-tol, and from the Formulary; MCM-100, 12, and of course the pyro's.

    I'm sure others will add to the long list of fine-grain dev.
     
  3. fhovie

    fhovie Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,247
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Port Hueneme
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Microphen is the best for this application. It pushes well and is very fine grain. You can also mix it up yourself if you have the chemicals.
     
  4. titrisol

    titrisol Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Ilford DDX or Clayton F76+ are the ones I've had the best results with.

    I believe Xtol will be just as good.

    D3200 with Rodinal will give you a speed of 1000 approx.
     
  5. Rlibersky

    Rlibersky Member

    Messages:
    779
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Location:
    St Paul MN
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    I've used Ilford ID11 with good success.
     
  6. André E.C.

    André E.C. Member

    Messages:
    1,520
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Location:
    Finland
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Wonderful in Ilfotec DD-X!

    Cheers

    André
     
  7. Ara Ghajanian

    Ara Ghajanian Member

    Messages:
    368
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Location:
    Providence,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks for the replies so far.

    I've been doing some reading here and there and it seems like DD-X is a good choice. I've been looking at the Massive Development chart for times. Any recommendations for EI3200? I may pick some up tomorrow from Hunt's in Providence when I go to pick up their last bottle of Rodinal.
    sniff :sad:
    Ara
     
  8. Ara Ghajanian

    Ara Ghajanian Member

    Messages:
    368
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Location:
    Providence,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Actually, while we're on the subject of Rodinal... how do you think Delta 3200 in 120 would look in Rodinal 1+50? Obviously, I'm not as concerned with grain size as with 35mm, but how would the tonality appear? Any experiences?
    Ara
     
  9. 2Ldude

    2Ldude Member

    Messages:
    32
    Joined:
    May 9, 2003
    Location:
    Cheyenne, Wy
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have used PMK 1:2:100 68degree's Agitation Cycle: 5sec every 30sec Total dev time: 9:00min all this in stainless steel tank.

    I have data I picked up somewhere for Pyrocat and will post it later when I get home.
     
  10. Soeren

    Soeren Member

    Messages:
    2,342
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Location:
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Now you are talking :smile: Thats a question I'd like to ´know the answer to.
    I am planing to do some nudes of my girl/wife/whaetever on Delta 3200
    size 120 and develop it in Rodinal. So far the mantraon APUG has been (IIRC) e.g. shoot as 1600 dev as 3200. So wghat to expect :smile:
    Søren
     
  11. kaiyen

    kaiyen Member

    Messages:
    331
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Location:
    bay area, ca
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I know that with Microphen, Ilford's times in the past have been off by one whole stop. ie - if you shot at 3200, you need to dev at Ilford's recommend time for 6400. I am not sure if that's the case with DDX, but you might want to research that.

    I use 13:00 in Microphen 1+0, normal agitation at 20C.

    allan
     
  12. titrisol

    titrisol Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yes, I prefer developing by 1 extra stop with DDX
     
  13. Ara Ghajanian

    Ara Ghajanian Member

    Messages:
    368
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Location:
    Providence,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    So if I shoot at 3200 I should develop for 6400? Interesting.

    I have half a roll of Delta 3200 I shot at a club that I haven't processed yet. The lighting is going to be different than what I am attempting this weekend (stage lights vs. table lamps and ambient indoor light), do you think that would be a good roll to do a quick development time test with? Since I'm shooting multiple rolls, maybe I'll develop them separately and check densities and adjust accordingly.

    Thanks for the advice Kaiyen & Titrisol, you just saved my stuff from being underexposed by a stop.
    Ara
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. Leon

    Leon Member

    Messages:
    2,075
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Location:
    Kent, Englan
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    rate it at between 800 and 1600 and process in perceptol 1:3. long dev times but wonderful negs
     
  16. kaiyen

    kaiyen Member

    Messages:
    331
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Location:
    bay area, ca
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well, that's the case with Microphen and, apparently, also with DDX as per Pablo/titrisol's experiences.

    Well, Delta 3200 is a pretty low contrast film. For the stage lighting, you'll probably get great results using a developer like DDX or microphen, both of which are relatively low contrast developers. That combination will probably give you some nice negatives.

    You may want to consider that dim, low contrast lighting might not work as well with Delta 3200. Just something to think about. Pushing a slower filim might give it more snap, and the grain will be smaller (though probably more intense).

    So...never hurts to do a test roll, but I don't know if it'll be as useful since the lighting is so different.

    from being under_developed_ by a stop :smile:

    allan
     
  17. df cardwell

    df cardwell Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,341
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Location:
    Dearborn,Mic
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'll vote for DD-X.

