Best film developer for Ilford Delta 100

[Neonshaw]

Hi All...this is my 1st post.
I am sure everyone has their own opinion; I have been using Ilfosol 3 film developer to develop my Delta 100 film and LC 29 for the Delta 400 ...in the most part I have been happy but curious if there are any better options on the market... thoughts.

 

[Freakscene]

The ascorbate developers provide good speed, fine grain and very nice tonality. Xtol is probably the best example.

Marty


2024 edit: Xtol has been reformulated, has had problems and may not be the best choice. Adox XT-3 and Moersch Eco are very good.

 

[retinax]

You can also check out this site: http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/filmDelta100.html
I wouldn't trust these results blindly though, to me it doesn't look like they developed all samples to the same contrast, or there are differences in scanning/PP.
Xtol and Rodinal look best to me in that test. But everyone might have different criteria, you haven't let us know yours...

 

[MikeL]

For me, D-76 is my go-to for Delta 100.

 

[css9450]

Xtol and Rodinal look best to me in that test.

I use Rodinal.... I like the results. 99% of my B&W is Delta 100 and Rodinal 1:50.

 

[mcfingon]

I'd agree with Marty above that Xtol is a great all-rounder for Delta 100. If you want more edge bite and grit, I suggest a tryout of Paterson FX-39.

 

[kaiyen]

I was going to suggest FX-39 as well. I found it a remarkably good match for Delta 100.

 

[robert blu]

Not using much film now but when I do I find Ilfosol3 good for my Delta 100 based photography.

 

[Bill Clark]

Keep going like you have been going.

Get one developer that’s your go to, base line developer.

You can experiment with different developers and you may find one that suits you better.

The beauty, maybe confusing, are all the different developers for film available. This does this and that does that.

I find it interesting trying different stuff with analog black and white photography.

My base line developer for black and white film is either Ilford ID-11 or D-76. I use the Freestyle version of D-76. For finer grain, but a slight loss of speed, I will sometimes use either Ilford Perceptol or Mic-X which is available from Freestyle in Los Angeles.

Welcome to rangefinder forum.

 

[jawarden]

Hi All...this is my 1st post.
I am sure everyone has their own opinion; I have been using Ilfosol 3 film developer to develop my Delta 100 film and LC 29 for the Delta 400 ...in the most part I have been happy but curious if there are any better options on the market... thoughts.

I'd stick with Ilfosol 3 unless you can identify a problem with your prints (or scans) that you would like to fix. Changing films has a bigger impact on the final output (prints or scans) than changing developers does.

Having said that, if you're just in the mood to try something new and experiment you could try DDX or Xtol, both of which would pair nicely with Delta 100.

Welcome to the forum!

 

[Highway 61]

Excellent results with D76 1+1. A better option than Ilfosol 3 and LC-29 ? Not too sure. But less expensive, and more forgiving in any case of exposure haphazard (i.e., in case of using a meterless camera with no handheld meter either).

 

[jrose125]

I've tried it in Rodinal (1:25 and 1:50), D-76 1:1, and HC-110 (1:31) and tend to prefer it in Rodinal.

D-76 is the perfect baseline developer (in my opinion) to see what I film is really like, but I really dig the extra punch of contrast that you get with Rodinal - just be sure to agitate gently or you will get some ugly looking grain.

The best advice I can give, though, is to use what you have on hand. You can control the look of your film in ways other than developer - play with the temperature, agitation, developing time, etc, and you can (sometimes) drastically change the final outcome.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

"Best" is a questionable word here. It depends on your preferences & style. I use Pyrocat HD in glycol for pretty much every situation. fpr 35, medium & large format

 

[robert blu]

We do not know if the OP will than scan or wet print. In both cases it is possible to work on the look of the final image also with postprocessing or darkroom work.

Unless it is desired a very specific look personally I prefer what is easier to use, what we have on hand.

Just my idea which of course could be wrong 🙂

 

[retinax]

We do not know if the OP will than scan or wet print. In both cases it is possible to work on the look of the final image also with postprocessing or darkroom work.

Unless it is desired a very specific look personally I prefer what is easier to use, what we have on hand.

