Comparison of Kodak T-Max 100 vs Delta 100, in Adox FX-39II, Adox XT-3, and Spur HRX

[dokko]

I thought this might be interesting for some, so I created a separate thread from the discussion at

Similarity between FX-39 and Ilfosol 3?

I've been meaning to try FX-39 ever since ADOX re-introduced it to the market, but I've been unlucky with timing and its availability in the US. Meanwhile, I have discovered Ilfosol 3 last year and have been quite impressed with it. I am seeing Rodinal-like sharpness, tight grain and no loss of...

www.photrio.com

I ran a film/developer comparison recently because I wanted to check two new magazines for my Hasselblad and thought why not fill it with different film, and try some different developers with it.

so I shot the same scene under constant sun light with a Hasselblad 203FE and a 80mm FE @ F5.6, on Kodak T-Max 100 and Delta 100, developed in Adox FX-39II, Adox XT-3, and Spur HRX, scanned at 11'000ppi.


the full frame looks like this. the white rectangle marks the crops shown below:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53274336402_a558e65a67_k.jpg

Kodak T-Max 100 in Adox FX-39II 1+14:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275232816_eeb6e8a8b0_o.jpg

Kodak T-Max 100 in Adox XT-3 (XTOL clone) 1+2:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275232796_5f5067365d_o.jpg

Ilford Delta 100 in Adox FX-39II 1+14:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275698425_52677f8e9b_o.jpg

Ilford Delta 100 in Adox XT-3 (XTOL clone) 1+2:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275698415_625c4f5818_o.jpg

Ilford Delta 100 in Spur HRX:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275698390_7bdaa6b397_o.jpg

some notes:

- I messed up the development of T-Max in HRX, so unfortunately no sample of that. I plan to run a larger test anyway, which should also include Ilfosol-3 (will take a while though).

- even though the images have been captured in a period of about 15mins, the sun has moved enough that on the T-Max there is a bounce of something on the left, lifting the shadows. the shadows on the right should be pretty comparable though.

- the scans are without digital sharpening applied, the inline images are resized by flickr and your web browser though. the 100% crops can be found on the flicker page if you click on the download button and choose original size:

Film Comparison

Explore this photo album by dokko scan on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

I've also created a layered .tif file with all the samples in one file:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

my personal conclusions for Delta 100:
- XT-3 and HRX both show virtually identical sharpness, detail and fine grain. the only difference is that HRX has slightly less shadow detail.
- FX39II is quite a bit grainier and has less sharpness and detail. It also has less shadow detail (and a lot more grain in the shadows then XT-3)

for TMX:
- XT-3 shows very fine grain but surprisingly looks quite a bit softer then in FX39II. If I add a lot of digital sharpening the detail is quite good (although a bit less then on FX-39II) but it starts to look very digitally processed.

let me know if you have any questions.

(edit: replaced the flickr link to the original size uploads)

 

[Steven Lee]

Thank you for sharing! I actually like your Delta 100 results with FX-39II. They seem to be sharper and I did not notice any shadow speed loss vs XT-3. Maybe you're looking at the full-size image and we're only limited to crops? But I am comparing these two: FX-39 vs XT-3. When I open both in two browser tabs, FX-39 wins.

 

[otto.f]

Thank you for sharing! I actually like your Delta 100 results with FX-39II. They seem to be sharper and I did not notice any shadow speed loss vs XT-3. Maybe you're looking at the full-size image and we're only limited to crops? But I am comparing these two: FX-39 vs XT-3. When I open both in two browser tabs, FX-39 wins.

I agree, we don’t know what causes this difference, but here as well as on flickr I pick Delta100 with FX39ii first everytime. Thanks for this analysis dokko! The decisive point for me is not so much a scan as well as a wet print.

 

[250swb]

In the examples I'm seeing more contrast and grain in the FX-39 negatives compared with the XT-3, I think your eyes are confusing contrast with sharpness.

 

[dokko]

it obviously depends on taste, but unfortunately flickr resizes and sharpens images. I found a way to link to the original files so I will relink the images in the original post.

it also depends on the screen and web browser, since the browser will do some resizing and sharpening depending on the viewing device.

to make things easier to see, I've created a animated gif at 200% scale since many people will watch this on a high ppi screen (open the link below in a new window for larger display size):

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53276525073_0971bd39ab_o.gif

ps: I also tried to match the contrast a bit better

 

[dokko]

The decisive point for me is not so much a scan as well as a wet print.

sure, a wet print certainly will show different results, but it's hard to share online

With analog prints, the differences in sharpness and grain structure will be much less pronounced, because the enlarging lenses have less resolution than my scanner (I tested with the Rodenstock APO-Rodagon and Schneider APO-Componon HM lenses).
Also there I find how the film matches the paper contrast is usually more important than the last bit of resolution.

for me, it was mainly an opportunity to test how much the developer influences the grain texture and resolution in really large prints of several meters wide.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I don't wet print much larger than 16"X20" or 20"X16" for folks on the other side of the big pond, when it comes to medium format. So any of these combos of developer/film would probably work fine for me. I'm pretty much stuck on Xtol-R (actually Adox XT3-R) and Pyrocat developers for almost all my B&W film work. Not that I haven't played with many other developers in the past. It's just that I certainly didn't find many of those other developers to make my work much, much better than either of those two developers. Maybe if I were to make a wall size print I might see a difference, but that's not my style. I'm pretty much done testing all other developers until Adox or someone else comes out with "Super Silver Bullet" or "Super Magic Bullet" developer. I have nothing against experimenting with different developers and think it's rather fun, but at 74yrs old, time is just too precious. I'll leave the testing to folks like dokko. I do like to look at this type of experimentation and do appreciate his or their work, and it saves me time also.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hard to beat XTOL.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Were all exposed at EI100? My tests show Delta 100 in XT-3 (XTOL) 1+2 needs to be EI50, and, if you used EI100, your images seem to confirm that, with much less shadow detail on the Delta versions.

 

[dokko]

I have nothing against experimenting with different developers and think it's rather fun, but at 74yrs old, time is just too precious.

I agree that is sometimes feels like time could be spent on more important matters

As mentioned above the original purpose was to check two new Hasselblad magazines and I thought why not use the opportunity to look at some film/developer combinations.
The initial test was done quite quickly, the time consuming part is to organize it in a way that others can make sense of it. But I thought it could be interesting, since it's rare to see examples of grain texture in highest resolution.

 

[dokko]

Were all exposed at EI100?

yes, all images were exposed identically for EI 100.

I didn't want to introduce another variable and thought it would be a good way to see how the shadow compares (the change of the sun angle and resulting bounce unfortunately made it somewhat less controlled, but it still seems to me that there is some comparable info).

 

[John Wiegerink]

Were all exposed at EI100? My tests show Delta 100 in XT-3 (XTOL) 1+2 needs to be EI50, and, if you used EI100, your images seem to confirm that, with much less shadow detail on the Delta versions.

I usually rate my Delta 100 at ISO64 to 80 depending on the lighting conditions. Of course, personal EI's and ISO's are like human fingerprints, no two are exactly alike. I also agree with Andy that Xtol is hard to beat for an all-around developer. That's why I pretty much settled on it for a non-staining developer and Pyrocat for a staining one.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I agree that is sometimes feels like time could be spent on more important matters

As mentioned above the original purpose was to check two new Hasselblad magazines and I thought why not use the opportunity to look at some film/developer combinations.
The initial test was done quite quickly, the time consuming part is to organize it in a way that others can make sense of it. But I thought it could be interesting, since it's rare to see examples of grain texture in highest resolution.

I understand. You were killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.

 

[pentaxuser]

I'm pretty much done testing all other developers until Adox or someone else comes out with "Super Silver Bullet" or "Super Magic Bullet" developer.

If Mirko manages this Super Silver Bullet he might be done everything. Not much need to do anything from a $10 million yacht off the Bahamas

pentaxuser

 

[Prest_400]

I've pretty much settled for XT3 and ISO 400 films, but still have a messy non-routine of different Ilford films, and the occasional other. Should you have any similar test of ISO 400 films, it's welcome
It's nice to see FX39, with Delta 100 there are a few accolades by users. TMX is crazy grainless.
As of XTOL/XT3, how do you get the times for 1+2 (and eventually 1+3)? Aside of saving on chemistry, is there any advantage? Most of the informal literature settles on 1+1 being optimal. I do see Devcharts around but IIRC Kodak discontinued giving times of these dilutions, related to the convoluted developer failures of XTOL in those conditions.

 

[dokko]

Should you have any similar test of ISO 400 films, it's welcome

I actually plan to do exactly that
in fact, I plan to do a big comparison of all films that I use and some I always wanted to try, but it will take a while to set everything up.
It's going to be a big effort to do it all in a controlled matter, but I thought if I spend some days to do it right I might learn something.

As of XTOL/XT3, how do you get the times for 1+2 (and eventually 1+3)? Aside of saving on chemistry, is there any advantage? Most of the informal literature settles on 1+1 being optimal. I do see Devcharts around but IIRC Kodak discontinued giving times of these dilutions, related to the convoluted developer failures of XTOL in those conditions.

I got the times from an old XTOL data sheet, which listed times for 1+2 and 1+3.

I haven't really compared 1+1 and 1+2 in a controlled matter, but it's said that 1+2 will have slightly more grain and sharpness, and probably .

I used 1+1 for years but recently switched to 1+2 because of economy, and also because on some films (specially Acros) I found that on big prints, XTOL 1+1 lacked some crispness, and I thought a bit more pronounced grain structure could help with that.

This in fact was also one of the reasons why I tried Adox FX39-II, and after the results with T-Max 100, I definitely want to see what happens with other films.

Never had problems with high dilutions so far. I do mix the stock solution with demineralised water though, and I haven't tried 1+3 yet

 

[Prest_400]

I actually plan to do exactly that
in fact, I plan to do a big comparison of all films that I use and some I always wanted to try, but it will take a while to set everything up.
It's going to be a big effort to do it all in a controlled matter, but I thought if I spend some days to do it right I might learn something.



I got the times from an old XTOL data sheet, which listed times for 1+2 and 1+3.

I haven't really compared 1+1 and 1+2 in a controlled matter, but it's said that 1+2 will have slightly more grain and sharpness, and probably .

I used 1+1 for years but recently switched to 1+2 because of economy, and also because on some films (specially Acros) I found that on big prints, XTOL 1+1 lacked some crispness, and I thought a bit more pronounced grain structure could help with that.

This in fact was also one of the reasons why I tried Adox FX39-II, and after the results with T-Max 100, I definitely want to see what happens with other films.

Never had problems with high dilutions so far. I do mix the stock solution with demineralised water though, and I haven't tried 1+3 yet

Thanks for sharing your tests, it is interesting.
Something that caught my attention about ISO 400, if you do Delta 400: notice that Ilford gives a table with times for Gbar 0.62 in bold. I have noticed this seems to be unique to that datasheet and in XTOL/TX3 this falls at ISO500. As with other forumers, I don't put time into testing but my last 3 rolls of D400, EI 400, souped XT3 1:1 might indeed be a bit flat; Found myself liking Grade 3-3.5 best (color head). Anyways, if XT3 gets more than box speed as an optimal point, that is quite welcome! I dind't really find extensive user references to this, but even at 1/3 of a stop extra, it would maybe be picked up somewhere.
Aside of that, there is even too much possible to test in that range.

Demineralised water is a good tip that I have to note for myself. I do have some frame edge defects due to foam/bubbles. My tanks are in a shared darkroom so it could well be residual surfactant or whatever, but recently haven't had it with high dilution developers (Rodinal & HC110).

 

[John Wiegerink]

I actually plan to do exactly that
in fact, I plan to do a big comparison of all films that I use and some I always wanted to try, but it will take a while to set everything up.
It's going to be a big effort to do it all in a controlled matter, but I thought if I spend some days to do it right I might learn something.



I got the times from an old XTOL data sheet, which listed times for 1+2 and 1+3.

I haven't really compared 1+1 and 1+2 in a controlled matter, but it's said that 1+2 will have slightly more grain and sharpness, and probably .

I used 1+1 for years but recently switched to 1+2 because of economy, and also because on some films (specially Acros) I found that on big prints, XTOL 1+1 lacked some crispness, and I thought a bit more pronounced grain structure could help with that.

This in fact was also one of the reasons why I tried Adox FX39-II, and after the results with T-Max 100, I definitely want to see what happens with other films.

Never had problems with high dilutions so far. I do mix the stock solution with demineralised water though, and I haven't tried 1+3 yet

I ran into something similar to your grain and perceived sharpness thing with 120 HP5+ and FP4+ using Xtol for the developer. I shot several shots of a black steam locomotive on both HP5+ and FP4+ then developed them in Xtol. I made a wet print of the shot from both films to 16"X20". I much preferred the print from HP5+. Why? It simply had a little more bite, and that "bite" made it appear sharper. The FP4+ just didn't have that "bite". Grain was absolutely no problem at all with that 16X20 from HP5+. I think this is similar to what you're seeing with FX39II compared to Xtol. I liked FX39II and my homemade FX37, but I didn't care for the short shelf life. I guess what I'm saying is that there are different roads to take that will still end up at the same destination or very close anyway.

 

[dokko]

I guess what I'm saying is that there are different roads to take that will still end up at the same destination or very close anyway.

that's a nice way to put it.

For me one of the biggest discoveries was a surprisingly obvious one in retrospect:
It really depends on the whole road from the beginning to end. obviously subject, light and composition are the biggies.
but choice of film format, lens, emulsion, developer, printing process, etc can make quite a difference too, and are all interconnected.

for example, if the resulting image is a 8x10" print in a book, the choice between 135 and 120 will have not a huge difference on the final picture, but on a 36x44" fine art print it can change the feeling of the image a lot.

similarly, when I was scanning on an Imacon, I found the differences between a Pentax 6x7 or a Mamiya7 not really meaningful, but now that I have a scanner with higher resolution, the images of the Mamiya7 look much more pleasing to me, specially on large prints (i.e. bigger then 44").

or a similar thing happened with Acros in XTOL 1+1 - I always liked the tonality and used it quite a lot, but when I started to do large prints they often looked somewhat soft. maybe I should try it in FX-39II again

 

[dokko]

I liked FX39II and my homemade FX37, but I didn't care for the short shelf life.

I've read that FX39 didn't keep too well, but people have been saying that FX39II has improved shelf life.

I never used the original one, but I have a bottle of leftover FX39II which has been in a nearly empty bottle for about a year because I didn't want to use it for important things. since I need to develop some boring lens calibration tests tonight that might be a good opportunity to see how it held up.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've read that FX39 didn't keep too well, but people have been saying that FX39II has improved shelf life.

I never used the original one, but I have a bottle of leftover FX39II which has been in a nearly empty bottle for about a year because I didn't want to use it for important things. since I need to develop some boring lens calibration tests tonight that might be a good opportunity to see how it held up.

Good luck! My FX39II didn't hold up well for me in a half empty bottle. It still worked, but didn't have much punch left. I think if I bought another bottle I'd put it in a Boston brown glass bottle and gas it. Let use know how much punch yours has left.

 

[otto.f]

Good luck! My FX39II didn't hold up well for me in a half empty bottle. It still worked, but didn't have much punch left. I think if I bought another bottle I'd put it in a Boston brown glass bottle and gas it. Let use know how much punch yours has left.

I keep it in a brown glass bottle pulled vacuum and it lasts a year at least.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I keep it in a brown glass bottle pulled vacuum and it lasts a year at least.

Otto, that's good to know and I'll do the same when and if I buy another bottle. Except I'll use acetylene gas to top it. I think it is a very good developer for slower films, but then I didn't play with any higher speed films when I used it. Maybe I should? Anyone like FX39II when using Kentmere 400, HP5+, Delta 400 or Foam 400? Those are the only ones I might be using when it comes to "higher" speed films.

 

[otto.f]

Otto, that's good to know and I'll do the same when and if I buy another bottle. Except I'll use acetylene gas to top it. I think it is a very good developer for slower films, but then I didn't play with any higher speed films when I used it. Maybe I should? Anyone like FX39II when using Kentmere 400, HP5+, Delta 400 or Foam 400? Those are the only ones I might be using when it comes to "higher" speed films.

More specifically the FX39ii works best for T-grain films according to the manufacturer, but I used it once for T-max 400 (35mm!) and indeed that came out quite grainy so not suited for every situation or taste. But we are talking about 120 film here. Personally I'm not allergic for grain, on the contrary, I find it part of the esthetic of film vs. digital and find it actually one of the plusses of FX39ii. Xtol is very nice but has a less pronounced grain which is mostly not my choice and I find the quantity of 5ltr stock too much, where I don't like powders in the first place.
I also use gas for shelf-life but more for my paper developer, because I don't have that big brown bottles for 2ltr or more.

 

[dokko]

Good luck! My FX39II didn't hold up well for me in a half empty bottle. It still worked, but didn't have much punch left. I think if I bought another bottle I'd put it in a Boston brown glass bottle and gas it. Let use know how much punch yours has left.

I processed two T-Max 100 in old Adox FX39-II 1+14 yesterday.
the bottle states manufactured in 04/2022, I have first opened in summer 2022 and probably reopened it about 4 times. It has been standing around 80% empty in the original bottle with no protectan/vacuum for at least half a year now.

The negatives look good in general, but looking at the edge markings and comparing it to films that I processed with the same technique a few weeks ago in fresh FX-39II, they look indeed slightly weaker.
It wasn't a controlled test since I didn't split the film and developed half of it in fresh developer. assuming the T-Max films had the same edge markings exposed (they were of similar age but I'm no sure if the same batch) I would guess that 10-20% more developing time would have brought it to similar density, but hard to know how/if the gradation and grain structure would be affected.