jason_hall5 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 <p>Hello all,<br>A few days ago, I posted a question for advise on how to determine development time for a roll of Delta 100 exposed at 800 ISO. I was using my father in-laws Canon A2 with my 70-200 f2.8 L IS attached while taking some shots at my sons T-ball practice. I had forgotten (I don't use that camera much) that he kept it set so that the camera does not automatically set the ISO by the coding on the film can. He likes to set it manually. A good habit for sure as he is a former professional. Anyway, it suddenly hit me that I made the screw up on the last frame of the roll.</p><p>I used Ilford's DD-X 1+4 @ 20C. Based on the advise I received I figured the time with the 20% increase at each stop increase. The DD-X is a bit old and looked to be getting slightly yellow when I poured it into the measuring cup. Plus there was about .5oz left in the bottle so I added it in for good measure. I figured up 20 mins of time and also added in an extra minutes or two for good measure. :o) At this point there were to many variable anyway so it was a see what we get kind of thing.</p><p>The results were much as expected, contrasty, slightly more grain, deepest shadows fall into complete blackness(but not as bad as I expected), and some detail lost in dark gray areas. The main thing is that if an important shot had been on the roll, a reasonable print could have been made from the scans. For me it was nice learning experience in some of the characteristics of film. BTW, these are stright scans from an Epson V700. There were no enhancements turned on for scanning and only cropping and shappening in Lightroom.</p><p>You can not tell much from these photos, so you will have to take my word for it. :o)<br><img src="http://jphotoarts.smugmug.com/photos/498060159_tcKcF-M.jpg" alt="" /></p><p><img src="http://jphotoarts.smugmug.com/photos/498060098_2uZY7-M.jpg" alt="" /></p><p><img src="http://jphotoarts.smugmug.com/photos/498060139_emw9i-M.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>jphotoarts.com</p><p>Thanks to all</p><p>Jason</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpo3136b Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 <p>Okay, I cannot tell much from the photos because I get a file not found symbol. Can you upload to your portfolio and link or something? I am curious. J.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_hall5 Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 <p>Interesting...they show up for me. Here is a link on flicker.</p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/15184234@N02/sets/72157615797559023/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/15184234@N02/sets/72157615797559023/</a></p> <p>thanks</p> <p>Jason</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 <p>Pretty good, Jason. I'm surprised it pushed that well. TMX sure wouldn't tolerate that much underexposure. I may have underestimated Delta 100. Tried it several years ago but decided to stick with TMX.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_hall5 Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 <p>I think much of it is owed to the DD-X. Ilford seems to have done well in matching it to their specific films, the Delta line in particular.</p> <p>Jason </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_wills Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 <p>I'm surprised as well that they came out that good. Nice job.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now