Delta 4OO@8OO asa, problem

[margaret]

Have just seen the results of a role of the new Ilford Delta 400, shot at 800, and each and every frame has striations marks of light that seems to have leaked from the perforations at the top and the bottom of the film. Some frames were shot indoors under low light, full aperture and slow speed, others outside in bright light, closed down, 1000s. If the film was not correctly inserted in the camera and there was some slack, 1) would this occur and 2) if it were improperly inserted, would the film still have advanced correctly? Because it did. Has anyone either an explanation, suggestion, or the same experience with this film, pushed to 800?

[douglas k.]

Hard to say w/out seeing your negs, but they may be "surge marks"

caused by (I believe) overly vigorous agitation. What is your

agitation method, and what sort of developing tank are you using?

 

<p>

 

I'll also note that Delta 400 is not the ideal film for push

processing, IMO. Try HP5+, or better yet, use Kodak T-Max 3200 at a

speed of about 1600 with processing in T-Max developer.

[joshroot]

Though it may not be an ideal film for pushing, it does push to 800.

So I think your problems came from somewhere else.

[furcafe]

I don't currently develop my own B&W, but I would also vote for the

problem being surge marks (having done that myself plenty of times).

However, FWIW, I disagree w/Douglas & Josh's opinions that Delta 400

doesn't push well, @ least w/regards to the "new & improved" version

that came out this year. To the contrary, my experience having the

new Delta 400 (new version) pushed to 1600 (development by different

local pro labs) suggests that it pushes very well (definitely better

than Fuji Neopan 1600 shot @ its putative ASA). Here's an example: <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/416913&size=lg">http

://www.photo.net/photo/416913&size=lg</a>.

[dan_brown4]

I push Delta 400 to 800 quite a bit and experience delightful

results. Try rating it at EI 640 and the shadow detail remains

very good. Grain is, of course, very fine with this film. I

recommend XTOL at 1:1 for this film, BTW.

 

<p>

 

You problem does sound like over agitation. This causes

agressive flow of developer through the film perforations and can

lead to overdevelopment in the areas where the developer flow

was highest and turbulent (e.g. through the holes). The 'striation'

marks would thus be darker in the negative, giving the illusion of

a light leak problem. However, this effect is supposed to be

hard to produce with modern films/developers. I know Delta 400

is excellent, are you using any voodoo chemicals in your

development?

[douglas k.]

Dan & Chris--

 

<p>

 

I defer to you guys, since I have not tried the "new and improved"

version of Delta 400. But have either of you compared it to HP5+

pushed one stop, or to Delta 3200 or TMZ at higher indices? If so,

what are your opinions?

[furcafe]

Douglas:

 

<p>

 

I haven't had the courage to push it to 3200 yet, but so far I think

it looks better than TMY 400 pushed to 1600, TMZ or Delta 3200 pulled

to 1600, & the aforementioned Neopan 1600.

[jeff voorhees]

Margaret-

 

<p>

 

I don't use Delta, but I do shoot HP5+. I don't think your problem is

film loading, or push processing. I agree with Dan Brown: I would say

you are over agitating.

 

<p>

 

My opinion only: most recommended agitation intervals are too

frequent.

 

<p>

 

I would say that perhaps your intervals are too frequent, or your

inversions are too vigourous.

[dan_brown4]

I haven't used the Kodak T-grain films in a few years, so I'll not

comment further than to say when I did compare them I much

preferred the Ilford look to the Kodak look. They're all great films,

it becomes a matter of personal preference.

 

<p>

 

Delta 3200 is a great film and I shoot it when I need raw speed. I

have found the sweet spot to be in the EI 1600-2000 range. You

can shoot it at 800, but I like Delta 400 pushed a stop better than

Delta 3200 shot at EI 800. The 400 has finer grain, but the 3200

may be better on shadow detail, and maybe even sharpenss (I'm

not sure on this latter point).

 

<p>

 

Since I tend to be a sharpness freak (that's why I am spending

gigbucks on Leica M) I tend to the 400 speed alternative most of

the time. I used to shoot a lot of Delta 100 (the sharpenss thing

again) but once Ilford improved Delta 400, this has swayed my

view. Delta 400 is an awesome film in every regard. I am really

happy with Delta 400 for making 8x10 prints (especially on Ilford

fiber glossy and matte paper). I can crop down from an 11x14

image and still get great, sharp, fine grained results.

 

<p>

 

I have just completed some family portraits of my wife and

daughter. These were done with a 50m Summicron, shot from a

tripod, with Delta 400, shot at EI 400. Processed in XTOL and

printed to 8x10 Ilford FB glossy. They were cropped somewhat.

The pictures are stunning, IMHO. To me, the Leica look with

Ilford B&W products is fabulous! People see these prints and

comment that they've never seen stuff like this, they really look

good. Anyway I'm rambling now...

[Rob F.]

I'll second your rambling, Dan. I'm pleased with the Leica/Delta

Pro/XTOL combo myself. I get 11x14's that couldn't look better If

they'd been shot in medium format.

[margaret]

Thank you all very much for your help. After talking it over with my

husband, who developed this for me, he realises that the problem is

indeed one of agitation. In fact, HE was the one who was agitated at

the time, and couldn't concentrate on what he was going (agitated for

reasons that had nothing to do with the developing). So I guess I

will try another roll of 400 at 800.

 

<p>

 

I too like the Ilford products, prefering Delta 100, and then HP5, so

that was why I thought the new delta 400 was worth a go. Thank you

once again, and I will let you know if it works out! ;-)

[russell_brooks]

Actually the new Delta 400 pushes well. I find the real speed to more

like 500 to 640 in Tetenal's Emofin. But I will pretty much always

expose it at 800 and give it the slight push. Looks good and much

better than TMZ at it's real speed of 800 to 1000.

[stephen_jones4]

Just to confirm what's been written above- Delta pushes fine to

800 and above (especially the new version). Striation marks

usually come from too intermittant and/or excessively violent

agitation - in 2 bath devving they can also come from not

agitating enough - take a look in Langford's "Basic Photography"

where he lists a few common dev. problems along with images

of the damaged negs. Consistency of agitation is (along with

being quite dull!) very important to maintain. Also, for what it's

worth, I always twist and turn the dev. tank in a slow looping 3-d

figure of 8 so that it's turned each and every way. (I have no idea

how to explain that more clearly without the use of a diagram!

Hope you get the gist...)

[dan_brown4]

Just for the record, I use a two-reel Patterson tank and twist the

shaft back and forth three times (firm and gently) every 30

seconds. Also, the first 30 seconds is a continuous twisting

motion.

[jeff voorhees]

Stephen-

You mention: "Also, for what it's worth, I always twist and turn the

dev. tank in a slow looping 3-d figure of 8 so that it's turned each

and every way. (I have no idea how to explain that more clearly

without the use of a diagram! Hope you get the gist...)"

 

<p>

 

I know exactly what you mean regarding agitation technique. Ansel

Adams in "The Negative" describes his agitation technique for tank

developing as the inversions he make form a "talus" shape. I think

your "3d figure 8" and the "talus" are one in the same.

 

<p>

 

Works for me.