Delta 400 @ 800 in APH09 or Aculux 3

TiMo · 2012-08-16T07:02:22+00:00

Hat jemand Erfahrung mit der Entwicklung des Ilford Delta 400 (geschossen auf 800) in APH09 oder Aculux 3? Das einzige was ich fand ist: Rodinal 1+2...

TiMo

Does anyone have any experience with the development of Ilford Delta 400 (pushed to 800) in APH09 or Aculux 3? The only thing I’ve found is: Rodinal 1+25 800 18.5 minutes The development times for Rodinal and APH09 should be the same. I’m just worried that the result will be very grainy. Thanks and best regards, Tim

Gast

Hi Tim, Although I haven’t used the Delta 400 much myself, I’d say that Rodinal/APH09/Adonal is the absolute worst developer you could possibly use for push development!!! I’d suggest trying Xtol or D76/ID11. Ilford has a push developer called Microphen in its range. I’m not familiar with Aculux 3, but it looks promising too. Here is the Ilford development chart with push times: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006210204272065.pdf Best regards, Wolfgang

ThomasPauly

It’s true that this film-developer combination isn’t exactly a dream team for push processing. Films with a flat crystal structure tend to become more grainy in the highlights during push processing than those with a cubic crystal structure. Highly diluted liquid developers accentuate acutance, but also the grain. However, if the film has already been exposed at 800 ASA and is awaiting development, ID-11/D-76 is likely to yield a ‘relative optimum’. The FOTOIMPEX laboratory also offers push processing. The A-49 (equivalent to Atomal) used there is also expected to produce good results based on its mode of action. Tepe

TR

But if the film has already undergone an exposure at 800 ASA

I always consider such formulations worth pondering: the film is simply subject to underexposure; the shadow detail will be insufficient – depending on the subject – particularly if a camera-mounted light meter or automatic mode was used (in which case the film may well have been underexposed even further). In my opinion, extended development with D-76 and Atomal achieves only one thing here: blocked highlights – but of course it does not restore the lost shadow detail. I also get blown-out highlights or artificially bright areas if I choose a paper with a harder gradient. I don’t need to ruin the negative even further for something like that. I would actually try Microphon – there’s no going back now, after all.

Tandemfahren

Absolutely right, but Tim knows that. In defence of the ‘Pusher’ (Blimey! Now I finally understand that Steppenwolf classic, ‘God damn the pusher’!) it must be said, however, that a) our films today still produce images with a density that Master Ansel’s materials would have given up on long ago, and B) with suitably low subject contrast, perfectly good negatives can certainly be produced – to what extent that was down to skill or chance in individual cases, let’s not get into that now...After all, in the darkroom you’re doing nothing else; it’s simply called “adjusted development” and not “pushing” or “pulling”. Incidentally, in sailors’ parlance, “pulling” meant “rowing” (the same as “pulling on the oars”??) My experiments showed that Atomal achieved a sensitivity utilisation rate almost as high as Microphen’s, with a slightly finer grain and a less S-shaped curve.

TiMo

Thanks to everyone. I’m well aware that this film-developer combination isn’t the best. But sometimes you just happen to know a method that works well. Wolfgang, Microphen would have been my next choice too. I didn’t want to have yet another developer lying about. I’ve ordered it now, because I don’t want to experiment with the film. T.R., the drawbacks are well known and the film wouldn’t have been used at 800 unless absolutely necessary. But sometimes there just isn’t enough light and then it ends up with underexposure. That’s not done to achieve a particular effect, but to get a shutter speed that still allows for handheld shooting.