# Ilford delta 100 self processing need more contrast!



## thepaulreid (Jan 23, 2012)

Hi all film peeps!

I have recently started self-processing my medium format film then I scan in the film to get a digital image using a epson V500. My camera is a Rolleicord Vb

My issue is that all my recent self-dev shots appear to have little dynamic range, well actually, highlights are fine but hardly any blacks or dark greys.

I added a couple of untampered with scans:












My process is:

All liquids at 20 degrees Celsius.

Developer:Ilford Ilfasol 3, 60ml with 540ml water, 5 mins total with agitation for the 1st 30 secs then 10 seconds at the end of each minute

Stop: Ilford Ilfostop, 30ml with 570ml of water, 2mins with agitation for the 1st minute.

Fixer: Ilford rapid fixer, 30ml with 570ml of water, 1 min agitation, leave for 4 mins total.

I use all these mixes fresh, so no re-using to aid accuracy.

I know in these example there is a lot of light across the subject, and that this will reduce the contrast.

All help opinions welcome!

Thanks

Paul


----------



## ann (Jan 23, 2012)

run a test roll and increase development time by 25 %

try a different roll at an ISO of 50 as i don;t see any detail in the shadows, develop with your nomral times. 

You need to do a bit of testing, which is not so uncommon.


----------



## thepaulreid (Jan 23, 2012)

ann said:


> run a test roll and increase development time by 25 %try a different roll at an ISO of 50 as i don;t see any detail in the shadows, develop with your nomral times. You need to do a bit of testing, which is not so uncommon.


thanks ann I will try the increase of dev time and will let you know what happens. Can you explain the thinking behind using ISO 50 as I don't understand.Thanks Paul


----------



## ann (Jan 23, 2012)

more exposure, more information.  the old saying exposure for the shadows develop for the highlights.

Most serious film users test their equipment to determine just what is the right EI for them , not what the box says.


----------



## compur (Jan 23, 2012)

Have you gotten satisfactory negs with this camera that were processed by others?


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 23, 2012)

thepaulreid said:


> I use all these mixes fresh, so no re-using to aid accuracy.


Fixer & stop bath are fine to reuse...  Might save you a little money.  Fixer, especially, gets expensive if you don't reuse it.


----------



## mdarnton (Jan 23, 2012)

Both images have a definite dark band along one side. Did you remember to agitate in the developer??


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 23, 2012)

I think it's probably just under exposed, and it looks like you boosted the shadows/midtones in the scanner, which is contributing to the lack of contrast.

The rebate should be black.  Yours are very light (especially on the first shot), which tells me that the blacks are significantly far from 'black'.

What scanner settings are you using?  Any pre-scan curves adjustments?


----------



## Derrel (Jan 23, 2012)

What about that big band of fogging along the bottom of shot #2??????

I have a suspicion that your film is fogged...I mean, it looks fogged to me. I think there IS some detail in the shadows, and that the scanner exposure is what is wonky...I pulled the two into PS and did a quick curves adjustment...it's hard to pinpoint, but again, the band of light at the bottom of shot two looks like FOG to me. In home developing that can be an issue when loading the film onto reels. Same with roll-film too...it is more easily fogged than cassette or cartridge loaded film. Something about these images makes me think "fogged film". However, you ARE shooting toward window light in a darkish room, and that looks like maybe from an older 120 rollfilm camera: the "fog" I think I see in shot #1 looks a bit like what is called "veiling glare", in the shadowed areas on her blouse. Is the lens CLEAN, both front and rear elements??? A slight haze or fog on the lens, like vapors from plastics, foams, bellows, leatherette, leather camera bags, etc. can create a thing,thin film over  lens elements, whcih will create "veiling glare" when the lens is aimed toward bright light sources. So...fog or lens flare are possibilities.

5 mins with 30 then 10 seco on the minute development....hmmm. Awfully short time...I'd be tempted to add 2 minutes...your thermometer could be reading "low".

A couple quick curves adjiustments in PS yielded this from the untouched scans:






and


----------



## thepaulreid (Jan 23, 2012)

compur said:


> Have you gotten satisfactory negs with this camera that were processed by others?


 Hi Compur, I have indeed. When the shop processed my first film, the images where much more blacker blacks and whiter whites. So I am thinking it must be something I am doing. However, I cannot be sure that the shop did not tweak the levels during scanning...!?!


----------



## thepaulreid (Jan 23, 2012)

Hi there, the dark bands are the borders of the film. I do Agitate in the dev. I have a twiddler!


----------



## thepaulreid (Jan 23, 2012)

it could be under exposed, as I have no light meter. As far as I know these are completely std scans so no boosting...  I will have a look when I scan the nxt roll.  I like to scan completely natural and then if I have to use lightroom to do any enhancements.  ps what is a rebate??


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 23, 2012)

thepaulreid said:


> ps what is a rebate??


The non-image areas of the negative.  The edges and the space between the frames.


----------



## thepaulreid (Jan 23, 2012)

Derrel said:


> What about that big band of fogging along the bottom of shot #2??????
> 
> I have a suspicion that your film is fogged...I mean, it looks fogged to me. I think there IS some detail in the shadows, and that the scanner exposure is what is wonky...I pulled the two into PS and did a quick curves adjustment...it's hard to pinpoint, but again, the band of light at the bottom of shot two looks like FOG to me. In home developing that can be an issue when loading the film onto reels. Same with roll-film too...it is more easily fogged than cassette or cartridge loaded film. Something about these images makes me think "fogged film". However, you ARE shooting toward window light in a darkish room, and that looks like maybe from an older 120 rollfilm camera: the "fog" I think I see in shot #1 looks a bit like what is called "veiling glare", in the shadowed areas on her blouse. Is the lens CLEAN, both front and rear elements??? A slight haze or fog on the lens, like vapors from plastics, foams, bellows, leatherette, leather camera bags, etc. can create a thing,thin film over  lens elements, whcih will create "veiling glare" when the lens is aimed toward bright light sources. So...fog or lens flare are possibilities.
> 
> ...



Hi Derrel, thanks for taking the time for such a detailed response you are very kind. I am not sure what fogged means -nor how is is caused/avoided. I am a little suspicious of my scanner. On my last use I scanned the same image twice, and it seemingly came up with 2 completely different exposures!! I am fairly confident I had not changed anything, but cannot explain it by any other means. The camera is circa 1960 but I have checked the taking lens, and it is crystal clear. The 5min dev times are based on Ilfords own recommendations. I think I will try 6 mins for the nxt one and see what the difference is. Curves adjustments look good  defo more blacks!


----------



## Derrel (Jan 23, 2012)

"Fogging" means light that is not a part of the shutter's exposure of the film has hit the film--at "some point in time", prior to the actual fixer stage of the film's development...fogging can happen at ANY time, until the film is in the fixer...for example, if a camera has a bellows, and it has a pinhole in it, the tiny amount of light that enters can "fog" the film that is positioned at the film gate. With a roll of rollfilm, if the tail is not wrapped tightly and the sticker (decal/tape/sticky thingy) stuck down, light can work its way inside the black paper and fog the film. Accidentally opening the camera back, even for a few milliseconds, can fog some of the film...loading the film onto a developing reel in the darkroom or temporary darkroom there are MANY hazards to fogging...those glow-in-the-dark numerals on an old-fashioned analog timer??? Potential foggers. Light leaking under the doorway in a temporary darkroom,even an night time??? That can fog the film. A plastic-topped developing tank that has a hairline fracture in the pour spout--that too can fog the film!!!

On Shot #2--you see that horizontal white-ish patch??? See how that looks a LOT like a film border??? In terms of the height of the line? Say 6 millimeters or so, give or take??? That makes me think the film was fogged. When film is fogged when it is rolled, it's common for the foging to be WORST on the "top side" or "light leak side" of the roll...the fogging will be most severe on the outside wraps of the film, and the light will penetrate less and less as it goes downward and in, toward the core of the film. With rollfilm, it is important to load and unload in subdued light conditions, and to always make SURE that the film tail is wrapped tightly and securely and pasted down using the supplied "sticker". Rollfilm that is allowed to "sit" out, in the light, can get fogging from light...and I think that's what has happened with this roll of film.


----------



## thepaulreid (Jan 24, 2012)

Thanks Derrel. I feel much wiser. I have not actively been safeguarding my film when changing so I will do this from now on.


----------

