Delta 400 and XTOL

[Takkun]

Anyone else using this combo?

As I referenced in an earlier thread, I bought D400 for bulk-loading after shooting mostly Tmax and Neopan all summer. The latter is probably my all-time favorite film, but as we all lament, is no longer available in 400 speed, and I personally like supporting Ilford since they don't seem to be killing off their emulsions as much ( I was digging around with some stuff I shot way back when I joined RFF, and it was a lot of 125PX and Tmax 3200).

But enough reminiscing; my problem is I'm not getting that...crispness I remember getting with other emulsions.
I recall reading the suggestion to shoot at EI640, which I may try. If I were to do this, would I be increasing development more? I'm well versed in pulling/pushing, but not re-rating around the box speed in small increments.

 

[shadowfox]

It may have to do with exposure, have you tried bracketing your exposures to see if you get the "crispness" at certain exposure settings that you didn't expect?

If this is the case, you don't have to do anything differently when developing, just re-adjust your camera when shooting. Seems like an easier change to me than re-formulating your development process which involves more variables.

 

[ath]

If I had to find a word for D400 in XTOL it would be smooth, not crisp.
If you use XTOL undiluted it might help to increase the sharpness a little bit by using it 1+1 or even more diluted.

 

[Takkun]

Bumping this thread for a new question: Any solution for murky/grainy shadows? I've exposed cautiously to avoid blowing out highlights, but the inverse seems more the problem. Then again, this could be an issue of scanning.

Included is a shot off a recent roll in relatively flat lighting. It doesn't have that smoothness I expect (and always seem to get with Neopan!)

 

[robbeiflex]

I haven't tried D400 with Xtol, but have been developing Tri-X and HP5+ in it for years, occasionally D3200 and Tmax 3200 as well. In my experience the Xtol sweet spot is around 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop below box speed, and for the 3200s 1 stop. 1/3 for general purpose and 2/3 for higher contrast like full on sunlight ( rare here but appreciated when we have it). I also cut 10% off the recommended dev times. This works for both my scanning and printing processes. I suggest you try pulling it between 1/3 and 1 1/3, experiment with slightly shorter dev times (or agitation) and see what works for you.

Cheers,
Rob

 

[semilog]

Everything depends on how YOU meter and develop. See the Roger & Frances review of TMAX400. Same film, darkroom, cameras, developer batches, but two different photographers and two different EI ratings.

The lesson: you will have to do tests and find out what works for you.

 

[Takkun]

Interesting read, and definitely edging me toward going back to the Kodak road! Seeing as I'm shooting with the M5 and it's semi-spot meter, I've been trying to meter for the shadows rather than mid-grey.
Interestingly, everyone's been telling me that for scanning, thinner = better, yet the thin areas of my film are the noisiest/grainiest. Oh well. Testing I suppose is really the only solution, and if it weren't for the weather, I'd be doing just that.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Interestingly, everyone's been telling me that for scanning, thinner = better, yet the thin areas of my film are the noisiest/grainiest.

Not thinner but flatter, the two are very different.
Like suggested most noise is down to exposure; I guarantee if you put two people with the same camera and film both would come up with slightly different exposures.

What you need to do is meter for emerging detail, that is where the final print/scan will have tones that are 80-90% black. From there stop down two stops (you need to do this as your meter will give shadow at mid grey) this forces the shadow onto the part of the curve where density starts to build.

The above modus will give better tonality, less grain and no 'black hole' in shadow detail.
I'm surprised by the amount of people who still fail to see this simple rule and blame, film, developers etc for the noise/detail and blindly drop rated ISO to compensate without understanding why.

 

[emmef2]

After several years of using the Tmax film and developer combo I switched to Delta because that gave me, either in ID-11 or Xtol, more brilliance and crispness at the expense of a bit of highlight rendition.
However all films can be tweaked by some degree by changing exposure and development variables to better suit our needs.
In my personal opinion, this rule works less with T-grain films (TMax, Delta...) that require more shooting discipline.
You have to be careful in exposing Deltas when you develop with Xtol.
Deltas in Xtol (in 1+1, the dilution I use) are very sensitive to over or under development and agitation that can lead to either grain or blocked highlights or grey highlights and blocked shadows
This is a quick scan from a Delta 400 roll developed yesterday
The shot was taken during a very light rain and has slight levels and exposure adjustment.
It's a small pic to be seen on screen just for the purpose of the discussion, of course it is not meant to give an evaluation for tonal rendition.

 

[gsgary]

I went to a talk by Dave Butcher (Ilford master printer) and he said the best developer for Delta 400 is DDX