developer....

[Olimatt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

 

I just came back from my trip to rome, with tons of film to develop I planed to use Rodinal for my FP4s (6x7) and DD-X for my Trix/Delta3200 (6x7).

Unfortunately I forgot that my DD-X is pretty old. I bought it in January this year and the bottle is half empty.

 

Should I try it and possibly ruin my negatives? Any good experience with Delta3200 and Rodinal? I need to develop my negs this week.... :/

 

Best Regards,

 

Olivier

[250swb]

It depends what you rated your Delta 3200 at but like most fast films the speed on the box is an exaggeration for a negative with a full tonal scale. So I wouldn't use a developer like Rodinal that reduces film speed to start with, however it can be done. You would have been best rating your 3200 at 1600 and go from there. If you did rate it at 3200 I would use DD-X and test to see what the best time should be.

 

Steve

[Olimatt]

It depends what you rated your Delta 3200 at but like most fast films the speed on the box is an exaggeration for a negative with a full tonal scale. So I wouldn't use a developer like Rodinal that reduces film speed to start with, however it can be done. You would have been best rating your 3200 at 1600 and go from there. If you did rate it at 3200 I would use DD-X and test to see what the best time should be.

 

Steve

 

I rated it at 1250. I had a look at flickr and Delta 3200 looks quite ugly with Rodinal... what about Tri-X in medium format? Is it ok?

[dave_d]

I rated it at 1250. I had a look at flickr and Delta 3200 looks quite ugly with Rodinal... what about Tri-X in medium format? Is it ok?

 

I use Delta 3200 @ iso 1250 and process in Rodinal and like the look. Yes it is grainy and I make silver prints up to 16x20" but it is the look I am going for. I guess it depends on the look you want for your subject matter. I do not care for the way it scans though. Process one roll and see if you like it.

[tobey bilek]

Rodinal was made for slow to medium slow films. Not that it will not develop the film, but that there are better developers. I used to use it with Plus X 40 years ago.

 

I would not chance a half full bottle of anything specially one with a secret date code I will not divulge and one that does not change color as it goes bad..

 

The only way to tell is to run tests. Rodinal is easy. The other is more difficult as you must use a full roll to check activity. Buy a new roll, shoot and test. A clip test of 6 frames or putting a drop on the exposed leader proves nothing.

 

3200 is really more of a 100,1200 film for full shadow detail.

 

I expect to be slammed against the wall, but this is the only correct answer.

[rpopescu]

I rated it at 1250. I had a look at flickr and Delta 3200 looks quite ugly with Rodinal... what about Tri-X in medium format? Is it ok?

 

Tri-X in medium format is superb. It pushes very well (I develop it with Ilford's Ilfotech HC, or Kodak HC-110), the large negative size compensates for any (if applicable) visually disturbing graininess, and also takes very well to stand development.

I find Ilford HP5+ almost as good for bad light (but not quite, at least not in the developers I have), and otherwise just as good for normal light.