Gast
Hello,
Ilford DDX produced decent results with 3200. Now that developer is out of stock and the supply may even have dried up. What could be a good alternative?
Trials with ATM, Rodinal (!), Adolux and Neofin have been a complete waste of time.
Does anyone have any suggestions? Have you tried Kodak T-Max developer? Any thoughts?
I’d be grateful for any tips
MirkoBoeddecker
Hmm, if you weren’t happy with the results from the ATM and ADX, I’d need to know exactly what you mean by ‘decent’ versus ‘a waste of time’ ;)
Things like: grain, speed, grey tones, plasticity and other characteristics.
Otherwise, I don’t know what alternative I can offer you.
Ilford has announced that it intends to start supplying DDX again ‘soon’.
Mirko
Have you ever considered Promicrol?
Roman
Do you mean the Delta 3200? I haven’t managed to get good results with that one either.
But the TMax 3200 works very well with Calbe A49 (exposed at EI 3200 and developed with A49 1+1 at 20°C for about 20–25 minutes – it depends a bit on your own rhythm, etc.; I now use 23 mins, drain the first minute, then every 30 seconds until the 10th minute, and then every minute). With TMax 3200, no other developer I’ve tried (including Emofin, LC29, Microphen, ID11 and XTOL) has produced such good results. I recently got a bottle of T-Max developer from a friend, but first tried it with a TMax 3200; the results were significantly poorer than with A49 – the highlights were more blown out (also exposed at 3200 under the same conditions and developed according to the manufacturer’s instructions), and the shadow detail was barely any better.
For me, A49 remains the best push and high-speed developer!
Roman
PS: If you click on my link below, you’ll find plenty of examples of my above-mentioned combo – but they’re all negative scans, and only the ones of Steve Wynn were done with a negative scanner (KonicaMinolta DS IV), the rest with a flatbed (hence the sometimes poorer image quality with noisy shadows – these will be rescanned and replaced when I have time).
Roman
One more thing: I’ve just uploaded two comparison shots to the gallery (I hope that doesn’t go against the gallery’s purpose, Mirko?): same camera, same lens, same concert, same lighting, same exposure, perhaps 20 minutes’ difference between the shots; one developed with TMax 3200 in A49, the other in TMax developer; Of course, it’s hard to judge the grain here, but I think you can see (especially in the facial features) that the TMax developer doesn’t render the highlights quite as well; they seem somehow less nuanced; in the shadows, it’s a tiny bit better, but we’re only talking about nuances...
Wolf_XL
...I recently developed my first roll of 120 Delta 3200 (with an exposure of 1600/24 mins, A49 1+2). I was particularly surprised by the fine grain. All I can say is that there’s still a lot of potential there. The negatives were still a touch too soft for my Dunco – they came out better in the Homrich (condenser?). Next time I’ll use a 1+1 dilution and extend the development time for 1+1 by another 10–15% or so. I reckon that should do the trick...
Gast
Whatever you do, don’t use T-Max developer on Delta 3200!
It gives even worse results than TMZ in this solution.
StefanHeymann
I’ve read a few times that the Delta 3200 is supposed to work well in HC-110 developer ‘A’. You could give that a go.
Best regards, Stefan
Gast
Hello,
thanks for your tips 😊
1. Mirko: The Delta 3200 isn’t great for shadow detail – there’s nothing in the shadows with ATM or ADX (otherwise it’s a very fine film!!). Grain isn’t that important to me in medium format, and – bearing Fernand Rausser in mind – I actually quite like it; in 35mm, I do occasionally mind it a lot. I haven’t tried Promicol yet; perhaps I’ll treat myself to a bottle when I’m in Berlin next week and have to pop round to see you anyway. As I said, I also want to achieve exposure at 3200.
2. Roman: Thanks for the pictures – they look good, but I was specifically asking about the Ilford: with the Delta 3200 and the developers I’ve tried, there’s nothing in the shadows; the highlights are, well, so-so; overall, it’s a write-off. And you haven’t really taken to the Delta, have you? But I’ve still got a good stash of it.
3. Wolf: I’m a bit particular about that sort of thing… ‘Exposure like xyz?’ I don’t like that. A 400 should work like a 400 and a 3200 like a 3200. So far, I’ve always found a combination that works. If it doesn’t deliver, I don’t need the film or the developer. I’m strict on that.
4. Yes, Stefan, I’ll do that.
I’ll probably give Spur a go too, and maybe Promicol as well. Even though its description in the catalogue doesn’t really appeal to me. But one’s always keen to learn.
Many thanks to you all
Thomas N
Stagirit
3. Wolf: I’m a bit of a stickler in that regard… I don’t like the way xyz handles exposure. A 400 should perform like a 400, and a 3200 like a 3200. So far, I’ve always found a combination that works. If it doesn’t deliver, I don’t need the film or the developer. I’m quite strict on that point.
But you’ll hardly find a film that actually behaves like that; the speed is only relative to an average value (though with many films I don’t understand how that value was determined).
What I really credit Ilford with is that they’ve finally realised that a high-speed film only really makes sense as a roll film. The Delta 3200 has a multi-layer structure, because Ilford is trying to cope with a wider dynamic range; whether they succeed remains to be seen. In any case, I prefer the 3200 to Kodak’s TMZ, partly because of the format and partly because the Kodak looks cloudy in the grey areas and doesn’t deliver acutance.
But,
suum quique, as the Latin saying goes.
Gast
Hi Wolf,
What you say about the mid-tone grey value is, of course, correct. It’s been explained in great detail in the other forum by the usual suspects. The ideal grey value only exists in the thickest fog at 12 noon. But then a thin, dense or unbalanced negative is still the result of the exposure measurement. I usually meter using a Lunasix + telephoto attachment (crappy viewfinder) with the ISO sensitivity set to the actual value. And that works a treat – apart from any deviating developer recommendations. But if a data sheet tells me I won’t get the right speed, I don’t load my film into that camera and mess about with it; instead, I use a 1600 or 400 film with the appropriate developer and, of course, the Lunasix again. When measuring the subject integrally, you can often get the impression that the speed isn’t right – yes, with the Beli and its doppelgängers, you do have to admit that – but I would never simply undergo an overexposure of a whole roll of film. But of course: to each his own (I’m from East Westphalia and not a Latin scholar).
No hard feelings
and best regards
ThomasN
RomanJRohleder
Thomas,
>but I would never just expose an entire roll of film to overexposure.
You don’t do that during exposure at the film’s rated speed either – you handle the film properly, regardless of external lab conditions and tailored to *your* specific circumstances.
Gast
Roman,
I completely agree with you. I’m the one who’s sensitive to the exposure issue and steadfastly refuses to turn a 3200 into a 1600.
Best regards, Thomas
MirkoBoeddecker
Ilford DDX is back in stock.
It was a misunderstanding.
We thought Ilford would restock automatically, and Ilford thought we’d placed a new order.
Let’s just say: the forum helps.
Best regards,
Mirko
cfb_de
Thomas,
It’s your own fault. If you don’t want to learn, you’ll just have to suffer the consequences. After all, the tomatoes in the supermarket are sometimes labelled ‘cocktail tomatoes’, so that means there’s a tomato cocktail inside. Right?
It is a recognised fact, and one admitted by film manufacturers, that the nominal sensitivity printed on the box is, at best, a nice idea for defined exposure conditions and a defined development process chosen by the film manufacturer. If necessary, don’t determine it according to DIN/ISO, but by reproducing a newspaper page and conducting the development in Eukobrom. Ilford, in particular, hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory here: FP3 and HP4, in particular, started out one stop slower and were subsequently relabelled so that they would look better on the film shelf at the retailer’s.
Best regards,
Franz
Gast
Hi Mirko,
That’s a shame – I ordered 2 litres of DDX from another supplier and managed to get hold of some Rodinal as well. Everything turned out fine.
Best regards,
Thomas N
