John Bragg
Well-known
oscroft said:
Quite so. It is always easier to increase contrast from a flat neg, than to try and rescue burnt out detail in an over contrasty one.
Regards, John.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I can't add much more here, except to say that what I like about HC-110, in addition to its flexibility, is that it gives negs (at least Tri-X, I haven't worked much with Delta or other tabular emulsions) "bite". By that I mean that once you get your exposure and times down, you get good separation of highlight values, but enough guts in the middle and (especially) lower values to give the photo some power. Of course you can control this (again, the flexibility), but getting the kind of guts/tonal separation balance from other combinations can be more difficult. Rodinal is similar (and I prefer it in some ways), but has a somewhat different feel and is not everyone's cup of single malt.
Ronald M
Veteran
The new Delta 400 ( revised about 3/4 years back) seems to work best with Xtol or DDx. The old line developers like D76, HC110, etc worked much better with the original Delta 400. I switched to another film because I will not use those developers.
I was dying waiting for the revised D400 to show locally. I was very disappointed until I tried it in Xtol and DDx. It is really really nice in them.
Film that prints with a condenser enlarger and #2 paper or diffusion enlarger with #3 will scan well. More contrast is a problem.
In an emergency, make dark and light scans and merge in PS similar to HDR.
http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/tutorials-video.htm
Use the video on blended exposure.
I was dying waiting for the revised D400 to show locally. I was very disappointed until I tried it in Xtol and DDx. It is really really nice in them.
Film that prints with a condenser enlarger and #2 paper or diffusion enlarger with #3 will scan well. More contrast is a problem.
In an emergency, make dark and light scans and merge in PS similar to HDR.
http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/tutorials-video.htm
Use the video on blended exposure.
Last edited:
oscroft
Veteran
Well, we had a nice sunny day today with contrasty lighting, so that was my opportunity. I had a Delta 400 film half-finished in my Olympus XA so I finished that off at ISO 400, and then I shot another film at ISO 200.
Using HC-110 dilution H, I've developed the ISO 400 one for 15 minutes and the ISO 200 one for 12 minutes, agitating for 30 secs to start and then only 5 secs every 2 minutes. I've just hung them up to dry, and at first sight they look good. They don't look too contrasty and I can see detail in the shadows, and the density looks good in both cases.
I'll scan them tomorrow when they're dry and share the results, but for now I'm cautiously optimistic
Thanks again to everyone for the advice.
Using HC-110 dilution H, I've developed the ISO 400 one for 15 minutes and the ISO 200 one for 12 minutes, agitating for 30 secs to start and then only 5 secs every 2 minutes. I've just hung them up to dry, and at first sight they look good. They don't look too contrasty and I can see detail in the shadows, and the density looks good in both cases.
I'll scan them tomorrow when they're dry and share the results, but for now I'm cautiously optimistic
Thanks again to everyone for the advice.
x-ray
Veteran
First I've not seen any real change in Delta 400 over the past 10 years. Early in it's production there was a dramatich change but in the past few years there's been little change as far as my results go. My negs look and print as they did 10 years ago.
HC and HC110 are somewhat compensating in effect. They tend to keep detail in the extreme highlights and full shadow speed. I first learned of HC110 when I was studying with Ansel Adams in 1975. HC110 became his 1st choice developer and put me onto it. It's been my general purpose developer ever since and Rodinal with slow emulsions like KB14 / 25.
HC and HC110 are somewhat compensating in effect. They tend to keep detail in the extreme highlights and full shadow speed. I first learned of HC110 when I was studying with Ansel Adams in 1975. HC110 became his 1st choice developer and put me onto it. It's been my general purpose developer ever since and Rodinal with slow emulsions like KB14 / 25.
John Bragg
Well-known
oscroft said:Well, we had a nice sunny day today with contrasty lighting, so that was my opportunity. I had a Delta 400 film half-finished in my Olympus XA so I finished that off at ISO 400, and then I shot another film at ISO 200.
