delta3200 @ 12800 /w xtol -- times, dilution

[charles.]

Well the subject line nearly says it all.<br><br>I'm interested to

hear your experiences with pushing delta3200 to 12800 with xtol

(<b>not interested in other developers</b> right now as ive got a lot

on hand and would rather stick to one developer for all my films/needs

right now, thanks). Specifically I'm curious about diluting to 1:1 or

1:2 and its effect on contrast, grain, sharpness, etc. <br><br> I have

already shot one roll but have yet to develop since i'd like to start

off testing with a dilute solution (for economy mainly) as i plan on

shooting a large project at these speeds, and would like to keep

everything consistant... ofcourse if diluting turns out to not be an

option i guess ill just be mixing up alot of xtol... <br>

[silent1]

Very important with XTOL, ensure you have at least 100 ml of stock solution for each roll of film. At 1+2 and 35 mm, this will require more solution than required to cover the film, so you'll have to use a 2-reel tank with an empty reel spacer on top of the one with film.

 

In general, diluting more and reducing agitation, then extending development to regain normal contrast, will gain anywhere up to one stop of toe speed (in this case, above the EI 800 or so "real" speed of the Delta 3200); beyond that, you have to develop to higher contrast, give up on shadows, and accept blocked highlights in order to get the midtones close to correct.

 

What I'd expect to work well for the two stops incease over box speed (which is really a four stop push, but with a film specifically designed to push well) is to dilute 1:2, use enough solution, and develop for 2.5 times as long as you'd need for "normal" EI 3200 with that film and developer.

 

Unfortunately, I've never used XTOL, so can't supply a time, but you should be able to find starting times for EI 3200 on DigitalTruth's Massive Dev Chart. You'll need to test a bit anyway, to get negatives that print or scan the way you want -- what I consider right might not work for you.

[roger krueger]

I use 1+1 dilution (that is, twice as much water as normal), stand at 68F, 25-30 minutes.

Time in stand development is not remotely critical.

 

It is important to keep it cool, however. I've found that under these conditions Delta 3200

starts losing shadow speed to fog above 70-72F, something that TMY/TMZ do NOT do.

TMY in particular works fine up to at least 95F.

 

If you're scanning on a CCD scanner Microphen gives even better compensating action at

some cost in acutance and grain size.

[trojan_horse]

If you're adamant on using Delta 3200 + Xtol for pushed Delta by 2 stops, diluting Xtol to 1:2 will help develop the base fog at the expense of the image. Not only will the image stay latent, but the speed loss will restrict the tonal range to a binary scale.

 

Microphen, TMax, HC110a or any energetic developer seem to compensate for shadow detail better than Xtol. It's amazing how much work a photographer can save by being less rigid and choosing another developer ;)

 

Good luck.

[Rob F.]

Let me point out something regarding Delta 3200, or T-Max, 3200. When we shoot them at 3200, that is already a two-stop push. The true speed of these films is around 800 to 1000. They are designed to be pushed beyond that speed, but they give full shadow detail at 1000 or so.

 

So if we attempt to use them at 12,800, that is not a two-stop push, it's really a four-stop push. I just point this out so as to keep things in perspective. With such extreme pushing, the results depend as much on how we use our light meters as on which developer we use. The old adage, "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" is nowhere more important than when pushing.

 

I find Delta 3200 to be wonderful at 1600, in HC-110 or T-Max. At 3200, it's apt to be very thin, requiring, as I mentioned, extra care in allowing for the shadows. It's also important to make sure there's a decent light, albeit faint, on the areas of main interest, however pitch-black the rest of the frame may be. At 12,800 . . . .

[roger krueger]

<i>Microphen, TMax, HC110a or any energetic developer seem to compensate for shadow

detail better than Xtol. It's amazing how much work a photographer can save by being less

rigid and choosing another developer ;)

</i><br>br>

I tried Microphen, TMax RS and dilute X-TOL/stand against each other last year with a test

chart and found at most a 1/4 stop difference in deepest shadow resolved. (The Tmax RS

beat the other two.)

 

The big difference was highlight handling--Microphen was well controlled, X-TOL was

decently controlled, T-Max RS was thoroughly blown. The differences in grain and

sharpness were pretty subtle, but X-TOL won on both counts.