Ilford Delta 100 compared with Kodak TMax 100

[GregY]

I am a big fan of Delta 100. My father (when he was still shooting film; he has since converted to 100% digital work) shot almost exclusively TMX in 120 and developed in HC-110, and he got fantastic results in his prints.

Maybe a decade ago or so, I did a fairly informal side-by-side comparison between the two. I found I preferred Delta 100 ever so slightly to TMX. It had enough resolution and low enough grain to make me happy even in 35mm for demanding subjects that needed high-detail rendering, but seemed to have more "character" than TMX 100, which felt rather sterile by comparison. I realize that descriptors like that are ephemeral and more or less entirely unhelpful. But my experience has mirrored that of others here who find TMX to be slightly less grainy, though Delta is by no means a grainy film.

I have not developed Delta 100 in Pyrocat HD yet. I have developed it in Rodinal (didn't care for it; rather defeated the purpose of using a fine T-grain film IMO), HC-110 (good but not my favorite), and instant Mytol (basically XTOL). Of the three, Mytol has been my favorite. It has extremely high resolution and low grain even in 35mm, and achieves full shadow detail when shot at box speed.

I will probably try it in Pyrocat HD at some point, but it would have to do something pretty special to displace FP4+ as my favorite low-ish speed film in 35mm with Pyrocat. I would expect compared to Mytol that you'd get a bit more grain, a bit more acutance, and slightly better shadow separation. And of course the staining.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Here's a full uncropped frame of 35mm Delta 100, developed in Mytol, and printed on 8x10 Ilford MG FB at grade 2 and selenium toned. It was shot with a #25 red filter which definitely added some contrast. This print was flattened and then scanned on my Epson flatbed at 600DPI. After scanning I just set black & white points and added a hair of sharpness to overcome the optical weakness in the scanner. The goal when scanning fiber prints for me is always to get the most accurate possible representation of what the print looks like in real life, onto the screen. I bring this up because I want to be transparent, but also clear that what you see is not digitally "upgraded" from what the print actually looks like to my eyes.

Thank you BH. That's useful information for me & the print adds visual context. Sounds like I won't be disappointed.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I am a big fan of Delta 100. My father (when he was still shooting film; he has since converted to 100% digital work) shot almost exclusively TMX in 120 and developed in HC-110, and he got fantastic results in his prints.

Maybe a decade ago or so, I did a fairly informal side-by-side comparison between the two. I found I preferred Delta 100 ever so slightly to TMX. It had enough resolution and low enough grain to make me happy even in 35mm for demanding subjects that needed high-detail rendering, but seemed to have more "character" than TMX 100, which felt rather sterile by comparison. I realize that descriptors like that are ephemeral and more or less entirely unhelpful. But my experience has mirrored that of others here who find TMX to be slightly less grainy, though Delta is by no means a grainy film.

I have not developed Delta 100 in Pyrocat HD yet. I have developed it in Rodinal (didn't care for it; rather defeated the purpose of using a fine T-grain film IMO), HC-110 (good but not my favorite), and instant Mytol (basically XTOL). Of the three, Mytol has been my favorite. It has extremely high resolution and low grain even in 35mm, and achieves full shadow detail when shot at box speed.

I will probably try it in Pyrocat HD at some point, but it would have to do something pretty special to displace FP4+ as my favorite low-ish speed film in 35mm with Pyrocat. I would expect compared to Mytol that you'd get a bit more grain, a bit more acutance, and slightly better shadow separation. And of course the staining.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Here's a full uncropped frame of 35mm Delta 100, developed in Mytol, and printed on 8x10 Ilford MG FB at grade 2 and selenium toned. It was shot with a #25 red filter which definitely added some contrast. This print was flattened and then scanned on my Epson flatbed at 600DPI. After scanning I just set black & white points and added a hair of sharpness to overcome the optical weakness in the scanner. The goal when scanning fiber prints for me is always to get the most accurate possible representation of what the print looks like in real life, onto the screen. I bring this up because I want to be transparent, but also clear that what you see is not digitally "upgraded" from what the print actually looks like to my eyes.