Using HC-110 dilution H, I've developed the ISO 400 one for 15 minutes and the ISO 200 one for 12 minutes, agitating for 30 secs to start and then only 5 secs every 2 minutes. I've just hung them up to dry, and at first sight they look good. They don't look too contrasty and I can see detail in the shadows, and the density looks good in both cases.
I'll scan them tomorrow when they're dry and share the results, but for now I'm cautiously optimistic
Thanks again to everyone for the advice.
Glad to hear it Alan. I look foreward to seeing the results of your efforts.
Regards, John.
oscroft
Veteran
Delta 400 in HC-110 dilution H @ ISO 400
Delta 400 in HC-110 dilution H @ ISO 400
These shots are from a roll of Delta 400 exposed at ISO 400 and developed in HC-110 dilution H for 15 minutes, with 30 secs initial agitation then just 5 seconds every 2 minutes (I use the twiddling stick thing for agitation because my tanks leak if I invert them).
These were shot in bright sunlight, and you can clearly see how the highlights have been held back. I also think these show nice mid tone gradation too - the first shot is an example of that.
In the second shot (it might be hard to see in the small version here) there is good shadow detail in and under the tree, and the houses in the distance are in bright sunlight but have not burned out - the roadsign across the road is clearly readable in the full size shot, and I'd normally have expected that to burn out. The shot does possibly look a bit flat though, so it might have been better with a little more agitation for a bit more contrast.
The third shot I chose because the optician's shop has bright white tiles on it and is in full early afternoon sun. But there is no burn-out, and the tiles are well demarked.
(continued...)
Delta 400 in HC-110 dilution H @ ISO 400
These shots are from a roll of Delta 400 exposed at ISO 400 and developed in HC-110 dilution H for 15 minutes, with 30 secs initial agitation then just 5 seconds every 2 minutes (I use the twiddling stick thing for agitation because my tanks leak if I invert them).
These were shot in bright sunlight, and you can clearly see how the highlights have been held back. I also think these show nice mid tone gradation too - the first shot is an example of that.
In the second shot (it might be hard to see in the small version here) there is good shadow detail in and under the tree, and the houses in the distance are in bright sunlight but have not burned out - the roadsign across the road is clearly readable in the full size shot, and I'd normally have expected that to burn out. The shot does possibly look a bit flat though, so it might have been better with a little more agitation for a bit more contrast.
The third shot I chose because the optician's shop has bright white tiles on it and is in full early afternoon sun. But there is no burn-out, and the tiles are well demarked.
(continued...)
Attachments
John Bragg
Well-known
Well done Alan. Good tonality. Would be interesting to see EI 200 and 12 mins as a test.
oscroft
Veteran
Delta 400 in HC-110 dilution H @ ISO 200
Delta 400 in HC-110 dilution H @ ISO 200
These shots are from Delta 400 exposed at ISO 200 and developed for 12 minutes (using the same dilution and agitation as before). Also shot in the same bright sunlight (immediately after the previous film was finished).
I've chosen three shots that would normally present highlight/shadow problems, and I think the development method tackles them well. The shadow detail in the first one is quite remarkable, I think, considering that the railings were very bright and did not burn out.
The second shot, of the trees, was shot against the light and, I think, really shows the compensating effect.
I've included the last shot because, even though it shows the compensating effect and has retained detail in all the different tones without burning out highlights, I think it does perhaps look a bit flat. But it is a very workable negative, and tweaking up the contrast a little would not be hard either in a wet print or a scan.
On the whole, I really like the way the shadows work when shot at ISO 200 and developed this way. I think in a lot of situations I'd be getting a bit too much compensation, so I need to try with a little more agitation. And for dull and flat lighting I might stick with dilution B, but I'm very impressed by the versatility of HC-110 used in this way. And as I'm off shooting in very contrasty tropical light soon, using contrasty lenses, I think the way I processed this film might be just right.
Thanks again, all, for the advice - any thoughts on these results welcomed.
(And one last thought - isn't it a shame that you can't develop the same negative in lots of different ways for comparison?)
