Moving from TMY to Delta 400

"Alan Smithee" wrote in message
news:GyhZf.3113$nf7.837@pd7tw1no...

"Richard Knoppow" wrote in
message
nk.net...

"Alan Smithee" wrote in message
news:lS9Zf.2280$_u1.1286@pd7tw2no...
Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these
two
films. I recently
decided I'd switch from Kodak TMY 400 to Ilford Delta
400.
My developer is
XTOL. My first set of negs turned out really dense.
What's
the difference in
B+F between these two? The difference in development
times
seems more
extreme than I would have thought too. I would usually
soup my TMY at 8:45
in XTOL 1:1, but the starting recommendation for Delta
400
is 13 minutes in
XTOL 1:1. Is there an "easier" developer to use with
Delta
400? Thx.

"Really dense" suggests overexposure. What is the
contrast like, do these dense negatives print OK on
normal
grade paper? Over development can lead to overly dense
negatives but they will also be very contrasty.

I think I did overexpose. I shot it (generously) as is my
habit now at 320,
(possibly lower). I now read that rating it at 500 may
have been more
appropriate for processing in XTOL. I pulled the
processing back to 12
minutes from the recommended 13. Maybe I'll try 10 minutes
next run.

Base plus Fog density is two different things. One is
the base or support density. For most roll and sheet
films
the base is nearly perfectly clear and has no significant
density. 35mm B&W negative film usually has a pigment in
the
support to reduce light piping (conduction of light the
long
way through the film) and also aid in reducing halation
although these films generally also have an anti-halation
dye in the back coating. The base density is built into
the
film. The base density of 35mm film varies but is usualy
around log 0.2.

My scanner, which is pretty good at reading low densities,
says .34 to .35
Yikes. I'm going to double check this though.

Fog is inherent fog of the unexposed emulsion. This is
partly a function of the emulsion itself: faster films
have
higher fog than slower ones. It is also a function of
age,
becoming greater with age, and, to a limited extent, the
developer.
Xtol does not have a fog suppressant in it. It will
deliver full film speed but will not reduce fog on foggy
film. This is also true for D-76.
The blue tint sometimes seen on Delta films, and the
pink
tint seen on T-Max is residual sensitizing dye. This can
become bound to the gelatin and remains even when fixing
is
complete (contrary to what Kodak says). It can be removed
completely by using Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent, which
breaks
down the mordanting of the dye along with the thiosulfate
and silver complexes.

I faithfully use Rapid Fixes on film and following and
rinse and with 4&1
Hypo and another five minute rinse. Clearing doesn't seem
to be the problem.

Anti-halation dye is not removed in normal processing
but
is converted to a colorless form by the sulfite in both
developer and fixer. The sulfite in wash aid should also
decolorize it.
Fog can be seen on the unexposed borders of the film.
If
the film is relatively clear the density is not fog.
Check
this by fixing out an unexposed clip of film and
comparing
the density of the result to a clear area of the film. If
there is excessive emulsion on your negatives it may be
due
to defective film but more likely to something else. To
check for fog process an unexposed clip of film. It
should
be relatively fog free (fast film always have a little
fog)
if not, contact Ilford, its the film.
FWIW, Ilford's speeds and development recommendations
are
for a lower contrast than the ISO standard. The standard
requires a contrast index approximately suitable for
diffusion enlarging or contact printing. This is the
value
used by Kodak. Ilford has chosen to use a value of CI
about
mid-way between that needed for diffusion printing and
that
needed for condenser enlargers for equal paper grades.
This
is about one-half paper grade reduction in contrast. So,
if
you follow Ilford instructions you should really be
getting
somewhat thinner negatives.

Thanks Richard. Helpful and informed as always.
Is there a benefit to using a different developer on Delta
or should I just
work within the framework of XTOL. This is for 35mm and
120 BTW.

