Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,228   Posts: 1,532,710   Online: 698
      
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Helinophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    562
    Images
    20

    Problem: Ilford delta 3200 (IE1000) in Tetenal Ultrafin 1:20? =)

    Hi

    Been back home at my parents for Christmas and I brought a few films with me, to shoot in 35mm.
    Naturally Christmas is pretty dark most places, so I opted for Delta 400, Delta 3200 and a roll of TMax 100 (which I pushed to 200, that came out nicely by increasing dev time by 25% to 10 minutes at 1+10).

    The two Delta 400's were shot at box speed, and I mostly got the dev times down for those from the net. (going to develop one film at a time, in case i foul up and need to adjust).

    However, the Delta 3200, shot at 1000, pose a few problems that I hope someone here could answer:

    Question 1:
    The official time (on the bottle) for Delta 3200 in Tetenal Ultrafin, is 1+10 dilution for 9 minutes (20 degrees), continuous slow inversions. (or every 3 seconds as it says).
    - I am thinking that I may get a smoother (less contrasty) result in 1+20. Is it correct that a more diluted dev and longer dev time should "flatten" the contrast levels a bit?.


    The time, 9 minutes at 1+10, cannot be directly translated into 18 minutes at 1+20 for tetenal ultrafin, it just doesn't work that way.
    ( see http://www.blende7.at/datenblaetter/...SW_tetenal.pdf and massive dev chart)
    The factor to multiply with when you go from 1+10 to 1+20, varies wildly, from 1.66 to 1,83 on the Ilford films that are listed for both dilutions, to around 1 and as high as 4 for other brands.
    The mean factor that I can calculate for Ilford films is around 1.73, when you go from 1+10 to 1+20, but the data is scarce, so it is just a guess.

    Question 2:
    Lets say I run everything on 1+10 for simplicity sake.
    The official time for Delta 3200 is 9 minutes.
    I assume this means "shot at ISO 3200", even though I've read that this film is really ISO 1000. That is why I shot it at ISO 1000.
    Does this mean that the time 9 minutes in reality is the time for Delta 3200 (ISO 1000), pushed 1.5 stops? (1/2 stop from 1000 -> ~1600 and then 1 full stop more from ~1600 - 3200)??

    Question 3:
    Assuming that the official time for Delta 3200 is infact a pushed time:
    Does that imply that the time I am looking for, at ISO 1000 for 1+10 dilution, is 9 minutes minus an originally 37,5% increase do to pushing, which gives a time at around 6 minutes 30 seconds for ISO 1000?

    Or am I way off?


    Incidentally, when looking at the mean factor that the white-paper gives, when going from 1+10 to 1+20 for the few Ilford films listed, I get a factor of 1.73, meaning that a wild guess for 1+20 would be that the time from question 2 would increase to around 11 minutes, if I used 1+20?. (continuous slow inversions).
    Edit: I found one guy that developed Delta 3200 @ 3200 in tetenal ultrafin 1:20 for 14.3 minutes, so it seemes that 11 minutes for ISO 1000 may be in the ballpark.

    Any views? The Delta 3200 may be very very different from the other Deltas, so the factor may be very different for all I know.

    Off course, if anyone actually HAS any experience with Delta 3200 @ 1000 in tetenal ultrafin, feel free to share

    - I do have other developers as well, but I am currently figuring out Tetenal Ultrafin and I really want to figure this out and not chicken out
    Last edited by Helinophoto; 12-28-2011 at 07:10 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    -
    "Nice picture, you must have an amazing camera."
    Visit my photography blog at: http://helino-photo.blogspot.com

  2. #2
    Helinophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    562
    Images
    20
    Ok,

    So I did a test run, by clipping off the first 5 frames and ran that for 11 minutes at 1+20, 3 slow agitations each minute.
    These came out fair, a little thin, but printable I think, certainly scannable, good to see that I wasn't way off though.

