Delta 400, pull query following boo-boo

[r.glynn]

I shot a roll of Delta 400 yesterday. Unfortunately, I'd used my 35mm

to take a light reading for an old Seagull TLR using FP4 and had

reset the 35mm to 100asa to take the reading. Stupidly, I forgot to

change the reading back and shot a roll of Delta 400 at 100 asa. I

don't want to lose the shots as I couldn't replace them. I can fnd

recommendations for time/developer combinations for pulling Delta 400

a couple of stops to 200asa , but not for the 3 stop overexposure

I've used. Does anybody have any experience of or suggestions for

getting a decent(ish) set of negs out?

[marc_leest1]

The good news is that you only overexposed 2 stops. To salvage the film

use a low energy developer as Perceptol and develop for 200 iso.

If you are not sure and the pictures are unreplaceble, shoot a testfilm similar exposed as the Delta400 and experiment until you find a satisfactory development time.

[skygzr]

Most films are usually best shot at something slower than what is on the box. For instance, Neopan 400 in D76 is really about a 200 film. Shooting it at 100 is really only a 1 stop 'overexposure'.

 

When I slow down and use a tripod, I routinely expose for the shadows and let the high values fall where they may. So, a scene that calls for 1/60 at f/11 with an averaging meter might get 1/15 at f/11 (with a spot meter), a two-stop 'overexposure'. The exposure latitude of modern B&W films is such that I would never consider adjusting development. You just get a denser negative. In Zone speak, Ive moved the highlights from say, Zone VII to Zone X (or higher). Theres plenty of room up there, believe me. Of course, your paper cant accommodate a range like that; you have to burn and dodge if you want to see both the shadows and the highlights.

 

If it were MY film, I wouldnt change anything. Just develop as normal and print through a slightly denser negative.

[oskar_ojala]

Somewhat unfortunately, Delta 400 actually performs very well at 400, so you should definitely alter development - overdevelopment doesn't look good. You've got a 2 stop overexposure, so take the time for 200 and extrapolate (eg. Ilfotec DD-X on the massive dev chart is 8 min. for 400 and 6 min. for 200, so 5 min. should be enough in your case.) An easier way is to just subtract a little from the time for 200 (this isn't zone system anyway.)

[andy_piper2]

I'd second Marc's recommendation - if the pix are really important, bang off a full 120 roll of Delta 400 overexposed the same amount under similar lighting, and run a test. In the dark you can cut off a part of the test roll and re-roll the rest and put it in a light-proof box - so you can probably test 2-3 different development times from one roll.

 

Delta 400 is not happy with overexposure - it is a good 1/3rd stop faster than most other "400" films to begin with, and tends to compress highlights even at 400 ( I shoot it at 640-800 using "normal" development). So you will have a printing challenge. It will also grain up quite a bit - but since you shot 120 that won't be as big a problem as if it were 35mm.

[r.glynn]

Thanks to you all for the advice. I think I will be using a mix of all. I'll shoot a 35mm roll in similar conditions and test clips starting with normal development & shortening. In fact, as there is a roll in the same camera with 16 shots left, I'll start by finishing that at 100asa and clipping that.

Your time and comments are very much appreciated. I will post how I get on. In fact, 'bout time I put some more shots up anyway.