Ilford Delta 100 in Kodak HC110 W 1+50

[dcl]

Good evening,

I have some questions regarding Ilford Delta 100 and Kodak HC110 (current concentrate).

A - Here are some observations, some premises:

1. I have determined an effective ISO of 40 with a density of 0.14 in I (I prefer 0.14, instead of 0.12 or 0.1)

2. A development time of 6'00'' results in densities of 0.72 in V and 1.30 in VIII, I'm satisfied with that, at the moment, knwing that it could be better to develop 5'45'' ...

B - I use Kodak HC110 at 1+50. I call it "dilution W", because of "Werner". Why do I dilute 1+50?

1. Dilution 1+50 works well with Paterson tanks. The instructions on the bottom of the tanks state that each 135 film requires 290ml of developer; I use 300ml, which fits perfectly.

2. 1+50 with 300ml means 6ml of HC110 concentrate per film, which corresponds exactly to the minimum amount of HC110 concentrate required per roll.

3. With 1+50, the development times do not become too short (under 5'00'').

4. I am able to develop six 5x4 or 7x5 sheet films in 1 litre of HC110 1+50, comfortably, without exhausting the developer.

C - Now, my question is whether you have found comparable values.
Do my results sound plausible?
Do you develop Delta 100 in Kodak HC110 or Ilfotec HC?
Do you use Delta 100 at all?

D - I have made some further observations.

1. With various N-minus developments, the base fog does not become much thinner.
The density in I also remains largely the same ±0.01-0.02.
This is why it seems to me that reducing the effective ISO does far more for the shadows than extending or shortening development times.
This suggests that one must set the effective ISO lower—in my case, ISO 40 — if one wants good shadow detail.
This would also mean that N-minus and N-plus exposure compensation would not be particularly effective, would it?

2. Another observation is that Delta 100 reacts very quickly to increased or decreased exposure. I have the following values:
Effective ISO 80: density 0.04 in I
Effective ISO 64: density 0.07 in I
Effective ISO 50: density 0.10 in I
Effective ISO 40: density 0.14 in I
Effective ISO 32: density 0.20 in I
Effective ISO 25: density 0.25 in I
This seems quite straightforward to me.

3. The same applies to development. HC110 1+50 is already a considerable dilution.
But for a density of 1.30 in VIII, I only need 6 minutes with a 30/30-5 agitation rhythm (Kodak).
Development time 4'00'': 0.97 in VIII
Development time 4'30'': 1.02 in VIII
Development time 5'00'': 1.13 in VIII
Development time 6'00'': 1.30 in VIII which means N
Development time 7'00'': 1.57 in VIII which means N+2
Development time 8'30'': 1.77 in VIII
Expansion and compression progress much faster than with FP4+ or HP5+. Why is that?

Is the film really this sensitive when it comes to the correct exposure and development?

I am not yet very familiar with this film. What experiences have you had with it?
I hope this is an interesting topic for discussion...

Cheers,

Werner

 

[Dave_P]

I use a fair bit of Delta, usually developed in ID-11 or Pyrocat. What I can definitely say is compared to other Ilford emulsions, if you develop as per the datasheets for the given times that Delta always ends up looking slightly over developed (more density in the dense areas) than say FP4 or HP5 given equivalent "by the book" development and agitation. This seems to be in agreement with former Ilford chemist Dave Butcher, although I can't find where I read that, possibly in one of his books I have.

Anyway, I tend to knock about 15-30% off the given Ilford times for Delta to scan better for my scanner. This is just a guess though based on what I see on the film and in scans and not the result of any testing or densitometry, although I'm sure the density you get with the stock times would be fine for enlarger user. I think Pyrocat also helps to take the edge off the densest areas. I meter at 100 and generally get very good results with it, and the improved reciprocity behaviour compared to other films is very welcome.

I don't think it's really that difficult to use or expose than other films. In fact I had a batch recently where the pyrocat I was using clearly died on its arse (in retrospect I should have spotted this) and resulted in massively underdeveloped thin negatives. However, they scanned OK!

