To delta or not to delta

[joachim]

Hi,

I had three rolls of proper B&W film developed recently (Ilford SFX, FP4 plus and Delta 100, one each, all 120). I got them commercially processed by what I perceive a reputed Pro lab in the UK (their E6 work is very good). The Delta is a lot denser than the other two. Many of the frames might have suffered overexposure, but so did a few frames on the other one.

Question: Is this normal that Delta 100 turns extremely dense on overexposure or did the processing go wrong? I know that FP4 has a reputation of being pretty forgiving and Delta being more fussy.

Overall Delta has a lot less grain than FP4, but the FP4 seems to scan more easily, in particular the highlights. Though I need to be more careful about sharpening my prints that I don't boost the grain so badly. Most of my experience is with ISO 100 E6 films (Fuji Provia, Astia and Kodak E100G). They are very much no-grainers when printed 8x10 from a 6x6 slide.

Thanks.

 

[notturtle]

delta is more forgiving than acros or Tmax IMO. The 100 is very controllable in Xtol 1+2 or 3 and should scan well. It seems to me that the lab kinda screwed up your D100. FP4 captures far less detail than D100. I like both but find that the d100 is a film I have a particular liking for. With good lenses in 35mm and dilute Xtol (to which some rodinal can be added if you like) it is stunning. Fp4+ come nowhere near in 35mm IMO. FP4+ can b pretty hot in the highlights too, but it sounds like you lab just got it more right with this film.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I'm not a great technician when it comes to...well, anything much. However I love Delta 100 and never find any problems with scanning it. I've also never had a problem with dense or thin negs using it.

I know Delta 400 can be fussy regarding the chemicals used to develop it but I thought the ISO 100 stuff was a fairly good all-rounder. I've dev'ed in Rodinol, Ilfosol & DDX and had good results from all. The 400 didn't get on with Rodinol, unless it was me?!

Not much help I'm afraid but hey, bumped it up the page a bit at least!

EDIT: Or not, got here just too late

 

[joachim]

delta is more forgiving than acros or Tmax IMO. The 100 is very controllable in Xtol 1+2 or 3 and should scan well. It seems to me that the lab kinda screwed up your D100. FP4 captures far less detail than D100. I like both but find that the d100 is a film I have a particular liking for. With good lenses in 35mm and dilute Xtol (to which some rodinal can be added if you like) it is stunning. Fp4+ come nowhere near in 35mm IMO. FP4+ can b pretty hot in the highlights too, but it sounds like you lab just got it more right with this film.

Hi, thanks for the input. I am looking to shoot in 6x6. Your reply reads that I should go ahead and try to print them and perhaps have another roll before passing judgement.

 

[jmcd]

A properly exposed and developed neg of Delta 100 should not look dense. If the shadows are extra dense on the negative, there is too much exposure. If the overall negative is dense, there is too much development for the given exposure. If a negative is overexposed but developed normally, it is going to be too dense, though one might still squeeze a nice print out of it.

I regularly shoot Delta 100 at either 100 or 50, but alter the development time to suit. I know it does great in Xtol straight, Xtol 1:1, or D-76 1:1.

If you overexpose a whole roll you need to tell whoever is developing the film so the development time can be determined according to the exposure. Best to expose it properly for the neg that prints best and most easily, and I am sure that the same holds true for scanning.

 

[Chris101]

It shouldn't look any denser than other 100/125 speed films with the same exposure. Is the film also dark out in the sprocket holes? If so, the film may have seen too much heat before processing. I have found that delta films are somewhat susceptible to heat damage. (Of course I left a roll of trix in my car in the Arizona heat all last summer. Way dense!)

 

[back alley]

delta in ddx, mighty fine film.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Color processing is very much a by-the-book procedure. One set of chemicals, one set of times, critical temperature. B&W allows a choice of lots of developers over a range of temperatures. Not many labs do a great job with B&W anymore. It's often a miniscule part of their business, it might be done by someone with little experience. The chemicals might not be fresh. You're best off doing your own. It's not complicated, nor does it require a huge investment.

 

[Chris101]

Color processing is very much a by-the-book procedure. One set of chemicals, one set of times, critical temperature. B&W allows a choice of lots of developers over a range of temperatures. Not many labs do a great job with B&W anymore. It's often a miniscule part of their business, it might be done by someone with little experience. The chemicals might not be fresh. You're best off doing your own. It's not complicated, nor does it require a huge investment.

You got that right!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Another vote for Al's view. See also:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps how process 35-120.html

Tashi delek,

Roger

 

[joachim]

It shouldn't look any denser than other 100/125 speed films with the same exposure. Is the film also dark out in the sprocket holes? If so, the film may have seen too much heat before processing. I have found that delta films are somewhat susceptible to heat damage. (Of course I left a roll of trix in my car in the Arizona heat all last summer. Way dense!)

Thanks Chris, but it is 120 film - no sprocket holes. Also I am in Northern Europe - not that hot here right now. At the edges it is clear, I don't think that's it.

 

[joachim]

Color processing is very much a by-the-book procedure. One set of chemicals, one set of times, critical temperature. B&W allows a choice of lots of developers over a range of temperatures. Not many labs do a great job with B&W anymore. It's often a miniscule part of their business, it might be done by someone with little experience. The chemicals might not be fresh. You're best off doing your own. It's not complicated, nor does it require a huge investment.

Hi Al et al.,

Thanks for this. I have done B&W developing some time ago. I know how this goes. Right now I am not keen to do it myself. So this sounds like a set of votes for XP2 to me.

Ta
Joachim

 

[Keith]

Someone gave me a roll of Delta 100 that had been stored in a hot garden shed for about ten years or so. Eventually I thought "why not!" I ran it through my R4A and 15mm Heliar one day when I was out and developed it in Rodinal when I got home ... not quite sure what to expect. Aside from having the most vicious curl I've ever encountered in a film it was fine. It scanned nicely and I really like the tones!

 

[mh2000]

BW400CN is a better film than XP2 IMO... but in 120 I've been shooting XP2 lately because it is currently cheaper... in 35mm they cost the same so I only shoot the Kodak.

Hi Al et al.,

Thanks for this. I have done B&W developing some time ago. I know how this goes. Right now I am not keen to do it myself. So this sounds like a set of votes for XP2 to me.

Ta
Joachim