Delta 100 @ iso 2000 - It can be done

Phoenix Phil said:
So now that there is a film / developer combination that works to 2000 ISO, what camera is capable of 2000 ISO? I know that the newer film cameras will support the expanded ISO range but the older cameras won't (and those are the ones of interest).
Click to expand...
Not sure what you really mean. There are both cameras capable to meter up to 12800 ISO and films giving acceptable results at those speeds.
 
Stand development with Rodinal (and now with the X-Tol, apparently) seems to work when left for 2 hours. It doesn't seem to matter if the Rodinal dilution is 1:100 or 1:200. That seems counterintuitive, and my "data" is not really data, just anecdotal memory of what I've read here and there.

But I've never seen such good results with a medium speed film; most of what I've seen is with Tri-X, HP5+, etc. I wouldn't go out of my way to underexpose Delta 100, T-Max, etc. and use this technique, but if I get in a jam like Robert did, it's good to know it can be done.

I could never duplicate Merciful's (Andrew's) results with Tri-X @ 12500, but I think if I did stand development for the full 2 hours, it would work.

I agree, Robert -- the midtones are surprisingly good.
 
Thanks for all the comments. I've been asked to expound on my developing technique using Rodinal and Xtol. I had first read about it on APUG, and a thread there led me to this page: Appreciating Rodinal. Scrolling down the page you can see a formula for mixing Rodinal and Xtol by Sam Elkind. He ended up settling on a mixture that was basically 1+100 Rodinal and 1:4 Xtol.

I have tried it with a number of films, but have found it to be particularly good with Delta 100. It gives it a wide tonal range with good edge contrast. I particularly like the way it treats highlights, giving them a nice translucent quality. The mixture that has worked best for me is 1+100 Rodinal and 1:1 Xtol, rating the Delta 100 at 100 iso:

150 ml Water
150 ml Xtol
3 ml Rodinal
9.5 min. @ 20 deg. C

Some examples using this dilution:

821874179_0b87b9ac13.jpg


687429709_5ffcdfca22.jpg


879824107_d9e9e3c201.jpg
 
Nice Robert. Is that first one the old Amtrak station on 16th in Oakland?
 
sherm said:
As one who doesn't shoot a large amount of B&W, I'm going to ask the "dumb" qquestion as to why these are appealing??? I mean no offense, just trying to learn more from you guys. Is it the grain, the contrast , shadows etc.......

Thanks and apologies for what may be brutally obvious to the more knowledgeable folks..........
Click to expand...

I don't think it's just the contrast and tones, but B&W films seem to come alive with textures. B&W film looks "organic" compared to converted digital picture.

I just saw the samples from a review of the B&W performance of the top of the line Canon DSLR today, so it's still fresh in my mind how the sample pictures in the review didn't impact me as Robert's pictures here.

Sorry, I definitely don't want to turn this into F vs D debate, I'm just learning along.


Robert, you rock! ;)
 
Wayne: If I had only 25 sheets of Delta 100 I wouldn't be using them this way. No offense, but I'd rate them at their true speed, "normal" development, etc. I'd want to get the max out of the film. If I had 200 sheets, that would be a different story. I'm just sayin! ;)
 
I have been thinking about this thread for a month now. I had to go to Mexico last week to get it out of my mind. And then Trius revived it. Maybe, with Rodinal (1+100) all you have to do is shoot 'in the ballpark' (or out of the ballpark) and then stand develop for something (or anything) over an hour, forget about temp, and agitate enough to not get bromide streaks.

Manzanillo:

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom