Higher Accutance with Delta-400

[gerald_widen]

I recently submitted a portfolio of 35mm B&W prints enlarged to 8X10

for membership in a gallery. They basically liked my work and

accepted me for an associate membership. Not a full one. That I

needed to improve my work technically.<p> One of the technical

comments was that my prints didn't give the impression of sharpness

that they could. My grain looked "mushy" and lacked accutance. Also

that my tones were "muddy". The person I spoke with said the reason

was the D-76 1+1 I use with the Delta 400. He suggested I keep the

Delta but maybe rate it at around 200-300 and try either, Microdol-

X, HC-110 but didn't say which dilution or Rodinol. <p>After looking

at some other prints in the gallery he pointed out I would like to

give it a try. Any suggestions. I would like to keep it simple with

developers I can readily buy. That's why I originally chose D-76.

[mike_grigsby]

What are you using for photo and enlarging equipment?

[gerald_widen]

Mike,I use an Saunders/LPL D6700 (color) enlarger with an El-Nikkor 50/2.8 lens. I print on Ilford MGIV fiber paper with Dektol.

[al_divenuti]

Gerald,

 

First of all - congrats. on the associate membership. Quite an accomplishment!

 

I'm rather inclined to say that the person you spoke with hasn't a clue about what imparts accutance or tonality to a print. Microdol-X is not going to cure mushy grain - it will make it worse. HC-110 should not differ dramatically from D-76 where accutance is concerned.

 

As for "muddy" tones - I'd recommend developing more (you didn't mention what your developing times were) or using a higher filter grade when you print. You have a lot of flexibility in the printing process where filter grades and exposure is concerned so make use of that.

 

Rodinal can impart slightly better accutance than D-76, but it will also be a bit grainier. I doubt you'll be able to squeeze more than EI 200 from Delta 400 if you use it.

 

One final note - diminished accutance can also result from a moving subject or perhaps imperfect technique holding the camera. It happens.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

I tend to agree with Al, on this one. Don't take the "person that you spoke with" as the final word, or gospel truth. If you are happy with the results, then stay with it. personally, I burn mt Delta 400 & Neopan 400 @ 320. It is souped in X-Tol, with very good results. Delta 400 is an excellent film.

 

Russ

[rich_ullsmith1]

If you want to stick with D-76, maybe try it stock instead of 1+1, and as noted above rate it 200 to 320. Should be some times at digitaltruth.com for starters.

 

My wife uses Delta 400 exclusively with DDX, and has no complaints about "mushy" tones. Only have experience with one roll of Delta 400 in Rodinal, didn't like it enough to play around with anymore than that.

 

Tripod, mirror lock, temperature control of film and paper developers, all makes a difference too. Hey, they like your stuff so you are on the right track. BTW, do you think they look muddy or mushy?

[lex_jenkins]

If *you* are happy with your negatives, you might try another kind of enlarger. Some folks say they see a distinct difference between the results they get with condenser vs. diffusion heads. I don't but there are many other factors involved.

 

Try Tetenal Neofin Red. I've used Neofin Blue on Efke R100 and the results are phenomenal - take a look at this example:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1710632

 

Neofin Blue is recommended for slower films, Red for faster. So if you want to continue with Delta 400, try Red. It's available through JandC Photo on the web.

 

Reportedly Paterson Acutol is a good acutance developer but I don't know whether Paterson still sells chemicals.

[chris_waller]

Try rating Delta 400 at 160 ASA and devving in Rodinal 1:50, 20 C, 6 minutes.

[john_cook1]

After forty years of professional photography I thought I had heard it all. But I guess not.

 

Using Microdol to improve sharpness, or acutance, is absurd. Like all so-called "fine grain" developers it does just the opposite. The grain is partially dissolved and rendered mushy to make it appear smaller by making it more difficult to see. This also degrades acutance.

 

HC-110 is essentially D-76 in a more convenient liquid form. I don't believe you will detect any dramatic difference in using it.

 

The easy way to slightly improve sharpness with a slight increase in grain (because when sharper it becomes easier to see) is to dilute your D-76 1-to-3. Increase the time accordingly. But limited effect on Delta. More below.

 

Giving ALL b&w films an increase in exposure of 2/3 to one stop more than their rated speed will dramatically improve shadow detail. A very good thing.

 

In general, Delta films have a very thin emulsion which does not respond well to manipulation by high-acutance developers. No matter what I do with Delta 100, I get the same neat, sweet, nice clean image. No change, because there is not enough silver to work with.

 

A conventional film, such as Tri-X or HP-5 Plus, although not as inherently sharp as Delta will APPEAR to have higher acutance when souped in a high-acutance developer. This is because there are lots of silver molecules available to pile up to create "edge effects" and similar phenomenon.

 

If your eye cannot see any grain at all on a print, the normal psychological reaction is to assume that the enlarger must have been out of focus. Not that the print is sharp.

 

To summarize, I wouldn't waste my time fooling with exotic high-acutance developers with Delta films because the results will be extremely minimal, over the developer you are now using.

 

For extreme acutance, switch to Tri-X, HP-5 Plus or some other convetional film. Then develop it in dilute Rodinal, Formulary FX-1, Ethol T.E.C., Paterson FX-39, or Neofin Blau. Chemicals which state they are NOT intended for film as fast as ISO 400.

 

You will then have oodles of salt-and-pepper tack-sharp grain to joyously celebrate!

[ronald_moravec1]

New Delta 400 looks terrible at 1:1. The original was fine. I really didn`t know what to do, until I switched to D76 undiluted. It looks much better. DD X liquid and Xtol are also good.

 

Grain appearance is subjective. The gallery seems to like prominent sharp grain and Rodinal will give it to you, but you won`t like it if you are using 35mm.

 

Try some undiluted D76 since that is what you have, and take a sample to them. No you don`t loose all the sharpness either. Don`t tell them what you did, just see if they like it.

 

If you prints have a full scale of white to black and they still are criticised for being flat, the answer is German lenses. They image much differently than Japanese ones. I used Pentax cameras for years and couldn`t make a really nice black and white to save my sole. A wedding photographer neighor loaned me his Leica and I have been making prints that satisfy from the first roll. Just looking at the negs shows a visable difference.

[skygzr]

"HC-110 is essentially D-76 in a more convenient liquid form".

 

I don't think this is true. AFAIK, they're quite different.

[gerald_widen]

<i>"You will then have oodles of salt-and-pepper tack-sharp grain to joyously celebrate!"</i> <p>This was exactly what I was seeing in some of the prints hanging in the gallery. Personally I though the technique was a little too drastic for my taste. All I'm trying to achieve is a little more grain and accutance. However a lot of the advice so far is confusing.

[User_502260]

Neofin Red hasn't been made for years. HC-110 is not the same at D-76. D-76 uses metol and hydroquinone as its developing agents. HC-110's formula has been changed over the years but its developing agent is supposed to be a kind of phenidone. Metol is a softer working developing agent and has differemt qualities from phenidone.

 

I have had good luck using Delta-400 with other phenidone based developers. These include Ilford Microphen, which may or may not still be available, Clayton F60 and NACCO Super 76. I have heard that Ilford DD-X also works well with it. I agree that "acutance" developers will not give you better quality with this film.

 

You have to keep in mind that much of the "fine art" black & white photography is done with medium format and larger film. When you are making an 8X10 print from a mediun format or large format negative you are really looking for overall tonality and gradation. Grain wouldn't be a factor in a print that small from a negative that large. With the 35mm format you have a very flexible system and you are able to capture some images which aren't possible with larger formats. The downside is that your negative is much smaller and you have to be careful to also consider grain and overall sharpness.

[conrad_hoffman]

AFAIK, D-76 and HC-110 aren't chemically alike, but the point is they can give very similar results. If the "local standard" for b&w prints is highly defined grain in moderate to large amounts, you probably don't want to shoot with modern t-grain type emulsions processed in solvent developers. At least, not if you're into conformity ;-) I've never used Delta films, but with TMX I found the film benefited greatly from developers formulated specifically for t-grained film. It's possible to have highly defined, yet fine and unobtrusive grain, using something like FX37. It also helped with the mud problem. I'm sure there are other commercially available alternatives from Paterson that work as well or better, and Rodinal can be pretty satisfying if you fine tune the EI (slower) and development. I haven't used it enough to say, but some claim Rodinal does compress midtones a bit. I can't see how their recommendations of Microdol-X or HC-110 will ever get you to where they're telling you you want to go.

[kaiyen]

<p><i>All I'm trying to achieve is a little more grain and accutance. However a lot of the advice so far is confusing.</i>

 

<p>You've gotten a LOT of information so far, I'll admit. What exactly seems confusing? I think you're looking at several issues:

 

<p>1 - the person you spoke with at the gallery has no idea what he was talking about, if he recommended Microdol. You'll get <u>less</U> sharpness with that developer, as others have mentioned. Let's toss that out.

 

<P>2 - There really isn't anything wrong with D76. It's a great compromise, and you can shift your low grain vs. better sharpness results one way or the other with dilution. It's quite possible that if you went to 1+2 or 1+3, you'll get the sharpness that the guy is looking for. That's pretty simple, provided you are okay with the grain increase.

 

<p>3 - Similarly, the "muddy" tones might be fixed just with printing with higher contrast. Maybe the guy just likes more contrast. Happens a lot. Another simple option you can try first.

 

<p>4 - Beyond that, you can try other developers. I haven't played with HC-110 myself. Rodinal, as a non-solvent developer, will give you better sharpness but will also be grainier than even dilute D76 (I think it should be - I haven't done a direct comparison of the two, though I really should...). With the caveat that AgfaPhoto has just gone bankrupt, Rodinal is fairly easy to get right now. There were 10 bottles at my local store yesterday, and it's quite cheap, too.

 

<p>5 - Beyond that...you can start trying some serious accutance developers. These are less readily available. FX-1, FX-2, FX-39, Acutol, etc. They'll all help your sharpness go way up, but with some compromises (I haven't used them at all, but have heard about issues with gradation, etc).

 

<p>Regardless of what you do, it'll be a process. Try the small tweaks first - differet D76 dilutions, different printing contrast - then move onto readily available alternatives, like Rodinal. Also, be aware of changing your exposure - you'll get better speed out of dilute D76 vs straight, and Rodinal is known for costing you 2/3 of a stop or more.

 

<p>I hope that helped. apologies if it didn't<br>

allan

[josphy]

Just thinking out loud...but does higher contrast give the *impression* of greater sharpness? Maybe just printing the same negs at a little higher contrast would make a big difference in their perception of them.

 

Also, I've developed Delta 400 in Microdol-X (stock) solution and I thought it looked great -- very smooth and basically grainless as high as my enlarger would go (about 10x), but I definitely wouldn't describe that as a combination for ultimate sharpness.

[Alan Johnson]

If Ilfosol S is obtainable it might give better results. IIRC Ilford Tech Services said it was the sharpest Ilford developer for the 100 version of Delta.

[gerald_widen]

Thanks everyone for the responses. I think I'll start off with a higher dilution of the D-76 maybe 1+2 or 3. I will also look at the enlarger to make sure it is aligned correctly and will try a glass negative carrier as I have one but only use it for 6X6 negatives. If that proves unsatisfactory I can go to more proactive measures like alternate developers.

[jay ott]

FWIW, some of the people in the fine art community have a "high-and-mighty" attitude. They probably wouldn't hesitate to exhibit some well-known photographer's work shot on Delta 400 in D76 1:1 on MG IV fiber.<p>

 

I've seen exhibitions of paintings by elephants and those kinds of people call that art. Art is in the eye of the creator, not the curator. Use what works for you, not what some other guy doesn't like.<p>

 

If it's important to you, then ask to see some samples of his exhibited/published work just to see what he's going on about. Otherwise, I'd get a second opinion and/or go elsewhere. If you try to make everyone happy, especially those with BFA's sitting behind a desk, you'll end up like the politicians in Washington.<p>

[michael_bradigan]

I've only just started the combo, but I've found that Delta 400 in T-Max, 1:4, 7 mins @ 68 degrees can bring wonderful results. Great shadow detail, good tonality. My previous experience was with Tri-X & Rodinal, which I liked...but D400 is swiftly taking over the #1 spot.

[marshall_hogan]

How are you developing and making prints?

A)Developing film is not convienient nor easy. Rotary or tractor fed methods negate the interaction of the chemistry/film/agitation. I have always used spool/tank development with 1:3 dilution = acutantance that will "shred your eyeballs" with sharpness. I feel this is the biggest factor as one can easily develop in a machine using stock solution for a nominal time vs use 1:3 dilution and agitating every minute for 18 (?) minutes

B}Purchase new Ilford/Polycontrast printing Filters each year on your birthday

C)and/or change your bulb on your contrast/diffuser enlarger every month without fail, and

D)ensure your enlarger is aligned (simply scratch an X on film and check all quadrants/leg ends of the X.

Using machines for development is NOT the answer for B&W film (sorry JOBO/Wing Lynch users).

[marshall_hogan]

Add) B&W film MUST always have a yellow-ish or orange-ish filter on the lens when using B&W film.

[david_elden]

First, as another poster said congrats on the positive response from the gallery to your work.

Second, you have found the responses confusing (so have I). You have prints which the gallery responded positively to the content of but they expressed a slightly less positive opinion about the technical style. We haven't seen the prints so it's impossible to really say anything definitive about that; I would strongly suggest taking the work to other photographers (or just printers) who's printing you admire or find interesting and getting some more opinions. Then decide if you want to change anything.

[melvin_bramley]

Muddy tones on D400! Try overdeveloping. I had similar problems using XTOL. My enlarger is quite diffuse & needs the extra density. I develop D400, at 400, at the reccomended 800 times with good results.

[__jon__]

> marshall hogan , jun 06, 2005; 11:55 p.m.

 

>Using machines for development is NOT the answer for B&W film (sorry JOBO/Wing Lynch

users).

 

>marshall hogan , jun 07, 2005; 12:20 a.m.

 

>Add) B&W film MUST always have a yellow-ish or orange-ish filter on the lens when using

B&W film.

 

Wow, what incredible dogma. How sad...