Best film developer for Ilford Delta 100
Old 02-25-2020   #1
Neonshaw
Registered User
 
Neonshaw is offline
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 1
Best film developer for Ilford Delta 100

Hi All...this is my 1st post.
I am sure everyone has their own opinion; I have been using Ilfosol 3 film developer to develop my Delta 100 film and LC 29 for the Delta 400 ...in the most part I have been happy but curious if there are any better options on the market... thoughts.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2020   #2
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,737
The ascorbate developers provide good speed, fine grain and very nice tonality. Xtol is probably the best example.

Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2020   #3
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,160
You can also check out this site: http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/filmDelta100.html
I wouldn't trust these results blindly though, to me it doesn't look like they developed all samples to the same contrast, or there are differences in scanning/PP.
Xtol and Rodinal look best to me in that test. But everyone might have different criteria, you haven't let us know yours...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2020   #4
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,208
For me, D-76 is my go-to for Delta 100.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2020   #5
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
Xtol and Rodinal look best to me in that test.

I use Rodinal.... I like the results. 99% of my B&W is Delta 100 and Rodinal 1:50.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2020   #6
mcfingon
Western Australia
 
mcfingon is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,178
I'd agree with Marty above that Xtol is a great all-rounder for Delta 100. If you want more edge bite and grit, I suggest a tryout of Paterson FX-39.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2020   #7
kaiyen
local man of mystery
 
kaiyen's Avatar
 
kaiyen is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Age: 41
Posts: 2,201
I was going to suggest FX-39 as well. I found it a remarkably good match for Delta 100.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2020   #8
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 71
Posts: 6,248
Not using much film now but when I do I find Ilfosol3 good for my Delta 100 based photography.
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life

my quiet photographer's blog

My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2020   #9
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,619
Keep going like you have been going.

Get one developer that’s your go to, base line developer.

You can experiment with different developers and you may find one that suits you better.

The beauty, maybe confusing, are all the different developers for film available. This does this and that does that.

I find it interesting trying different stuff with analog black and white photography.

My base line developer for black and white film is either Ilford ID-11 or D-76. I use the Freestyle version of D-76. For finer grain, but a slight loss of speed, I will sometimes use either Ilford Perceptol or Mic-X which is available from Freestyle in Los Angeles.

Welcome to rangefinder forum.
__________________
Predictions are hard, especially about the future.
-Yogi Berra
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2020   #10
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neonshaw View Post
Hi All...this is my 1st post.
I am sure everyone has their own opinion; I have been using Ilfosol 3 film developer to develop my Delta 100 film and LC 29 for the Delta 400 ...in the most part I have been happy but curious if there are any better options on the market... thoughts.
I'd stick with Ilfosol 3 unless you can identify a problem with your prints (or scans) that you would like to fix. Changing films has a bigger impact on the final output (prints or scans) than changing developers does.

Having said that, if you're just in the mood to try something new and experiment you could try DDX or Xtol, both of which would pair nicely with Delta 100.

Welcome to the forum!
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2020   #11
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,897
Excellent results with D76 1+1. A better option than Ilfosol 3 and LC-29 ? Not too sure. But less expensive, and more forgiving in any case of exposure haphazard (i.e., in case of using a meterless camera with no handheld meter either).
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2020   #12
jrose125
Registered User
 
jrose125's Avatar
 
jrose125 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 148
I've tried it in Rodinal (1:25 and 1:50), D-76 1:1, and HC-110 (1:31) and tend to prefer it in Rodinal.

D-76 is the perfect baseline developer (in my opinion) to see what I film is really like, but I really dig the extra punch of contrast that you get with Rodinal - just be sure to agitate gently or you will get some ugly looking grain.

The best advice I can give, though, is to use what you have on hand. You can control the look of your film in ways other than developer - play with the temperature, agitation, developing time, etc, and you can (sometimes) drastically change the final outcome.
__________________
Instagram- jakerosephoto
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2020   #13
Deardorff38
Registered User
 
Deardorff38's Avatar
 
Deardorff38 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,001
"Best" is a questionable word here. It depends on your preferences & style. I use Pyrocat HD in glycol for pretty much every situation. fpr 35, medium & large format
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2020   #14
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 71
Posts: 6,248
We do not know if the OP will than scan or wet print. In both cases it is possible to work on the look of the final image also with postprocessing or darkroom work.

Unless it is desired a very specific look personally I prefer what is easier to use, what we have on hand.

Just my idea which of course could be wrong :-)
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life

my quiet photographer's blog

My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2020   #15
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by robert blu View Post
We do not know if the OP will than scan or wet print. In both cases it is possible to work on the look of the final image also with postprocessing or darkroom work.

Unless it is desired a very specific look personally I prefer what is easier to use, what we have on hand.

Just my idea which of course could be wrong :-)
True dat! I don't scan, but I suspect that for scanning with one of the more common scanners which won't be able to resolve the grain of Delta 100 anyway, going for the finest possible grain is beneficial because it should minimize grain aliasing. Acutance can be increased with sharpening, probably an acutance developer has no benefits for scanning...?
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #16
Requin
Registered User
 
Requin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 91
Leicaman Erwin Puts tested Ilford Delta 100 with 3 different developers. His findings were as follows: The film was exposed at EI=64, he used Spur HRX, Spur Acurol-N and R09, comparable with Agfa Rodinal. Dilution HRX 1+20, Acurol-N 1+100 and R09 1+50.
Resolution: R09 = 60 lp/mm; Acurol-N 60 lp/mm; Spur HRX 70 lp/mm
Grain:
R 09: Very even distribution, excellent edge sharpness. Up to A4 there is hardly any grain visible. The steep curve produces a pronounced and slightly compressed mid-tonal range, but the high-lights are too dense even for burning actions. When one reduces the development times, one has to be careful to keep the shadow details in place. A very rewarding developer and because of its good shelf life a very economical one.

Acurol-N: Fine grain with compact size and a very even distribution. This produces very good edge sharpness and up to A4 there no grain is visible. Scattering in the emulsion is very low and this shows up in the plasticity of the prints.The steep curve produces a pronounced and slightly compressed mid-tonal range, and the highlights are dense, but printable.. An outstanding developer with excellent keeping properties and also a very economical one.

Spur HRX: The new two-solution HRX is a reformulated version with almost indefinite shelf life. It should be the first choice for darkroom users who shoot film at a moderate rate. Very fine grain that is very closely packed and very even distributed. This produces very good edge sharpness and up to A4 there no grain is visible. Scattering in the emulsion is extremely low and this can be seen at the edges of outlines.The shape of the curve produces a slightly expanded mid-tonal range, and the highlights can be printed without any additional burning. This is an excellent developer for Zone System users as it has a tonal range of 8 to 9 stops. Again an outstanding developer with indefinite keeping properties.

The two Schain developers are the preferred ones for exacting demands. The HRX has the finest grain and the longest tonal range. The Acurol-N is a bit more grainy, but has the additional bite of the steeper mid-range. It is a choice between subtleties, but such is the world of AgX developers. The R09 has the classical virtues of flexibiliy of dilution and high sharpness. But the price you have to pay is visually pronounced grain and a steep gradation that limits the exposure latitude and you have to be very careful not to over-expose.

Just my 2 Cents.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #17
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,160
Interesting, I'm a little surprised it tested only at 60 -70 lp/mm. Doesn't tmx have much more resolution? I'd have expected them to be more similar there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #18
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
Interesting, I'm a little surprised it tested only at 60 -70 lp/mm. Doesn't tmx have much more resolution? I'd have expected them to be more similar there.
They both have much higher resolution at high contrast ratios. Kodak will tell you that TMX has resolution of 200 line pairs per mm, but probably wont tell you that it only achieves this at 1000:1 contrast ratio.

TMX has higher resolution than D100, but with all else being equal, its only marginal. It is also worth noting that TMX has less acutance and although it resolves more it can look less sharp.

Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #19
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Requin View Post
Leicaman Erwin Puts tested Ilford Delta 100 with 3 different developers. His findings were as follows: The film was exposed at EI=64, he used Spur HRX, Spur Acurol-N and R09, comparable with Agfa Rodinal. Dilution HRX 1+20, Acurol-N 1+100 and R09 1+50.
Resolution: R09 = 60 lp/mm; Acurol-N 60 lp/mm; Spur HRX 70 lp/mm
Forget Erwin Puts film resolution tests. They are total crap. To get only 60 Lp/mm with Delta 100 and Leica lenses demonstrates very bad testing techniques.

I've got about 120 Lp/mm with Delta 100 in HRX even with my 50mm Nikon lenses. Without any problems. And at quite low object contrast (1:5 - 1:6).

In German photo magazine PhotoKlassik there was an excellent and very detailed test report about film resolution and testing method published. With almost all current films on the market.
There Delta 100 in HRX has achieved 130 Lp/mm with a Zeiss Makro-Planar, and at an object contrast of 1:4.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #20
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 79
Posts: 6,316
I wonder why Puts didn't use developers most of us know about. I'm not familiar with anything he used.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #21
CharlesDAMorgan
Registered User
 
CharlesDAMorgan is online now
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,458
Rodinal is pretty familiar, the other two I know but they are not widely available outside Germany.

DDX, TMax or FX39 would be high on my list for Delta 100, but I now realise I've never actually shot it!
__________________
De-gassing progress:

Leica M2, Nikon D700, Bronica RF645, Leica CL, Summicron 40mm, Rolleicord Va, Hasselblad 500 CM Zeiss Planar, Leica 50mm Summicron V3, Hasselblad PME51 metered prism, Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta 534/16 & Ensign 820 Special - all gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #22
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 79
Posts: 6,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesDAMorgan View Post
Rodinal is pretty familiar, the other two I know but they are not widely available outside Germany.

DDX, TMax or FX39 would be high on my list for Delta 100, but I now realise I've never actually shot it!
Yes, I agree, DDX and Tmax are high on my list. And XTOL as well. The first two are more convenient to mix, though!
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #23
D.O'K.
Darren O'Keeffe.
 
D.O'K. is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 282
Delta 100 in Ilfosol has been my most commonly used film/developer over c.15 years; and although I've tried Rodinal and DDX I prefer Ilfosol with this film--to me, it gives slightly better mid-tones than Rodinal, whereas DDX gives too much speed, yielding negatives a bit too dark for my taste.

But this is all so subjective! Others using the same materials would have different experiences and opinions. As stated above, there's much to be said for sticking to one developer, at least at first, and getting to know it really well. One can then move on if dissatisfied, or bored, or wanting to experiment...

Regards,
D.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #24
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
I wonder why Puts didn't use developers most of us know about. I'm not familiar with anything he used.
https://rogerandfrances.com/subscrip...e%20gurus.html
Gurus often spruik magic brews.

Marty
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 23:54.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.