Delta 400 @ 320 in Atomal 94 1+1

SayCheese · 2010-03-26T13:35:50+00:00

Hallo, ich bin ganz frisch hier und auch beim S/W-Entwickeln hab ich noch nicht so viel Erfahrung. Hätte zufällig jemand eine Startzeit für mich für Ilford...

SayCheese

Hello, I’m brand new here and don’t have much experience with black-and-white development either. Does anyone happen to have a starting time for me for Ilford Delta 400, with exposure at ISO 320 in Atomal 1+1 as a single-use developer? Or have I made a mistake somewhere in calculating the development time? My other films have turned out well so far, but I exposed those at their rated speed. I developed the Delta 400 for 8 minutes and 6 seconds, agitating continuously for the first minute, then agitating for 3 seconds every 30 seconds. At first glance, the result seems a bit flat (I haven’t printed from the film yet). I calculated the time myself because neither the Phototec calculator nor the Massive Developing Chart offer a suitable combination: according to the Atomal instructions, 6–7 minutes are recommended for Delta 400 at its nominal speed. So far, for Atomal 1+1, I’ve always used the shorter time multiplied by 1.5, which in this case comes to 9 minutes. From that, I’ve deducted 10% for the one-third stop of overexposure, so that makes 8:06 minutes. Is that basically correct? How would you choose the development time for the next roll to get a bit more contrast? Many thanks in advance, SayCheese

bernhardmangelsgmxde

I’ve no experience with Delta 400 and A49. I’d first have a look at how the result actually turns out on paper before I’d change anything about the development time. In other words, I’d check what gradient produces a pleasing result. I’ve always used *1.4 for 1+1, but that’s not the be-all and end-all. Is the result you find too flat compared to the same film in a different developer, or is it flatter than another film in the same developer? In the latter case, I’d definitely make a few prints first before changing anything about the development time.

SayCheese

Is the result you find too flat when compared to the same film in a different developer, or is it flatter than another film in the same developer? In the latter case, I’d definitely make a few prints first before changing anything about the development time.

Yes, you’re right, I’m comparing the negatives with HP5 at its rated speed. It’s obvious that this results in less contrast. I only get round to printing about every four weeks, so it was important to me to know how to carry out the development for the next roll. But is the principle of reducing the time by 10% for a third-stop increase in exposure OK as a starting point? So I’ll wait with the next roll until I’ve got something from the current one in my hands.

christer

As Namir said, print first, then judge. Unless, of course, you already have plenty of experience with the same film in the same developer.

Urnes

Hello, So, with a mixing head, I’m getting the following times: KB at 400 for 1+1, 11 minutes at 21°C in rotation (though it should also work with tilting). For roll film and sheet film, I’m getting 12 minutes. The scan results are fine with these times too. The gradient is almost always between 50 and 70 magenta, so somewhere between 2 and 3. Regards, Sven.