Just my idea which of course could be wrong 🙂

True dat! I don't scan, but I suspect that for scanning with one of the more common scanners which won't be able to resolve the grain of Delta 100 anyway, going for the finest possible grain is beneficial because it should minimize grain aliasing. Acutance can be increased with sharpening, probably an acutance developer has no benefits for scanning...?

 

[Requin]

Leicaman Erwin Puts tested Ilford Delta 100 with 3 different developers. His findings were as follows: The film was exposed at EI=64, he used Spur HRX, Spur Acurol-N and R09, comparable with Agfa Rodinal. Dilution HRX 1+20, Acurol-N 1+100 and R09 1+50.
Resolution: R09 = 60 lp/mm; Acurol-N 60 lp/mm; Spur HRX 70 lp/mm
Grain:
R 09: Very even distribution, excellent edge sharpness. Up to A4 there is hardly any grain visible. The steep curve produces a pronounced and slightly compressed mid-tonal range, but the high-lights are too dense even for burning actions. When one reduces the development times, one has to be careful to keep the shadow details in place. A very rewarding developer and because of its good shelf life a very economical one.

Acurol-N: Fine grain with compact size and a very even distribution. This produces very good edge sharpness and up to A4 there no grain is visible. Scattering in the emulsion is very low and this shows up in the plasticity of the prints.The steep curve produces a pronounced and slightly compressed mid-tonal range, and the highlights are dense, but printable.. An outstanding developer with excellent keeping properties and also a very economical one.

Spur HRX: The new two-solution HRX is a reformulated version with almost indefinite shelf life. It should be the first choice for darkroom users who shoot film at a moderate rate. Very fine grain that is very closely packed and very even distributed. This produces very good edge sharpness and up to A4 there no grain is visible. Scattering in the emulsion is extremely low and this can be seen at the edges of outlines.The shape of the curve produces a slightly expanded mid-tonal range, and the highlights can be printed without any additional burning. This is an excellent developer for Zone System users as it has a tonal range of 8 to 9 stops. Again an outstanding developer with indefinite keeping properties.

The two Schain developers are the preferred ones for exacting demands. The HRX has the finest grain and the longest tonal range. The Acurol-N is a bit more grainy, but has the additional bite of the steeper mid-range. It is a choice between subtleties, but such is the world of AgX developers. The R09 has the classical virtues of flexibiliy of dilution and high sharpness. But the price you have to pay is visually pronounced grain and a steep gradation that limits the exposure latitude and you have to be very careful not to over-expose.

Just my 2 Cents.

 

[retinax]

Interesting, I'm a little surprised it tested only at 60 -70 lp/mm. Doesn't tmx have much more resolution? I'd have expected them to be more similar there.

 

[Freakscene]

Interesting, I'm a little surprised it tested only at 60 -70 lp/mm. Doesn't tmx have much more resolution? I'd have expected them to be more similar there.

They both have much higher resolution at high contrast ratios. Kodak will tell you that TMX has resolution of 200 line pairs per mm, but probably won’t tell you that it only achieves this at 1000:1 contrast ratio.

TMX has higher resolution than D100, but with all else being equal, it’s only marginal. It is also worth noting that TMX has less acutance and although it resolves more it can look less sharp.

Marty

 

[HHPhoto]

Leicaman Erwin Puts tested Ilford Delta 100 with 3 different developers. His findings were as follows: The film was exposed at EI=64, he used Spur HRX, Spur Acurol-N and R09, comparable with Agfa Rodinal. Dilution HRX 1+20, Acurol-N 1+100 and R09 1+50.
Resolution: R09 = 60 lp/mm; Acurol-N 60 lp/mm; Spur HRX 70 lp/mm

Forget Erwin Puts film resolution tests. They are total crap. To get only 60 Lp/mm with Delta 100 and Leica lenses demonstrates very bad testing techniques.

I've got about 120 Lp/mm with Delta 100 in HRX even with my 50mm Nikon lenses. Without any problems. And at quite low object contrast (1:5 - 1:6).

In German photo magazine PhotoKlassik there was an excellent and very detailed test report about film resolution and testing method published. With almost all current films on the market.
There Delta 100 in HRX has achieved 130 Lp/mm with a Zeiss Makro-Planar, and at an object contrast of 1:4.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Rob-F]

I wonder why Puts didn't use developers most of us know about. I'm not familiar with anything he used.