Ilford Delta 400 - Exposed 8 years ago & refrigerated. Develop in Rodinal or LC29?

[photoblogger]

I've just come across some old Ilford Delta 400 that I exposed about

8 years ago... since then it's been left in a fridge and forgotten.

There are two rolls: one pushed to 800 which I have developed in LC29

(the negs came out very thin, grainy, with high contrast and hardly

any shadow detail). I have not yet developed the other roll which I

exposed at 400.

 

I have two developers available - LC29 and Rodinal. After my poor

outcome with the LC29 I'm hoping for some advice: I don't know if the

poor result is due to the age of the film or due to the LC29. Do I

need to adjust my developing times / method to account for the age of

the film or should I try the Rodinal.

 

Any help / advice would be much appreciated!

[joris_van_looveren]

"(the negs came out very thin, grainy, with high contrast and hardly any shadow detail)"

 

These sound like the symptoms of overdevelopment. Maybe use a shorter development time? I also understand that Delta films don't like to be pushed. I'd conclude that your roll at 400 will be fine in LC29.

 

Rodinal seems to generally be a bad choice for fast films.

[photoblogger]

Joris

 

Thanks for your feedback. I agree with your thoughts on the appearance of overdevelopment. The problem is that I developed using the LC29 exactly in accordance with Ilford's specifications for Delta 400, pushed to 800: 1+19, 10 mins at 68F/20C.

 

My concern is that maybe I need to compensate for the age of the film as I exposed it over eight years ago. Has anyone had experience of developing films like this?

[joris_van_looveren]

Have you been satisfied with your Delta 400 negatives @ 800 developed according to Ilford's times before?

 

If not, maybe Ilford's times are just generally too long for your taste.

 

Have you tried printing them? Maybe the negatives look strange but print fine.

[lex_jenkins]

Try Microphen. As an experiment in finding a suitable developer for processing film that was exposed years ago but not developed I used it on what I thought was a 20-year-old roll of Tri-X. It turned out to be seven-year-old T-Max 100. (The film was given to me in a black plastic film container but not in the usual marked metal cartridge.)

 

I'd estimated that 20 minutes in Microphen would be appropriate. As it turned out that was overkill for the relatively younger TMX. However the negatives turned out very well, almost indistinguishable from my own freshly exposed and developed TMX in Microphen.

 

I like Microphen (to the extent that I mention it enough to make forum members sick of hearing about it) because it's a good speed enhancing developer that doesn't exaggerate fogging. It also can have a good compensating effect when used with minimal, gentle agitation - very useful for developing film exposed in extremely contrasty lighting.

 

HC-110 reportedly is a low-fog developer and good for older film. I've used HC-110 for years but I can't recall ever using it to develop old film so I can't comment on how well it works.

 

Part of the problem you're going to have, which no developer can fix, is lack of shadow detail from underexposure and loss of shadow detail in the latent image due to age. A couple of years ago while experimenting with pushing T-Max 400 to 1600 I exposed a few frames in dim lighting, left the camera in a drawer for about a month, finished the roll in similar lighting and developed it immediately. The month-old frames had almost no shadow detail while the recently exposed frames were pretty good. Keeping old, exposed film cold will help but time is not on our side.

[jimvanson]

About 2 weeks ago I came across a roll of 220 Delta 400 that had been shot more then 3 years ago. It was stored in the fridge since then.<P>I used Kodak Xtol 1+2 to develop it. It came out quite foggy but other then that very tonal, sharp with lots of shadow detail.<P>There is a shot

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=009MjM&photo_id=2664072&photo_sel_index=1"><b>here</b></a> (I added the grain). And a raw shot here:

[jimvanson]

Lets try that attachment again -- really user friendly software.<div></div>

[photoblogger]

Joris, Lex, Jim - Thank you all for taking the time to help me out on this one, it is very much appreciated.

 

Joris - In answer to your questions:

 

1) I've never developed Delta 400 before, usually I shoot Tri-X so I don't have a 'control' to measure against.

2) You may be right about Ilford's times but the extent of over-development appeared quite severe.

3) I don't have a darkroom any more so am forced to scan my negs. I'm using a Minolta 5400 that usually gives a good range but the scans are still coming out very 'contrasty'.

 

Lex - I take your point about the Microphen. But I'm not too sure about the longer development times for the older films.... I used the LC29 according to standard times and still overdeveloped. Is it standard practice to extend the times for older films? If so, I seem to be getting very strange results. Perhaps I need to agitate less.

 

Jim - Your experience with the Xtol gives me some hope. Can you remember how long you let it develop for?

 

If I get through this I'll have to post some of the shots. Can't remember what's on the film, I hope it's worth it!

[jimvanson]

Marcus -- I actually had 2 rolls so the first I developed in 1+2 Xtol 75 degrees 9.75 minutes. After it dried I thought it had a bit too much contrast so the second roll was 1+2 Xtol 75 degrees 9 minutes -- .75 of a minute less -- and that looked surprisingly good.<P>I used 15 gentle rotating inversions in the first minute, 2 inversions (4 seconds each) every minute after.<P>And I should add the usual disclaimer: No mater what working dilution of Xtol you use you <U>MUST</u> use a minimum of 100 mls Xtol stock per roll of 35 mm or 120. I had to use a minimum of 200 mls because my rolls were 220.<P>Good luck and let us know how you made out...jim

[jimvanson]

Marcus -- I forgot to add that Hamrick's Vuescan software may be just the thing for your scanner. I know that it made a world of difference with my ScanDual III.

[david_carper]

I have to agree with Lex in recommending MICROPHEN. Or for that matter, just about anything other than the developers you have.

The film you have would be the older version of Delta 400, not the currently produced version. This older version was considerably grainier than the current version, and got even worse in developers such as Rodinal and ILFOTEC HC (LC29 is simply a pre-diluted version of the HC).

It's hard to say what kind of results you'll get, but I feel sure that developing with MICROPHEN will give you much better negatives than using either the LC29 or the Rodinal.

 

David Carper

 

ILFORD Technical Service

[photoblogger]

David

 

Thanks for stepping in. You caught me just before I was about to start developing the film. I'll pick up some Microphen over the next few days and let you know how it works out.

 

All the best

 

Marcus

[lex_jenkins]

There ya go, straight from the horse's mouth! ;>

 

The reason I like Microphen for a wide range of uses, from pushing to developing old film to normal development with certain films (especially TMX) is that extended development does not produce excessive contrast when careful agitation is used.

 

I agitate no more often than at one minute intervals and typically use only three gentle inversions. This is for my usual development of TMX exposed at 100 or TMY pushed to 1600 under certain lighting conditions.

 

For trickier, more contrasty situations I'll extend intervals between agitations to as long as every three minutes with the same three gentle inversions. However I'll usually agitate every minute for the first two or three minutes to ensure even development. Then I'll cut back to longer intervals.

 

Certain developers have what's usally referred to as a compensating effect. Essentially that means that development will slow down in the denser areas corresponding with highlights while it continues in the thinner areas corresponding with shadows. It works most effectively when the developer and film are disturbed as little as possible while avoiding the risk of uneven development that can result from inadequate agitation.

 

This effect can be put to good use for controlling highlights in film exposed under very contrasty lighting, such as pushed film in concerts, nightclubs or stage plays. The same characteristic makes it very effective with TMX, a film that has unique midtones but which tends to be difficult in the highlight area.

 

Only by accident, and trial and error, did I discover that Microphen is also very forgiving of variations in time and temperature, especially extended development either through prolonged time in developer or higher temperature. Such errors don't result in excessive contrast as readily as with other developers. Nor is base fog elevated to unsatisfactory levels, which can occur with other developers in extended development.

 

The downside is that Microphen may not produce satisfactory contrast with film exposed under low contrast lighting. More frequent agitation, perhaps even continuous agitation, would be appropriate in this case.

 

And Microphen is not a particularly fine grain developer. It's more than acceptable for most of my purposes, including TMX which retains its fine grain characteristic. But this limits its use as an all-purpose developer.