    Delta 3200 @ 1000 for 11 minutes Tetenal Ultrafin 1+20.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	delta_3200_at_1000_1-20_11_minutes.jpg 
Views:	35 
Size:	56.7 KB 
ID:	43520

    The rest of the roll was developed for 13 minutes 15 seconds in a 1+20 dilution and these came out very nicely infact, the negatives look thicker with better highlights, but not overly done. \o/

    So, from the test today, I'd say that Delta 3200 @ EI1000, developed in Tetenal ultrafin 1+20 for 13 minutes 15 seconds, 3 slow agitations each minute works!
    Delta 3200 @ EI1000 for 13 minutes 15 seconds Tetenal ultrafin 1+20
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	delta_3200_at_1000_13minutes.jpg 
Views:	29 
Size:	52.1 KB 
ID:	43521

    It may work even better if time is extended to 14,3 minutes, like the photographer did where I first found the information.
    It is hard to tell, because I may have under-exposed my film slightly, due to no-flash and difficult low-light conditions. Also, the scanner may "even things" out a little, so it may be hard to see the difference here. When I hold the scans up in front of me though, there is a clear difference.

    Oh! I forgot the link to the place I found the information about 1+20 in the first place, here it is
    http://robertboteybeguiristain.com/2...ess-storehouse
    Last edited by Helinophoto; 12-28-2011 at 07:05 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    -
    "Nice picture, you must have an amazing camera."
    Visit my photography blog at: http://helino-photo.blogspot.com

  3. #3
    Helinophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    562
    Images
    20
    I've done some more testing now, and I see that you can ramp up the time to 15 and even 17 minutes if the scene is low contrast, the difference 13 to 17 minutes was surprisingly small, giving just a little more contrast.

    Will upload some comparison shots later today, showing the difference (from a contact sheet print) between 13, 15 and 17 minutes.
    -
    "Nice picture, you must have an amazing camera."
    Visit my photography blog at: http://helino-photo.blogspot.com

  4. #4
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,218
    Images
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Helinophoto View Post
    I've done some more testing now, and I see that you can ramp up the time to 15 and even 17 minutes if the scene is low contrast, the difference 13 to 17 minutes was surprisingly small, giving just a little more contrast.

    Will upload some comparison shots later today, showing the difference (from a contact sheet print) between 13, 15 and 17 minutes.
    Delta 3200 is a very low contrast film, as you've come to find out. Your testing seems reasonable, and I too have found that this film needs to be developed for quite a long time to give its best.
    Don't be afraid of trying some more aggressive agitation either, especially if expose the film at 1000. Every 30s will give you more contrast, which is what your longer developing times indicate that you need.
    I'm glad you figured the film out.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #5
    Helinophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    562
    Images
    20
    Thank you Thomas, the agitation scheme on these were three gentle full rotations per minute. (rotating the tank around it's own axis while turning the tank upside down and around a rull round).
    - Took about 30 seconds, but I will surely keep in mind different agitation schemes, as you correctly pointed out, the film certainly is up for it

    Here is a sample scan from a test-strip I did in the dark-room, 13 minutes at the top, 15 in the middle and 17 minutes at the bottom strip.
    The camera was set to ISO 1000 and the wall metered one stop above Dita Von Teese at the front cover (great book to steal poses from btw =) ).
    - First time I used the motor drive and "H" on my 1v, the whole film took about 3.5 seconds to burn, haha =)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	delta_3200_at_1000_13_15_17minutes.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	286.6 KB 
ID:	45525
    -
    "Nice picture, you must have an amazing camera."
    Visit my photography blog at: http://helino-photo.blogspot.com

  6. #6
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,218
    Images
    296
    It actually seems like you could develop the film even longer than 17 minutes for some real highlight zing.

    I know it sounds a bit excessive perhaps, but look at my Rodinal times with Delta 3200. Exposed at EI 1000, I develop it for 25 minutes at the strong 1+25 dilution, agitating every 3 minutes.
    I encourage you to develop even longer! The 30s agitation every minute seems like a lot, but it also looks as though it works just fine, and that's all that matters.

    I'd be interested to see what you find!
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin