Ilford Delta 100 and XTOL question.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

I've pretty much decided to stick to Delta 100 for my ISO 100 work, and am comfortable developing it in XTOL 1:1 using Kodak's recommended developing tims (9.5 minutes at 21C, 30 seconds initial agitation, 5 seconds out of every 30 seconds afterward). My negatives seem to be coming up very dense, however. I've still got loads detail in the highlights (they're not blocked up as far as I can tell) as well as good detail in the shadows, but am using 40+ seconds at f4 to print the images.

My question: Should I be satisfied with the longer print exposrure requirements or should I reduce development time for thinner negatives? If I reduce development times, is there anything else I should watch out for?

Thanks.

-- Chip Coons (chip@bellsouth.net), January 19, 2000

Answers

I used alot of this combination (D100 and Xtol 1+2) for a year with pretty good results. I switched to TMX because the grain is finer in my darkroom. If you have alot of density in the shadows reduce exposure (higher EI). How's your contrast? I adjust development time so that an image of a bright sunny day prints well on #2 paper with a condenser enlarger or #3 on a diffuse enlarger (what I currently use).

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), January 19, 2000.

If you have adequate shadow detail with your current exposure index, I would reduce development by one minute on a test roll and see what happens.

-- (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), January 19, 2000.

I shoot D100 in Xtol as my primary film, and process it just like you do. The only difference is I agitate 10 seconds once a minute, but I can't imagine that making much of a difference. My negatives look and print pretty much the same as any other negatives; they aren't unusually dense and don't take anywhere near 40 s at f/4 to print an 8x10; probably 1 to 2 stops less.

I don't know what to suggest, exactly, but you may want to follow the method in Ansel Adams' "The Negative" for testing film speed and contrast, so that you know whether you should decrease exposure or development.

-- Matthew Hunt (mph@astro.caltech.edu), January 19, 2000.


You should have _sufficient_ shadow detail; if the shadows are too dense, then reduce exposure. Only you can judge that.

If the contrast is too high, so that you have to print on soft paper, then reduce development time. Or otoh, if you're having to use lots of magenta filtration to get enough printing contrast, then increase the development time.

The actual print exposure time has nothing to do with it; the only thing that counts is image quality.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), January 19, 2000.


It sounds as though you're about two stops overexposed. Have you checked the accuracy of your light meter? Forty seconds at F/4 is a pretty darn bullet proof negative. The reason your highlights appear to have detail is that your shadow density is catching up with them. I would also imagine that you're images are printing on the flat side as well as being overly grainy. Raising your ei will thin the neg's but they'll probably still be too grainy. If your processing is correct then I would definitely check the meter. If you're relying on an in-camera meter, try checking it against a hand-held one. You may also have overlooked something as simple as the film speed setting. Been shooting any Tech-pan lately?

-- Walter Massa (massacam@aol.com), January 19, 2000.


Forget the 40secs @ F4 furpy... that means nothing regarding your negatives. I have 3 enlargers, 2 of which I have directly comparable results and on the little one a 8x10 takes about 40secs at f4 and on the big one the same print takes 15secs @ f8.. a fair difference eh!

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@eisa.net.au), January 19, 2000.

Lacking a densitometer, there's an old saw about being able to read sharp black and white text through the denser parts of a neg. If you lay the neg right on some printed text and can't see anything through it, it's probably too dense! The rule is really aimed at at large format, but it can give you a *rough* idea of where you stand.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), January 19, 2000.

After loads of suggestions, here's my twopence, too.

Your mentioning the printing exposure time implies that you found it long in comparison to what you are used to from other film/developer combinations you have tried and *printed on the same paper*. If that is so, this is indeed a strong indication that something is not right. If you have changed your paper or your light source, this might be aller there is to it.

Ruling out the other trivial errors, such as

- wrong speed on the meter (in-camera or other),

- wrong developer dilution (too concentrated).

you are left with the following potential causes:

1) Development time is too long.

In this case, the negatives are not underexposed, i.e. there is sufficient shadow detail (as you say there is), but the lights are very dense. To check, make a test shot of a test target with at least three uniform areas of sufficient size, and under diffuse lighting. Try to measure the reflective contrast between the areas. The difference between the darkest and lightest areas of your test target should be about five or six f-stops, and the dark and light areas should have some detail. Process the film as you did before, and try to print it with both the dark and the light areas showing some detail. If that takes about grade 2 or 3, I think there is no problem. If you need a very soft grade, the development time is too long. Reduce by say 15% and try again.

Alternatively, if you find it hard to produce an appropriate test target, get a fairly uniform surface with some texture, such as a woollen sweater. Bracket this around the exposure suggested by your meter, starting at minus five stops, minus four ... plus/minus zero (i.e. meter reading) until plus five. Process the film as before. Then print the minus-two shot on grade 2 so that it comes out pretty dark, but with full detail. (It's the zone III shot.) Print the plus/minus zero one *at the same time/aperture and grade*. It should be very similar to an 18% gray card. The plus-three shot should (when printed exactly as the others) still show some highlight detail. Again, if this holds, you have no problem. If the plus shots are too bright, you are over-developing.

2) Overexposure If the meter setting is correct, and the film is overexposed, you will naturally find lots of shadow detail, and with modern films and developers, the hightlights may still be on the linear part of the characteristic curve. The film will, however, be unnecessarily grainy. If you can compare your meter's reading of a sufficiently uniform area to that of another meter, you should find a potential malfunction. If no other meter is available, shoot a test target. (See above.) Measure the test target (preferably spot-metering, or from a close distance), and shoot it at the exposure given by the meter, minus two f-stops, minus three f-stops, ... until say, minus five f-stops. If the reading was OK, the shot at minus two f-stops will give you a zone III negative, i.e. one with full shadow detail. The other shots should have less and less detail. At the latest, the one at minus five should be clear film base. (Compare it to the unexposed film rebate.) If it is not, you are indeed over-exposing., i.e. your meter gives low readings.

-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), January 20, 2000.


Thanks for all of the feedback.

I've re-performed my film/meter exposure tests and (based on a densiometer) my meter is spot on for Delta 100, in spot mode. In center-weight averaging mode, however it is about one-stop over exposed (for high-key/brightly lit scenes, which are what were giving me problems). I suspect that I used center-weight averaging on the rolls of film that caused me problems.

Thanks again for the assistance.

-- Chip Coons (chip@bellsouth.net), January 23, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