Ilford Delta 100 in Kodak HC110 W 1+50

D

dcl

Active Member
Registered User
Joined
Dec 6, 2023
Messages
25
Good evening,

I have some questions regarding Ilford Delta 100 and Kodak HC110 (current concentrate).

A - Here are some observations, some premises:

1. I have determined an effective ISO of 40 with a density of 0.14 in I (I prefer 0.14, instead of 0.12 or 0.1)

2. A development time of 6'00'' results in densities of 0.72 in V and 1.30 in VIII, I'm satisfied with that, at the moment, knwing that it could be better to develop 5'45'' ...

B - I use Kodak HC110 at 1+50. I call it "dilution W", because of "Werner". Why do I dilute 1+50?

1. Dilution 1+50 works well with Paterson tanks. The instructions on the bottom of the tanks state that each 135 film requires 290ml of developer; I use 300ml, which fits perfectly.

2. 1+50 with 300ml means 6ml of HC110 concentrate per film, which corresponds exactly to the minimum amount of HC110 concentrate required per roll.

3. With 1+50, the development times do not become too short (under 5'00'').

4. I am able to develop six 5x4 or 7x5 sheet films in 1 litre of HC110 1+50, comfortably, without exhausting the developer.

C - Now, my question is whether you have found comparable values.
Do my results sound plausible?
Do you develop Delta 100 in Kodak HC110 or Ilfotec HC?
Do you use Delta 100 at all?

D - I have made some further observations.

1. With various N-minus developments, the base fog does not become much thinner.
The density in I also remains largely the same ±0.01-0.02.
This is why it seems to me that reducing the effective ISO does far more for the shadows than extending or shortening development times.
This suggests that one must set the effective ISO lower—in my case, ISO 40 — if one wants good shadow detail.
This would also mean that N-minus and N-plus exposure compensation would not be particularly effective, would it?

2. Another observation is that Delta 100 reacts very quickly to increased or decreased exposure. I have the following values:
Effective ISO 80: density 0.04 in I
Effective ISO 64: density 0.07 in I
Effective ISO 50: density 0.10 in I
Effective ISO 40: density 0.14 in I
Effective ISO 32: density 0.20 in I
Effective ISO 25: density 0.25 in I
This seems quite straightforward to me.

3. The same applies to development. HC110 1+50 is already a considerable dilution.
But for a density of 1.30 in VIII, I only need 6 minutes with a 30/30-5 agitation rhythm (Kodak).
Development time 4'00'': 0.97 in VIII
Development time 4'30'': 1.02 in VIII
Development time 5'00'': 1.13 in VIII
Development time 6'00'': 1.30 in VIII which means N
Development time 7'00'': 1.57 in VIII which means N+2
Development time 8'30'': 1.77 in VIII
Expansion and compression progress much faster than with FP4+ or HP5+. Why is that?

Is the film really this sensitive when it comes to the correct exposure and development?

I am not yet very familiar with this film. What experiences have you had with it?
I hope this is an interesting topic for discussion...

Cheers,

Werner
 
I use a fair bit of Delta, usually developed in ID-11 or Pyrocat. What I can definitely say is compared to other Ilford emulsions, if you develop as per the datasheets for the given times that Delta always ends up looking slightly over developed (more density in the dense areas) than say FP4 or HP5 given equivalent "by the book" development and agitation. This seems to be in agreement with former Ilford chemist Dave Butcher, although I can't find where I read that, possibly in one of his books I have.

Anyway, I tend to knock about 15-30% off the given Ilford times for Delta to scan better for my scanner. This is just a guess though based on what I see on the film and in scans and not the result of any testing or densitometry, although I'm sure the density you get with the stock times would be fine for enlarger user. I think Pyrocat also helps to take the edge off the densest areas. I meter at 100 and generally get very good results with it, and the improved reciprocity behaviour compared to other films is very welcome.

I don't think it's really that difficult to use or expose than other films. In fact I had a batch recently where the pyrocat I was using clearly died on its arse (in retrospect I should have spotted this) and resulted in massively underdeveloped thin negatives. However, they scanned OK!
 
Last edited:
I can can only answer C.

I shoot a lot of Delta 100, usually at box speed, and I've only used it with Pyrocat HD, The results are so good I wouldn't change.

Back in the mid 1980s I tested a lot of film & developer combinations I tried JHC-110 & Ilfotec HC with FP4, but found a significant speed loss compared to Adox Borax MQ (replenished). This matches Kodak's own developer comparison chart.

Here in the UK most use practical Zone System test, similar to those Ansel Adams outlined in "The Negative". I've always used 35mm or 120 film for testing.

Ian
 
I can confirm Dave_P's point that the Ilford films appear slightly over-developed according to the datasheets.

However, this might be because the datasheets specify development times for γ=0.65, as some people enlarge using diffused light and prefer a steeper density curve for the negative.

I use (non-certificated China) High Power LEDs with green (520nm) and blue (450nm) light in a L138 with two condensers, so I prefer negatives with a lower γ, a flatter curve, especially when printing smaller prints up to 5x7 or 8x10. Developing for 15-30% less time therefore seems plausible to me, not only for scanning but also for enlarging from 5x4 or 5x7.

MartyNL referred to Mr Covington. I have been returning to that page for years; it really is the secret reference. However, I have the impression that dilution H is more like 50% longer than B, rather than 100%. That is certainly the case for me with Ilford FP4+ and HP5+.

Ian's suggestion regarding Pyrocat, which Dave also mentioned, is something I've also heard elsewhere, several times. I have quite a bit of respect for those chemicals, but then again, HC110 contains quite a lot itself.

What I like about HC110 is that, in my opinion, it works quite well with FP4+ and HP5+. That is why I would like to use it with Delta 100 as well, which I tend to use more as a roll film or 35mm film because of the grain and resolution. Perhaps I should give Pyrocat a chance, though.

I can still confirm the speed loss that Ian mentioned: for me, 5x4-FP4+ results in an effective ISO 32 at 7'00'', and HP5+ in an effective ISO 125 at 9'00'', both using HC110 H 1+63.

Many thanks for your feedback. Perhaps there are further observations?

Best regards,

Werner
 
It appears from what I've read and understood, that this is primarily a practical and cost driven exercise? Densitometer readings, Patterson tank volume, minimum developer volume etc.

Any space for other 'metrics' such as aesthetics?
And why shackle yourself to fixed film/developer combinations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top