 

[MartyNL]

I suppose you know of this web page.
https://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/index.html

 

[Ian Grant]

I can can only answer C.

I shoot a lot of Delta 100, usually at box speed, and I've only used it with Pyrocat HD, The results are so good I wouldn't change.

Back in the mid 1980s I tested a lot of film & developer combinations I tried JHC-110 & Ilfotec HC with FP4, but found a significant speed loss compared to Adox Borax MQ (replenished). This matches Kodak's own developer comparison chart.

Here in the UK most use practical Zone System test, similar to those Ansel Adams outlined in "The Negative". I've always used 35mm or 120 film for testing.

Ian

 

[dcl]

I can confirm Dave_P's point that the Ilford films appear slightly over-developed according to the datasheets.

However, this might be because the datasheets specify development times for γ=0.65, as some people enlarge using diffused light and prefer a steeper density curve for the negative.

I use (non-certificated China) High Power LEDs with green (520nm) and blue (450nm) light in a L138 with two condensers, so I prefer negatives with a lower γ, a flatter curve, especially when printing smaller prints up to 5x7 or 8x10. Developing for 15-30% less time therefore seems plausible to me, not only for scanning but also for enlarging from 5x4 or 5x7.

MartyNL referred to Mr Covington. I have been returning to that page for years; it really is the secret reference. However, I have the impression that dilution H is more like 50% longer than B, rather than 100%. That is certainly the case for me with Ilford FP4+ and HP5+.

Ian's suggestion regarding Pyrocat, which Dave also mentioned, is something I've also heard elsewhere, several times. I have quite a bit of respect for those chemicals, but then again, HC110 contains quite a lot itself.

What I like about HC110 is that, in my opinion, it works quite well with FP4+ and HP5+. That is why I would like to use it with Delta 100 as well, which I tend to use more as a roll film or 35mm film because of the grain and resolution. Perhaps I should give Pyrocat a chance, though.

I can still confirm the speed loss that Ian mentioned: for me, 5x4-FP4+ results in an effective ISO 32 at 7'00'', and HP5+ in an effective ISO 125 at 9'00'', both using HC110 H 1+63.

Many thanks for your feedback. Perhaps there are further observations?

Best regards,

Werner

 

[MartyNL]

It appears from what I've read and understood, that this is primarily a practical and cost driven exercise? Densitometer readings, Patterson tank volume, minimum developer volume etc.

Any space for other 'metrics' such as aesthetics?
And why shackle yourself to fixed film/developer combinations?

 

[Ian Grant]

It appears from what I've read and understood, that this is primarily a practical and cost driven exercise? Densitometer readings, Patterson tank volume, minimum developer volume etc.

Any space for other 'metrics' such as aesthetics?
And why shackle yourself to fixed film/developer combinations?

Over the years, well since 1986, I've spent very little time testing films & developers. Prior to that as a photographic chemist I did far ,ore.

The reason for testing for effective EI and optimal development times with film and developer combinations is to achieve negatives that have full detail from shadows to highlights that can later be interpreted in many different ways. Settling on one or two films and a single developer is not at all limiting, if the combinations are right.

Having control of the craft frees you up when it comes to the aesthetics, you know you can capture what you envision, with confidence.

What I like about HC110 is that, in my opinion, it works quite well with FP4+ and HP5+. That is why I would like to use it with Delta 100 as well, which I tend to use more as a roll film or 35mm film because of the grain and resolution. Perhaps I should give Pyrocat a chance, though.

I can still confirm the speed loss that Ian mentioned: for me, 5x4-FP4+ results in an effective ISO 32 at 7'00'', and HP5+ in an effective ISO 125 at 9'00'', both using HC110 H 1+63.

Many thanks for your feedback. Perhaps there are further observations?