Xtol is an excellent developer except for the short term
failure some have with it (I'm one). No one seem to know the
real reason for this despite a lot of speculation.
Note that Ilford has stated in the past that it does not
rate its films using the ISO method. They do not say what
exactly they are doing, but they also state that they base
their development charts on a lower contrast than that
called for in the ISO standard. If so, the effective speed
is less than it would be if measured to the strict ISO
method. Speed does vary with developers. The total range is
not great, perhaps about three quarters of a stop up or
down. Developers like Xtol, T-Max and T-Max RS, Microphen,
DD-X, deliver maximum speed. Extra-fine-grain developers,
like Microdol-X and Perceptol reduce speed by about 3/4
stop. D-76 being used as a standard.
Edge printing can be a clue as to what has happened. When
developed normally edge printing is dark gray but not black.
When overdeveloped it becomes black, when underdeveloped
light gray. This is not precision testing but the exposure
of the edge printing seems to be pretty consistent so it can
be a clue where the image is way off.
I must say here that I am not a user of Delta films
although I used other Ilford films. For 35mm I mostly use
100T-Max and 400T-Max, and both of those plus some others
for roll and sheet work. I have been using D-76 1:1 as a
standard developer for nearly everything but lately have
begun using Perceptol, full strength, for 100T-Max because
it is nearly as fine grained as Technical Pan and has nice
tone quality. I shoot it at EI-50 and develop about 20% less
than the time on the Ilford chart.
I don't understand the blue tint on Delta. If this is
35mm film it may be in the support but It seems the
complaints are not confined to 35mm film. Anti-halation dye
is decolorized by sulfite. Some may wash out in a presoak.
Sensitizing due is usually pink or red since it is a
panchromatic sensitizer and the dye is the same color as the
light it sensitizes to. In T-Max films this dye is very
persistent and is bound to the gelatin. Even very long
fixing does not remove it but a treatment in anything which
changes the pH of the emulsion to neutral or alkaline
results in its immediate release. If it is bound to silver
complexes those are also removed by the sulfite bath. At any
rate, T-Max film fixed in two subsequent baths of Sodium
Thiosulfate fixer for about 10 minutes total time, treated
with KHCA and washed, does not seem to have any residual
silver in it as tested by the sulfide test.
It might be worth sacrificing some Delta film to examine
the color of the anti-halation dye in the back coating and
to see what, if anything removes it. The color of the
support itself can be examined by removing the emulsion and
backcoating completely. This can be done by treating in full
strength household bleach for a few seconds, the gelatin
will peel right off.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"Alan Smithee" wrote in message
news:lphZf.3476$_u1.741@pd7tw2no...
TMY 400 (TMAX) is T-grained and Delta 400 is T-grained.
I've decided to move
away from Kodak products, not away from T-grained films.
I've used HP5+ to
get that grainy "look" but I don't like it for everything,
ie. portraits.


wrote in message
ups.com...
Alan Smithee wrote:

Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these
two films. I recently decided I'd switch from Kodak TMY
400 to Ilford Delta 400.


And why not Tri-X or HP5+. Dan


Well, there is nothing wrong with Kodak other than the
feeling that the disappear without warning. I can't proove
it but think the level of technology at Kodak and at Fuji is
consideribly in advance of that at Ilford and always has
been. Its simply that both are large and relatively rich
companies. I think Fuji would do well to make a 400 speed
version of Acros but I doubt if they will.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"Richard Knoppow" wrote

Well, there is nothing wrong with Kodak [film] other than the feeling that
it may disappear without warning.

I have the same trepidation. But this has the ole "self
fulfilling prophecy" logic to it: If everybody stays
away because it _might_ disappear then it _will_ disappear.
Nothing logically wrong with staying away; of all
prophecies the self fulfilling ones are the most
likely to come true.

In the face of logic flies faith. I am continuing
using the products I always have until they go away
and not before then. Who knows, I may not have to
switch.

"What, me worry?"


