I am working hard to develope a look for my new passion, street photography (M6 w/50/2). To that end, I am only shooting Delta 400. Always developed in XTOL at 1:1 (well I'm up to about my 6th or 7th roll). I am using Kodak's times. Distilled water, very careful timing and consistency. To my eye the negs look great, rich with good density. I am metering at ISO400 mostly with a Sekonic L-208 Twinmate (excellent ambient light street meter BTW), and sometimes with the M6 meter. Either way, the exposures seem to be right-on for the film developer.

So what's the problem? When printing (to Ilford MGIV RC glossy), I am having to go to the No. 1 VC filter all the time, and sometimes even to the No. 0 or No. 00. Never up to No. 2. I am using a condenser enlarger. This bothers me as I seem to be getting too much contrast.

Any thoughts? Should I shorten development time? Different dilution? Just live with the contrast? Should a rate the Delta 400 at a difference EI?

Thanks, in advance.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 05, 2001

Answers

It definately sounds like a case of overdevelopment. You could try Xtol at 1:2 which works well with Delta 400. Another problem may be over agitation. Try gentle agitation for the first 30 seconds then 3 inversions every minute after that. Do all these things one at a time of course.

-- matt veld (mahv@xtra.co.nz), February 05, 2001.

BTW, I am using a Patterson sprial tank, so my agitation is by back-and-forth rotation of the reels. I use thirty seconds initial agitations, then 5 seconds every 30 seconds thereafter.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 05, 2001.

Are you using the old Delta 400 or the new Delta Pro 400? You may be using the older version and using development times for the newer version which are longer. Have you checked out this site? http://www.digitaltruth.com/photo/devchart.html

-- matt veld (mahv@xtra.co.nz), February 05, 2001.

I have not used a Patterson tank in awhile, but it seems to me that maybe you're just over-agitating. I used to have a density problem with Tri-X and D-76 using Kodak's recommended times, temps, etc. Ansel Adams' book The Negative has some good info regarding contrast control with 35mm films, including developers, dilutions and agitation techiques.

Good luck.

-- Jeff Voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), February 05, 2001.

Hmm; I get about 4 back-and-forth twist cycles in each 5 second period. I use a fairly firm motion. I could try to go to maybe 3 more gentle twists, or I could just agitate once every minute (dev. time are running about 8 minutes in the 70-72 degree F temperature range. Yea, I'll give that a try tonight, I have one roll ready to develop.

Thanks...

BTW, if I start to sharten development time, would you go with 5% step reductions, 10%, 15%?

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 05, 2001.

If the more gentle agitation doesn't work try 7 minutes at 70 degree F exactly.

-- matt veld (mahv@xtra.co.nz), February 05, 2001.

Hi Dan:

If you're referring to the guy in the chair shot, it looks both under- exposed and over-developed to me... like you printed it on a #4 paper. I rate Delta 400 at 320, and rarely have exposure problems even with the on-board my meter in my M6.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 05, 2001.

Dan, when you change development times to correct a large problem such as you describe, where you are off by several contrast grades, try changing your development times by more than 10% or even 15%. An initial change of 20% or even 30% will probably get you into the right ballpark faster.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 05, 2001.

Well, I am back at the house, looking at the negative of the guy eating cake. In the upper left corner, there is lots of detail. It is out of focus, but there is a good range of shades of gray. The out of focus coupled have detail, but tend toward thiness. There is also a good deal of deatil in his jeans. There is a bar extending strait up, above his head, that has no detail at all, except for a wisp of smoke. This is just too far into the shadows. His jacket sleeve is loaded with detail. Even the dark cake has detail. The paper on that table is d-Max, as is the fork. There is even some detail in the legs of the table. But in the print, the details get lost in the highlights, and the shadows. I'll be darned, I printed that thing with a No. 1 filter.

Just went out an printed it with a No. 00 contrast filter, and I'll post that image in about 12 hours, when I get to the office.

I'm starting to think this is under-exposed and over-developed, may take a sledge hammer to fix this one.

Thanks...

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 05, 2001.

Just because the neg prints best with the 00 filter doesn't mean it's the end of the world. I have a ton of Tech Pan negatives which you'd be insane to print above No. 1 contrast. There's a whole tradition of photographers who overdeveloped their film seeking the ultimate D-Max for their film; and this technique worked for THEIR process. Check http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mortensen/mortensen.html for a bit on this.

What developer are you using for the paper? (When I was using only Dektol with Ilfo RC I'd routinely print to No. 0 or No. 1/2 contrast, for negs that now require the No. 1 or 1 1/2 filter with Neutol.)

If you think the negative is the problem, change one thing a time, development time first -- drop it 20% or 30% to see a change. Don't change your EI immediately or you'll have trouble dialing the film in.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), February 06, 2001.

Thanks, I am using Ilford paper developer with the Ilford paper.

Here is the new pri nt done on No. 00 paper. Please take a look annd comment on the exposure/development.

I am thinking I will stay with EI400, but meter more carefully with my ambient meter. Probably going to the subject position, then pointing it back to the camera position, and opening up 1/2 or 1 stop as the scene contrast is high or higher. Then, cut a strip of film in three peices and develop it at my current time, minus 15% and minus 30%, all with a bit more gentle agitation. I'll come back and post my results.

I looked at A. Adam's "The Negative" last night. As fine a work as that is, the techniques are not suitable for street shooting 35mm film. I need a technique that yeilds usable (printable) negatives in typcial street shooting situations most of the time. I would be very interest in the metering and exposure techniques used by other street shooters. In fact, I will probably post such a question to te moderated form on photo.net later today.

Thanks, again...

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 06, 2001.

As a courtesy to those coming to this thread, here is the pri nt of the Cake and Cigarette image as it was printed with a No. 1 contrast filter.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 06, 2001.

In my experience Delta 400 is more like EI320. I suggest this might help. Also do remember that the developing times on the Ilford site now refer to the new 400 Delta emulsion and not the older Delta 400.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 06, 2001.

Dan, my eye goes more readily to the man's face, as the main point of interest, with the #1 contrast. I think the face seems to separate better from the background.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 06, 2001.

The film I have is Delta 400 Professional, which was recently purchased as fresh stock from B&H. The times I am using are from Kodak's technical publication on XTOL. I'll take a look at Ilford's times, assumming they provide them for Delta 400 Prof. in XTOL.

I am reluctant to rate the film at EI320 (I think I'd rather push it to EI400, just so I can keep my speed for low light shooting.

This all makes me start to wonder if I shouldn't go with Tri-X or HP5+ as my standard street emulsion?

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 06, 2001.

Dan, are you mixing your XTOL from the one-liter or 5-liter package? There are complaints on Photonet about lack of consistency with the one-liter pack. The 5-liter package is said to deliver more consistent results. I agree Tri-X might be a good idea.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 06, 2001.

I just switched to the 1 liter pack because 5 liers (10 liters @ 1:1) is more Xtol than I can consume in a couple of months. And, why did Kodak choose 5 liters?!? Where on Earth do you get a 5 liter bottle? Geez!

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 06, 2001.

Dan, I also shoot some street stuff. When I got my 50 summicron, I started with Tri-X and Agfa Pan 400 developed in Rodinal at 1:25 and 1:50 dilutions and I was blown away by the contrasty and grainy negs. (to my eye, anyway) Some of this contrast comes from the lens itself, I believe. After some testing, I settled on HP5+, developed in Ilford's Perceptol, 1:1 at 68 degrees for 15min. This is one of Ilford's recommened methods. I rate the film at 320 and I don't even notice the 1/3 stop loss. I agitate continously for the first minute, about 25 inversions, then 4 inversions every other minute. I know it seems like to little agitation. I've done over 100 rolls this way and I get even development, an even tonal range with good highlights and amazing shadow detail. I also use a B+W yellow filter.

-- Jeff Voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), February 06, 2001.

Regarding exposure/metering technique: for what it's worth I usually just meter the scene, being careful to include the important stuff, and to exclude anything that may skew the reading. Memorize the metering field of the M6...personally I find it very accurate. I rarely bracket either because, as you know, there is rarely time to on the street. If I can I like to focus directly, but often I zone focus, and sometimes I guess, for practice...

-- Jeff Voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), February 06, 2001.

Dan:

IMHO, photo 2, while possibly more technically accurate, is less appealing overall due to the lack of really clean blacks. Photo 1 had better blacks, and did draw you to the man's face. Of course, this could simply be a problem associated with viewing art via the computer... At any rate, I would encourage you to try Delta 400 at 320, and process according the instructions on the inside of the box. I do not think you'll even notice the 1/3 stop difference -- again, I use the meter in my M6 with no difficulty. Actually, it probably would not hurt to expose a series at 200, 250, 320 and 400 all on the same roll, develop normally, and compare the results. You'll eliminate all other variables and that should help you dial in on the proper EV for your style.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 06, 2001.

Thanks to everyone who responded. I will report back after I run some methodical tests.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 06, 2001.

Dan, I have no idea why Kodak makes some of their mix-it-yourself chemistry in 5 liter packages, or where to find 5-liter bottles. But it's been suggested that we store it in five one-liter bottles, filled absolutely to the rim. Kodak says the developer will last one year in a full container, or two months in a partially filled one. Used at 1 : 1 as a one-shot gives good consistency, and goes through developer a little faster, too. Just a thought.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 06, 2001.