Delta 400 in HC-110 dilution H @ ISO 200
These shots are from Delta 400 exposed at ISO 200 and developed for 12 minutes (using the same dilution and agitation as before). Also shot in the same bright sunlight (immediately after the previous film was finished).
I've chosen three shots that would normally present highlight/shadow problems, and I think the development method tackles them well. The shadow detail in the first one is quite remarkable, I think, considering that the railings were very bright and did not burn out.
The second shot, of the trees, was shot against the light and, I think, really shows the compensating effect.
I've included the last shot because, even though it shows the compensating effect and has retained detail in all the different tones without burning out highlights, I think it does perhaps look a bit flat. But it is a very workable negative, and tweaking up the contrast a little would not be hard either in a wet print or a scan.
On the whole, I really like the way the shadows work when shot at ISO 200 and developed this way. I think in a lot of situations I'd be getting a bit too much compensation, so I need to try with a little more agitation. And for dull and flat lighting I might stick with dilution B, but I'm very impressed by the versatility of HC-110 used in this way. And as I'm off shooting in very contrasty tropical light soon, using contrasty lenses, I think the way I processed this film might be just right.
Thanks again, all, for the advice - any thoughts on these results welcomed.
(And one last thought - isn't it a shame that you can't develop the same negative in lots of different ways for comparison?
)Attachments
John Bragg
Well-known
Like these A lot. You really got it right with the trees.Lovely shadow detail. I prefer them to the EI 400.
oscroft
Veteran
Thanks, I prefer them too - unless things are really dull I think I'm going to be sticking with 200 and adjusting the agitation for fine control. (As well as the improvements seen here, it's also going to give me better latitude for difficult conditions).
(I can take no credit for getting the exposures right, btw - that was all down to the AE on my little Olympus XA
)
madNbad
Well-known
Reviving a very old thread. To scratch the GAS itch, without making any major expenditures, trying an emulsion I haven't used before seems to be the most economical way. T-Max 400 is the film I have the most experience with followed by T-Max 100. I like the T grain films and decided to give Delta 400 a try. Currently, I have two developers on hand, HC-110 and Rollei R09. The 400 speed films are always used with a yellow filter with an adjusted ISO of 200 then developed in HC-110 Dilution B for six minutes. Just curious if there is any new information or if a thirteen year old thread is the best available?
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I am a big fan of HC110 but Delta 400 is not a good match. You will struggle with keeping the highlights in check with dilution B, especially if you shot the film in bright daylight.
Having shot 4 films trying to figure out a dilution/time that i like best, i reached the conclusion that shot at 400Asa, 6ml of developer in 294ml of water / 20 oC and 12.5mins. This gave me the following negatives:
Having shot 4 films trying to figure out a dilution/time that i like best, i reached the conclusion that shot at 400Asa, 6ml of developer in 294ml of water / 20 oC and 12.5mins. This gave me the following negatives:
madNbad
Well-known
Thanks. Normally, I develop one roll at a time in a 250 ml single reel tank but have a two reel tank on hand to ensure enough developer for dilution H. Everything seems to point to lower concentrations and longer developing times. I do have a bottle of Ilfotec HC but was keeping it in reserve for when my old formula HC-110 runs out.
Freakscene
Obscure member
This is what I do with all films with HC-110 - 6mL of concentrate per film, water to fill the development tank and adjust time. It works really well. But I agree that Delta 400 and HC-110 aren’t a great match. I prefer Xtol.
Marty
charjohncarter
Veteran
I am a big fan of HC110 but Delta 400 is not a good match. You will struggle with keeping the highlights in check with dilution B, especially if you shot the film in bright daylight.
Having shot 4 films trying to figure out a dilution/time that i like best, i reached the conclusion that shot at 400Asa, 6ml of developer in 294ml of water / 20 oC and 12.5mins. This gave me the following negatives:
^^^^^^
Wow, an overcast day with as much sparkle as the subjects. You can't do better that. The top one is a winner.