It's nearly 40 years since I used FP4, although I do have some. When I used it in ID-11 it was at 100 or 80 EI, later in Adox Borax MQ box speed, both replenished.

I did try FP4 un ID-11 at 1+3 but didn't like the results, you get a compensating effect. I processed quite a few 35mm FP4 films for a friend in ID-11 at 1+2 and the results were superb When I was using AP100/APX100 and Tmax 100 in Rodinal I found the same at 1:50, and opted for 3:100

As HC-110 was re-formulated it may not work the same way outside their recommended dilutions. The effective EOs you are getting are not practical.

Ian

 

[dcl]

Marty, your question of economics is certainly a valid one.

When I think about it, there are different types of economy.

First, there is the financial economy. Delta 100 isn't particularly cheap. Perhaps the most cost-effective approach would be to use only XP2 and send the films to a C-41 lab, wouldn't it?

Then there is the economy of time. The Zone System provides me with negatives that I can print without excessive dodging and burning. If exposure is correct, controlling contrast via split-grading is simpler. That saves time. - As for a 1+50 dilution: this would make calculations easier and help to avoid mistakes.

The third aspect concerns learning, and aesthetics. I get to know materials better. I can only develop my aesthetic through real prints. In order to compare results, my process must be consistent.

I currently use two film-developer combinations. Fomapan 100@40 in Rodinal 1+50 and Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ in HC110-H.

The question regarding Delta 100 in HC110 arises because I don't just shoot 5x4 and 5x7, but 35mm as well.

For me, a large-format image is very carefully composed. The camera is on a tripod. I spend a considerable amount of time anticipating the right camera position, shooting distance, focal length.

35mm is more mobile. I only need to bend down or stand up straight, take a step forward or back, or get very close, and I constantly see different images that I capture at a fingertip.

The intuitive handling of the 35mm camera allows an immersion into the subject matter. I can explore motifs from shifting perspectives. It is exciting to be able to assemble images from various thematic circles during the editing process, because a "tertium comparationis" emerges through this dynamic approach to imagery and a certain "appetence".

The main question is: do the 35mm shots hold up qualitatively? This is where Delta 100 and HC110 come into play. Ideally — for the sake of the aesthetic — I would use the same film stock in both 35mm and 5x4, trusting that everything will turn out as it should...

Ian points out that ISO 40 is not practical. That is indeed a concern of mine. I have FP4+ at an effective ISO 32. My HP5+ is at ISO 125. That is almost too low for a life without a tripod, especially when one is also using filters...

Are there any developers that can get an effective ISO 100 out of Delta 100, with a density of at least 0.1 in Zone I?

Best regards,

Werner

 

[Ian Grant]

I currently use two film-developer combinations. Fomapan 100@40 in Rodinal 1+50 and Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ in HC110-H.

The question regarding Delta 100 in HC110 arises because I don't just shoot 5x4 and 5x7, but 35mm as well.

Your EI and Dilution for Fomapan 100 sound right, Foma films have an inherently higher contrast compared to other films.

I used to process APX100 and Tmax 100 in Rodinal or replenished Xtol, the results were identical, 35mm, 120, & 5x4. With 35mm the grain was very fine, you could try Delta 100 in Rodinal.

Ian

 

[David M]

I have two questions.
1: How is 40 not “practical”? Didn’t we all cope perfectly well with Kodachrome at 25?
2: When testing various dev times, dilutions and formulae using 35mm film, are we sure that it’s the same emulsion as LF and only the support base is different?

 

[MartyNL]

I fully understand the scientific and technical basis and arguments and I have even attempted sensitometry myself. I say attempted because I ultimately gave up realising that this approach isn't for me and was even detrimental to my photography.

I have also come to the conclusion that we each have our own systems and methodologies, whether we're conscious of them or not, that work for us. And that what works for one person doesn't always work or translate for an other.
Ultimately any approaches, only fulfill, satisfy, define, serve and say a lot more about us as individuals and our needs as human beings more than the needs of any subject matter and work we create.