--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics, Photonics, Informatics.
Remove blanks to reply: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
f-Stop enlarging timers: http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 16:06:06 +0000 (UTC),
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they like to print
the lie (Delta "400") on the outside of the box.


April 7, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Well, to tell the truth, that's pretty much
the way I feel about Kodak TMY!

I'd prefer it if the manufacturer would print
the box this way instead: "TMY is a
superlative EI 200 film that pushes
excellently to 400."

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

In article ,
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

In article ,
Greg \"_\" wrote:
In article ,
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they like to print
the lie (Delta "400") on the outside of the box.

Interesting, never had any problem getting 320 out of that film.

Were you using the sheet film? I think the sheet film was a little
worse than the roll film.

Sheet film.


I *know* the antihalation dye is supposed to wash out after treatment
with hypo clear. Supposed to. Sigh.

I never had problems using PMK+ in my CPP2.
--
Carry me caravan take me away, take me to Portugal take me to Spain,Andalucia with fields full grain. I have to see you again and again. www.gregblankphoto.com

In article ,
Greg \"_\" wrote:
In article ,
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

In article ,
Greg \"_\" wrote:
In article ,
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they like to print
the lie (Delta "400") on the outside of the box.

Interesting, never had any problem getting 320 out of that film.

Were you using the sheet film? I think the sheet film was a little
worse than the roll film.

Sheet film.


I *know* the antihalation dye is supposed to wash out after treatment
with hypo clear. Supposed to. Sigh.

I never had problems using PMK+ in my CPP2.

Hmmmmm. Maybe it takes more alkalinity than the hypo clear provides.
The sheet film's still off the market, right? Elsewise, I'd pick up a
box and do some experiments with Kodalk baths.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon

"We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart

In article ,
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

I never had problems using PMK+ in my CPP2.

Hmmmmm. Maybe it takes more alkalinity than the hypo clear provides.
The sheet film's still off the market, right? Elsewise, I'd pick up a
box and do some experiments with Kodalk baths.

Yes in my view unfortunately. Unlike Tmax film, Delta's did & Do take the
PMK stain-that is evenly.
--
Carry me caravan take me away, take me to Portugal take me to Spain,Andalucia with fields full grain. I have to see you again and again. www.gregblankphoto.com

I've been using Delta 400 as my standard film for years; I also now use
Fuji ACROS.

D-400 is more flexible in development than TMY; it will accept a little
over or under-development without complaining.. I use a
Phenidone/Vitamin C/Metaborate homebrew and get beautiful negs at 6:30
at 70F (22C.). I rate the film at 125 because I nearly always have a
yellow filter on my lens. One of the reasons I prefer Delta to TMY is
that the TMY is red-sensitive (doesn't need a yellow filter), but also
doesn't respond to other filters the way a truly panchromatic film does.

I could get a true 400 speed out of it if I developed for 7 minutes, but
not as good a tonal scale. Much of the speed rating you use is going to
depend on the variations in light meter, camera shutter speed, etc.
anyway, so you have to test to get your own ISO anyway for whatever film
you use if you want the best results.

My experience has taught me that most films are slightly over-rated in
speed by the manufacturer for the sort of average shooting that most
people do. I like to see detail in my shadows, so I tend to expose it
for about a stop more than the manufacturer recommends for all films,
and then adjust my development to give me the tonal scale I want.





Alan Smithee wrote:

Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these two films. I recently
decided I'd switch from Kodak TMY 400 to Ilford Delta 400. My developer is
XTOL. My first set of negs turned out really dense. What's the difference in
B+F between these two? The difference in development times seems more
extreme than I would have thought too. I would usually soup my TMY at 8:45
in XTOL 1:1, but the starting recommendation for Delta 400 is 13 minutes in
XTOL 1:1. Is there an "easier" developer to use with Delta 400? Thx.