    Here's a hint: Shoot at 3200 ( or whatever ) but shoot a test roll that you can cut into short clips for development testing.

    Take a careful look at the Ilford poop sheet:
    http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/delta3200.pdf


    With DDX, EI 1600 is a normal gamma of .58 ( 8 minutes )
    EI 3200 ( 9 1/2 minutes ) you're still normal-ish, at .65.

    The curves suggest a shoulder in fleshtone highlights, the 9 1/2 ' development time is probably a better choice than 8, it'll push the highlights back up where you expect them to be... confirming the advice given here ... develop for the next highest EI. The 12' time, though, promises a pretty high density for the highlights, but not dangerous !

    Whether you're using Ilford or Kodak 3200, the negs will present the information in a different way than you accustomed. Have a great time.
     
  18. titrisol

    titrisol Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks to Lowell I received a sample of F76+ last february.

    I thiink it is comparable to DDX in times and results.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2005
  19. timeUnit

    timeUnit Member

    Messages:
    558
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Göteborg, Sw
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  20. KenM

    KenM Member

    Messages:
    800
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Location:
    Calgary, Alb
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I recently shot a roll of Delta 3200, EI 1600 developed in DDX 1+4 for 8.5 minutes. I had to increase constrast a fair bit (I think it was 75M) to get the print I was aiming for. I think I'll probably increase the time to 9.5 minutes for the next roll...

    The shots was made outside, in the shade with some sunlight. One shot was of my dog leaping over my prone wife....You've gotta love it when you can do stop action with medium format cameras with a long lens, and have everything be tack sharp - well, everything that needs to be sharp! I'll post the image tonite when I get home in the tech gallery....
     
  21. lee

    lee Member

    Messages:
    2,913
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Location:
    Fort Worth T
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Pablo,

    I am sure you are thankful for Lowell Huff and his F76 and development info. The fact that he is not a subscriber or sponsor means he does not look at APUG.ORG as anything other than a place he can sell his goods without paying any commission. This is abuse in my opinion.

    lee\c
     
  22. Ole

    Ole Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,284
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Bergen, Norw
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    The moderating team is aware of mr. Huff's recent activity on the forum, and are currently debating whether to stop him before or after he ensures that no APUG subscriber will ever buy one of Clayton Chemical's producs.
     
  23. kaiyen

    kaiyen Member

    Messages:
    331
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Location:
    bay area, ca
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Lee,
    I didn't get the impression that Pablo stated an opinion either way on Lowell's marketing tactics.

    I think F76+ is pretty good, too, and was able to try it out from a sample from Lowell, too. I am not saying that his methods are good or bad, but am merely pointing out that contacting him may yield an opportunity to try it out, too.

    allan
     
  24. Robert Budding

    Robert Budding Member

    Messages:
    467
    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Location:
    Arlington, M
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I recently tried DDX with a roll of 120 Delta 3200 shot at EI 1600. First attempt was at a friend's recommended dilution of 1:15 @ 68 degrees for 14 min (2 inversions each minute). The negs looked really good. Decent shadow detail and highlights not too dense, the way that I like them. Still haven't printed them, but I expect a 2.5 or 3 filter will work well.

    Nice film/developer combination. But I really need to shoot some film tests,
     
  25. gnashings

    gnashings Inactive

    Messages:
    1,376
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Location:
    Oshawa, Onta
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Ara,

    I speak from limited experience, as after trying it I disliked the results so much that I didn't do it again - but - Rodinal 1+50 with Delta 3200 @ 3200 standard agitation (30se c then 10 sec each minute) gave me the following results:
    - BOULDER like grain
    - low contrast
    - slightly thin negs

    Now, I know that the latter two could be worked on, but even a grain phile like me couldn't find the grain attractive (these were candids, indoors - woman and baby, if I recall correctly). Perhaps for different subject matter (foggy landscapes? I actually think that is something I may try for the specific look...), with a little more agitation and dev time, it would be ok - but not for people shots, at least not the way I did it - especially with a baby!
    Of course, please take these observations with the disclaimer of having them come from a relative beginner, and someone who didn't like enough about the results to try any further fine-tuning.
    I too, have had best results with Micrphen 1+0, and still found the film to be a little "blah" for human subjects. As you can surely derive from the useage of the highly technical term "blah", this is a highly subjective observation:smile:

    Best of luck!

    Peter.
     
  26. pauldc

    pauldc Member

    Messages:
    188
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format