Sanity check with Xtol and Delta 3200

[gt1]

Long story short since my browser crashed before posting this question originally.

 

I'm fairly new to B&W developing, used Acufine and Rodinal previously.

 

Shot a roll of Delta 3200 at 6400 and another at 3200, both 120. I'm using the Xtol at 1+1 mostly for economics.

 

Haven't seen my exact combo on the charts but have seen references of multiplying time by 1.4 when diluting stock

solution at 1+1.

 

So, this is what I was planning on doing tonight:

 

D3200 at 6400: 1+1 for 14 min at 20C

D3200 at 3200: 1+1 for 10.5 min at 20C

 

Good starting point?

[john_shriver]

You want to start from Ilford's times for one speed faster than you shot the film at. I've seen many reports that if you use the film at EI 3200, use Ilford's times for EI 6400. That's what I did for the one roll of Delta 3200 I used.

 

I'd also feel safer using full strength developer for pushing. While Kodak does give push-processing times for Xtol at 1+1, I'd rather have more stock solution available. Delta's expensive, splurge on developer.

[gt1]

I've seen the same reports. Ok, Ilford has 10 and 12.5 minutes for 6400 and 12500 for stock solution.

 

So for my EI 3200 and EI 6400 tests I should start at 10 and 12.5 minutes with stock solution?

[lex_jenkins]

I haven't used Xtol with Delta 3200 so I can't offer specific times. But I agree with the recommendation to develop longer than the suggested times. In effect, use the times for the next higher EI. I've done this routinely with Microphen, ID-11, etc. Delta 3200 can benefit from the slightly higher contrast and the grain won't be any worse - it's already gonna have gigantic fluffy popcorn grain no matter what.

[roger krueger]

I do Delta 3200 in XTOL 1:1 as stand development, around 20 minutes for 6400. Works well, just be careful about the temp,

this combo likes to fog if the developer's too warm.

 

Using 1:1 instead of full strength helps control the highlights.

[gt1]

Thanks for all the info guys. Roger, can I successfully do stand development in a basic Jobo 1520 tank with plastic reels?

 

Ok, I'm having some fun with this but see my new post titled film anomaly. I've got a weird mark or scratch on the first couple of frames of one of my rolls.

[gt1]

Ok, I ended up going with 1+1 at 11 minutes at 20C for the roll that I shot at 3200. Attached is a crop of about 1cm x 1.25 cm from the neg. It's a closed restaurant shot through it's plate glass window with some reflections of car lights. As a beginner I like this level of grain.<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

Greg, stand development doesn't work well with plastic reels. The high flanges and square section guides tend to interfere with chemistry flow. Give it a try but expect to see some inconsistencies.

 

The sample pic you attached looks pretty much like typical Delta 3200 grain. I'm assuming that's a negative scan? Conventional prints won't reveal quite so much grain.

[gt1]

Thanks for the info on plastic reels and stand development. I may pick up some steel reels mentioned in other threads.

 

Yes, that's a negative scan. I'm still trying to find a place to print here in the San Fernando Valley. If I don't find anything cheap I'll probably rent at Translight Colors downtown.

[lex_jenkins]

If you plan to continue to process normally, no stand development, the plastic reels are fine. No need to change. I have both, use both, have no ... hmm ... reel preference. Each has advantages and disadvantages.

[gt1]

What are some of the reasons to use stand development? I think I've seen some reasons why not to, particularly your mention of inconsistencies. Personally I kind of like the idea of agitating and then leaving the film to cook, some nights I'm tired and wouldn't mind just agitating once.

[roger krueger]

For me stand development is mixture of laziness and highlight control. Different developers have wildly different propensities

to streak. X-TOL resists streaking as well as any I've seen.

[john fleshin]

Lex, brain is straining to remember, I think the only time I used stand development was when I fell asleep. Results were not as bad as I had thought.

 

Is the concept that the developer in contact with the most exposed areas gets exhausted and compensates a bit by the less exhausted stuff working away at the thinner areas?

 

Am taking a guess that the results would vary by format a bit, and am wondering about convection and the effect of temperature choosen?

[lex_jenkins]

So far I've gotten good results with Tri-X at various exposures in very dilute Rodinal, 1:200 or 1:300, with 2 hour or longer stand development. Very grainy but I liked the effect. Development was even, no streaking with stainless reels about some initial problems with streaking using this technique with Paterson reels.

 

Also tried very dilute Ilfosol-S for overnight development. Comparable to Rodinal, but with very high base fog. Not good.

 

When I want the extreme grain along with normal tonality and shadows, I'll expose Tri-X at 400, maybe 800 at most, and soup in Rodinal 1:200 for 2 hours. One initial agitation of normal slow inversions for 30-60 seconds, then not again. Watch a movie, relax, come back later and finish up.

 

Not something I'd recommend willy nilly in place of the conventional approach. Just an interesting alternative.

[john_hugens]

Lex, can you explain what you mean by square section guides and high flanges? I can't quite make out what that'd mean. Sadly I'm a few thousand (more like 15 thousand) miles from my dark room right now so I can't examine my plastic reels to see. However, they, my beloved, plastic tanks seem to be fairly round.

 

Best,

 

-John Hugens

[lex_jenkins]

Check the shape of the plastic spirals. Rather than rounded like the wire used to form stainless reels, the guides and flanges are squarish in shape, with defined edges. If you visit the Freestyle, B&H, Adorama or other website you can find photos of each type of reel and compare them.