In article ,
LR Kalajainen wrote:

at 70F (22C.). I rate the film at 125 because I nearly always have a
yellow filter on my lens. One of the reasons I prefer Delta to TMY is
that the TMY is red-sensitive (doesn't need a yellow filter), but also
doesn't respond to other filters the way a truly panchromatic film does.

Actually, according to the data from Kodak, the Tmax films have different
filter factors for deep color filters because their color response is
more accurate than that of older panchromatic films. Long ago, of
course, there were different types of panchromatic films, which was
expressed by a letter code "panchromatic type [x]" where [x] was some
letter of the alphabet, and of course there were different filter
factor tables for each. Now, almost all black and white films are the
same, so they just say "panchromatic" on the box; of course some have
extended red sensitivity and there are other minor differences. But in
fact it's not the case that Tmax films aren't "truly panchromatic";
they just require different filter factors than older "panchromatic"
films because they have different (more accurate) color response.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon

"We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 16:06:06 +0000 (UTC),
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they
like to print
the lie (Delta "400") on the outside of the box.


April 7, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Well, to tell the truth, that's pretty much
the way I feel about Kodak TMY!

I'd prefer it if the manufacturer would print
the box this way instead: "TMY is a
superlative EI 200 film that pushes
excellently to 400."

regards,
--le
But that isn't true for either film. Kodak uses the strict
method prescribed in the international ISO standard for
measuring the speed of B&W still film. Ilford began to use
some modified version some time ago. Kodak speeds are pretty
accurate when the desired contrast is close to the ISO
contrast and the same developer and method are used. I don't
know what Ilford does differently but their charts are for a
slightly lower contrast than Kodak's and the speeds would be
affected.
The ISO method yields about the highest speed that will
have shadow detail. One can use more exposure which moves
even darker shadows up the toe to where the contrast is
higher. There is virtually no underexposure latitude for ISO
speeds but several stops of overexposure latitude. Latitude
meaning the amount exposure can be changed without a
significant effect on tone rendition. Perhaps it would be
useful to quote the introduction to the standard:

From ISO 6:1993(E)
Black and white films will generally provide excellent
results in several different developers and processing
conditions. At the same time, it is realized that the speed
of a film depends on the process used. Therefore, this
International Standard specifies a method of determining the
photographic speed of film/process combinations. This means
a particular film may have several ISO speeds associated
with it depending on the processes used. For this reason, it
is important that manufacturers indicate the processing
conditions for which ISO speed values are quoted.

This International Standard recognizes that black and
white films do not generally have a unique speed if several
different processes are recommended. This conflicts with the
tradition of associating a specific speed value with a
particular product. In the future, the process used for
determining sped values should be unequivocally described to
avoid misinterpretation. Since users often do not know how
these films well be processed, manufacturers have an
obligation to proved a speed value for this situation which
will ensure good results. Usually they will take advantage
of the overexposure tonal latitude of the film and give it a
conservative speed value to protect users from underexposure
effects in case the film is put through a process which
yields low speed.

It is recognized that the speed at which a film can be
exposed is depends on the extend of development, scene
luminance range, subject matter, printing paper, etc. This
International Standard specifies that film/process speed is
determined with the film is processed to obtain a specified
contrast level. Then relative ISO speed ranging of various
films in different process system s will generally differ.
The ISO speeds will provide correct exposures for average
scenes with exposure metes conforming to ISO 2720 or ISO
2721 when the film is processes as specified in this
International Standard.

-----

The box speed is an average, usually the time/temperature
charts for various developers will give the speeds
appropriate to each. Kodak specifies the CI for its charts
and gives a correction to the speed value for lower contrast
(as for condenser enlargers).
The ASA speed system used up to 1958 included a one stop
fudge factor. At that time the complaint was that negatives
were too dense. When the ASA adoped a new speed method in
1958 the fudge factor was dropped and all film speeds
doubled!
There are a great many factors affecting what is
"correct" exposure. If lowering the film speed results in
more acceptable tone rendition then do so, its good
practice, but manufacturers are not lying about ISO speeds.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA