what is special about Delta 100?

HLing · 05-26-2011

So far I've only used Ilfordtec HC at 1+31 dilution for developing negatives. Each time before loading the reel I study and confirm the developing time for the type of film used. It's been sort of taken for granted that for the same dilution and temperature used, 400 ASA film will need about 2 mins longer than 100 ASA.

The first time I came across Delta 100 (it was 120 film) I couldn't find it on the paper I had at first. So I looked online and saw that it was something like 9 mins ( at least I thought that's what i read), and developed it for that long. Only afterwards I saw on the chart for Ilfordtec that it was to be 6.5 minutes.

months later, I'm looking at the back of a Ilfordtec DD-X bottle for 1+4 dilution. The general trend of 400 film requiring longer time than 100 still holds, EXCEPT for Delta 100, which is listed at 12 minutes.

Is this right? and if so, why is this film different from other 100's?

patois · 05-28-2011

I don't really like Delta 100. Whenever I use it, I feel like it is "creamy" which I don't like. However, I used it on a trip to Boston and some of my images felt really old skool to me which I liked.

Denton · 05-28-2011

I develop Delta 100 in DDX according to Ilfords recommendations and find it gives negatives that I like very much. Very nice high res film.

Denton

Rob-F · 05-28-2011

I like both 100 Delta and 400 Delta. Using 100 Delta in the Leica with an aspherical lens, I get image quality that rivals what I can do with the Hasselblad. And 400 Delta combines fine grain and excellent speed, giving an IQ almost as good as 100 Delta. Both films produce high IQ combined with a gradation and "look" that I prefer to TMax. I get high image quality without losing the look of a more conventional emulsion.

craygc · 05-28-2011

Yeah, its real horrible and creamy that Delta 100 stuff....

...this was the Mamiya 7II in XTOL 1:1

Steve M. · 05-28-2011

I'm not sure why the development is so different for Delta. It isn't a film that I often use, but I have had some success w/ it for portraits. My usual film is Tri-X, and I went to Delta a few times because I sometimes shoot w/ olde folders that don't have very fast shutters. Even w/ a yellow filter, 400 ISO film is tough to get metered properly in bright sun, at least here in New Mexico. I had hoped that Delta might be better for me than FP4, which I find sharp but boring. It was, a little, but it's so different than Tri-X that I seldom shoot it.

robert blu · 05-28-2011

I mostly use Delta 100/400 depending on expected light. I like them both.

Delta 100, Nikon FM2, 50 mm f 1,4 AIS

Delta 400, Leica m7

developer Ornano Gradual ST20

HLing · 05-28-2011

Thanks all for your replies. It's encouraging to see good results with this film as you all have posted.

I'm still puzzled about the 12 mins for Delta 100 and 9:30 for Delta 400, but what's more, an additional puzzle have presented itself. Could someone decipher the chart below: Why are there two 200 listings for the Delta 100 Professional, and one is 14:00, and the other 7:30 ?

(This is the part of the chart on Ilfotec DD-X's label)

Thanks all!

robert blu · 05-28-2011

Why are there two 200 listings for the Delta 100 Professional, and one is 14:00, and the other 7:30 ?

I think it depends on dilution rate, 1+4 or xxx. Maybe it is written somewhere else (on the bottle box ?).

On the Ilford web site they suggest 1+4, 14 min at 20°C, eI 200. Do not mention others times.

robert

HLing · 05-29-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by robert blu

Why are there two 200 listings for the Delta 100 Professional, and one is 14:00, and the other 7:30 ?

I think it depends on dilution rate, 1+4 or xxx. Maybe it is written somewhere else (on the bottle box ?).

On the Ilford web site they suggest 1+4, 14 min at 20°C, eI 200. Do not mention others times.

robert

Right, I didn't see any other dilution ratio for Ilfotech DD-X besides 1+4.

I'm beginning to wonder if something was a misprint.

tlitody · 05-29-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by HLing

Right, I didn't see any other dilution ratio for Ilfotech DD-X besides 1+4.

I'm beginning to wonder if something was a misprint.

It doesn't correspond to any times on their datasheet. I guess its a misprint. email the photo to Ilford and ask them.

HLing · 05-29-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlitody

It doesn't correspond to any times on their datasheet. I guess its a misprint. email the photo to Ilford and ask them.

Thanks for your confirmation! So, you mean the 7:30 time for the 2nd EI 200 is suspect, right?

I guess I can also ask them about the unusually long time that the Delta 100 takes compared to the 400.

tlitody · 05-29-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by HLing

Thanks for your confirmation! So, you mean the 7:30 time for the 2nd EI 200 is suspect, right?

I guess I can also ask them about the unusually long time that the Delta 100 takes compared to the 400.

I think whole of the second line at 200 speed is suspect. The DD-X datasheet has times for 50 speed but they are different to what your photo shows.

Is that a very old bottle of DD-X ?

I still sugest emailing it to Ilford UK and ask any questions you want. They are usually quite helpful.

wblynch · 05-30-2011

I'm certain the second '200' is for HP5+ at 200. They just didn't print that chart very well.

HLing · 06-03-2011

I heard back from the Ilford Technical support quite promptly. After brining his attention to the label on the DD-x 1 litre bottle it was confirmed that indeed there are some errors in the layout and or timings.

Below is a well organized chart. Easier to read. i.e. Delta Pro, then Delta 400. (whereas the DD-X label underneath this chart lists the 400, then the 100, and HP5 THEN FP4, which contributes to confusion)

(this is the label on a DD-X developer with incorrect info )

robert blu · 06-04-2011

Good, mystery solved! Now enjoy delta!
robert
PS I have a couple of film to develop, hopefully next week...

HLing · 06-09-2011

Tlitody, you were right about their helpfulness. Here's the reply from David Abberley of Harmon Technology's Technical support (with his permission). It was also interesting to learn about the relationship between FP4+ and HP5+. i think if they had named Delta 400 Epsilon 400 instead I wouldn't have tried find the common thread between Delta 100 and Delta 400.

"...Thank you for your reply. The scan you sent was very useful.
I am sorry I wrongly assumed the problem causing you difficulty. I shall pass it on to the marketing person who looks after the artwork for our labels. Any change will not happen quickly but it could save us ordering any more misleading labels.

You are correct - I was trying to make the point about the relationship between FP4+ and HP5+ dev times being similar to D100 vs. D400 in terms of slower product, longer recommended developer time.

Also thank you for taking the time to point out the problem even after your issue was resolved.
I hope you continue to enjoy using our products.
Regards,
David Abberley ..."