Delta 400 developing

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by pecama, Dec 2, 2011.

  1. pecama

    pecama Member

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Location:
    Koper, Slove
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hi everyone,

    I'm wondering what are your experiences with the Ilford Delta 400 and developping it in Tetenal Ultrafin PLUS 1+4 @ 20°C?
    I found so many informations and feel a little bit confused at the moment, because some say 7 min, some 8min, some even 10 or 12!

    What should I do? Can you give me any good advice?


    Thank you very much!

    m
     
  2. michael_r

    michael_r Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,536
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Try looking on the massive development chart at digitaltruth.com.

    Not that those times will be correct, but maybe a decent starting point. Once you have a starting point it's a matter of experimenting around that until you get the results you want.
     
  3. pecama

    pecama Member

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Location:
    Koper, Slove
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    In fact when I look at the digitaltruth.com chart I get confused as it says 10min for a 1/3 stop push (ISO 500) while the chart at Tetenal says 7min for ISO 400... 3minutes are quite a lot for just a 1/3 stop of difference. :S

    Right at the moment I'm inclined to develop it for 8minutes with 15seconds of agitation every minute.
     
  4. michael_r

    michael_r Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,536
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Probably a good place to start.
     
  5. NB23

    NB23 Member

    Messages:
    1,073
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Shooter:
    35mm
    The digital truth charts are baloney. I could sit down one afternoon and create charts that would be more accurate then theirs.
    Just look at the tri-x chart, for example.

    The best way to get accurate times is on the maker's websites.
     
  6. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,202
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    To be fair to digital truth most of its times reflect makers' times exactly or very closely. Yes some times are puzzling but I'd hate new users to be put off looking at Digitalthruth altogether. On balance it is still a worthwhile source in my opinion.

    pentaxuser
     
  7. steven_e007

    steven_e007 Member

    Messages:
    829
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    Shropshire,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Some of the times of digitaltruth are misleading and are a mile off - but to be fair I have used manufacturers recommendations and got terrible results sometimes, too.

    If you read Ilord's times for an Ilford film in an Ilford developer then it will be pretty close, only local water oddities and unusual agitation or other foibles will need to be adjusted for.... but often independent chemical makers give times that are a long way off the mark. I think maybe they sometimes quote data from an earlier version of the film and since then the films have had a make-over.
     
  8. michael_r

    michael_r Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,536
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yeesh. I was just suggesting digitaltruth as a potential source for a STARTING POINT if there is nothing else.
     
  9. MaximusM3

    MaximusM3 Member

    Messages:
    756
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Location:
    NY
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Why complicate life? Get some DDX and follow Ilford's recommendations. :smile:
     
  10. pecama

    pecama Member

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Location:
    Koper, Slove
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I already have the ultrafin plus (and some fomadon lqn), so the option of buying new developer isn't the best for me. :smile:
     
  11. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,202
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Have another look at Digitaltruth. If the times you quote above are from there and they seem to be or if there are not then they are coincidentally the same, they are for different speeds so there is no confusion or contradiction on Digitaltruth.

    Alternatively try the Tetenal site for times to see what it says. As others have said makers' times are often the best starting points

    pentaxuser
     
  12. NB23

    NB23 Member

    Messages:
    1,073
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Shooter:
    35mm
    The problem today is that people try to be all fancy with their developing methods: stand, semi-stand, funky inversions and so on.
     
  13. pecama

    pecama Member

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Location:
    Koper, Slove
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I've been checking on the internet for hours now with no results, this means I'll go with some improvisation again :smile: 8 minutes with 15seconds of agitation every minute. Let see what will come out, I'll post some results as soon as I get to the scanner at school.
     
  14. Rudeofus

    Rudeofus Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,569
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    My advice would be you use add up all the times people recommend here or elsewhere and divide the result by the number of recommendations. Use this as starting point for some not so important pics and you will most likely get some useful results. It's not like film blows up or creates completely invisible results if you over- or underdevelop by 30%. If you like the results you get well there you go. If you'd like more/less contrast, develop longer/shorter the next time. If your highlights/shadows block, expose less/more. It's not rocket science and after 1 or 2 iterations you should get pretty decent results, using your ISO rating and your dev times.
     
  15. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    15,206
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Here is the good news. Even if you were able to find one more source for developing time of your film and developer combination, how does that change anything? You still have a handful of different starting times.

    The first time you develop something with an unknown variable, you have to expect a bit of a learning curve. So the suggestion of picking something right in the middle, develop according to that, analyze the results, and learning from that lesson is the best you can hope for. Next roll you expose and process the film to address any issues you saw the first time. You could get lucky and get it perfect the first time around, but that would be luck.

    So, EXPECT to have to tweak the time to suit your work flow. It always takes a few rolls to get the hang of a new combination, and then it'll take a few dozen to really get it perfect.

    Good luck. Have fun!
     
  16. michaelbsc

    michaelbsc Member

    Messages:
    2,106
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Location:
    South Caroli
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    +1, maybe + a few dozen.
     
  17. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,473
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Assuming you have already determined your personal exposure index, proceed as follows:

    Shoot a blank frame then shoot a frame of a uniformly illuminated object 3 stops over exposes. Fill the rest of the roll with pictures. Guess at a development time. Put a blank (clear) piece of processed film in the negative carrier and determine minimum exposure for maximum black on your usual paper (grade 2 or whatever). Put the frame 3 stops over in the enlarger. Cover 1/2 the paper and expose for the minimum exposure for maximum black time you previously determined.
    You have 3 possible results:
    Paper is all white = you overdeveloped so process the next roll with 25% less time.
    Paper is just slightly gray on one side = you developed appropriately
    Paper is very noticeably gray on one side = you underdeveloped, so process the next roll with 25% more time
     
  18. pecama

    pecama Member

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Location:
    Koper, Slove
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Here I am after a long time. In the end I processed the delta 400 in Fomadon LQN 1+9 for 8 minutes and it turned just OK. Thank you everyone for your help and kindness! Surely I'll have to stick on experimenting with films a little bit more to get the optimal results for my work.
     
  19. skahde

    skahde Member

    Messages:
    427
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    In case you want to try the Ultrafin Plus nevertheless:Ultrafin Plus is Tetenals formulation of TMax Developer and I never could tell anything apart between them except the packaging. Just have a look at Kodaks charts, look at up times for D400 and there you go.
     
  20. John Austin

    John Austin Member

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Location:
    Southern For
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Try several combinations and print them on Grade 2 paper with your own enlarger - the ASA setting and dev' time that gives you the best straight print is the one to use - Or try Fomadon P (ID11/D76), when you get good results from that combination use that neg' as a comparison for your Tetenal dev' time tests