> So do you mean that Delta 400 pushes to EI 800 just as well as HP5+ does?(posted 8337 days ago)In my so-far brief experience with it, I think it pushes at least as well and probably better. I've never been very happy with pushed HP5+; it's always appeared slightly too gritty and slightly too thin, even when developed in Microphen or DD-X. These effects certainly aren't severe or obvious but just enough to make me hope for and look for better results.
Also I think part of the difference is the curve shape; while HP5+ gives dead-straight curve shapes in most developers I've tried, Delta 400 shows a fairly strong shoulder that makes bright highlights easier to print or burn in, especially when it's pushed a little. I get that shoulder with both D-76H and Ilfosol-S.
> Also, what's special about Ilfosol-S?
I got to thinking about Xtol and some of the advantages of it and recalled that Ilfosol-S is a PQ/ascorbate developer and thought that maybe it would give some of the positive aspects of Xtol without the "dreaded Xtol failure."
My first try was with HP5+; results were essentially the same as I've been getting with D-76H. I didn't see any significant advantages.
Another thread led me to take a look at D3200 at slow speeds, something I'd never explored before. It worked ok at EI 800-1000 in D-76H with very nice tonality but was so gritty I'd never want to use it in 35mm. While I was messing around I tried it in Ilfosol-S 1:9 and was shocked; it was still pretty grainy but _lots_ better than in D-76H and actually looks very much like TX 30 years ago.
> Now you are using it for pushing films and processing Delta 3200. It it really suited for such a job, compared to your (used to be?) favourite D-76H and Microphen?
I don't think it's suitable for more than perhaps a one-stop push; there's really no gain in "real" speed so it's still simply a situation of underexposure and overdevelopment but it appears that the "cost" in terms of graininess and loss of sharpness is slightly lower than using Microphen or DD-X.
D3200 is special; for EI 1600 I think the decreased graininess is a worthwhile tradeoff for the slower "real" speed compared to Microphen or DD-X, while above that I think too much shadow density would be lost. Fortunately, above that I rarely go.
> I usually prefer chemicals whose formulae are published and I know what's in it
I do too, and like to avoid the trap of entirely depending on a chemical that may suddenly become unavailable.
I was going to refer you to a pdf doc on Ilford's web site that listed Phenidone, hydroquinone and ascorbate in Ilfosol-S but the page has been changed and unfortunately the only film developer doc listed now is for DD-X.
You can tell it's late summertime here in Florida; too hot and muggy to go outside much unless it's raining so it's a good time to be fiddling around in the air-conditioned darkroom. ;-)