Very nice indeed!

 

[BHuij]

It gets really easy for me personally to chase my tail on micro-improvements in technical quality, or just "grass is greener" syndrome. I try hard to balance my interest in experimenting and tinkering with new things (two-bath developer! Pyro developers! Extreme minimal agitation! Edge effects!) with the far more important right-brained parts of producing good art.

But for me, Delta 100 in XTOL (technically Instant Mytol) is a winning combo, particularly for 35mm. If you do end up trying Delta 100 in some flavor of pyro, I'd be very interested to see and read about your results!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Both are gorgeous films, but I found Delta 100 to be more forgiving when it comes to exposure and development. This means fewer losses when shooting 35mm film with AE cameras.

'more forgiving' also means less control for the Zone System via development. I'm not sure that's true for D100

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Nope. Lots of control with D100 and the Zone System.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@pentaxuser that is what I recall as well. No D400 in sheet film as it will compete directly with their flagship film, HP5. I'd rather see them make SFX sheet film, instead

 

[John Wiegerink]

@pentaxuser that is what I recall as well. No D400 in sheet film as it will compete directly with their flagship film, HP5. I'd rather see them make SFX sheet film, instead

Heck, I'd like to see them make both SFX and D400 in 4X5. Hey, if we're gonna want, then let's want big!
Actually, Ilford does have enough out there to keep most of us very happy. That said, it would be nice to have....................oops!

 

[Steven Lee]

'more forgiving' also means less control for the Zone System via development. I'm not sure that's true for D100

Did you just interpret my statement in your own way, and then immediately disagreed with yourself?

 

[grain elevator]

'more forgiving' also means less control for the Zone System via development. I'm not sure that's true for D100

"Forgiving" around these parts seems to have an oddly specific meaning. What you say does make sense if forgiving means S-curve/ long toe and thus "any exposure yields something", but the result is not tonally predictable. Otoh to me, a more meaningful "forgiveness" for all but the most haphazard photography is the very opposite thing: a straight-ish line film gives a straight-ish response no matter where we are on the curve, as long as we are on the curve, and in all but the most contrasty situations it's fairly easy to be all on the curve.

 

[film4Me]

Unfortunately I'm not conversant with all the technical aspects of Delta 100, but this image was exposed on the medium and with very limited time to take the shot, all I could do with the light meter was to point it straight ahead level with the ground and using that one single reading, quickly set the camera then pressed the cable release. The 120 film was developed in ID II 1:1 for 8mins if I recall correctly. There was blown out highlights in the top cloud and the scanner found it difficult to deal with them, so I checked the negative and shadow detail was definitely in those highlights. Persistent scanning got them to show eventually, at the cost of dark trees, however, PS or Lightroom perhaps would fix this image up pretty good, but I don't have those editors on my computer. Please judge for yourself about tonality and dynamic range of this Delta 100 image. The exposing and processing was all pretty standard stuff, no pushing or pulling, what you see is what came from the camera. If It was possibly to do this shot again, I think I'd use Kodak Plus X Pan with the least amount of expiration, I have plenty. As usual, metering is important, I should have angled the meter up more towards the clouds, or known more about exposing for shadows and developing for the highlights, but just the same, detail was there in the negative. Would I use Delta 100 again? Yes, but for less contrasty scenes.

 

[Milpool]

This might or might not be of use to anyone but with a series of general purpose developers I found the sensitometry to be virtually the same (see example below). Spectral sensitivity differences can alter the comparative results under some conditions. Some other differences - TMX is finer grained, TMX has a shinier emulsion surface.

 

[koraks]

PS or Lightroom perhaps would fix this image up pretty good, but I don't have those editors on my computer.

GIMP is free. You could try that.
I'd hesitate to draw conclusions about the USA ility of this film for contrasty scenes based on this single image. Which, btw, looks fine to me; nice clouds!

 

[william lester]

Drew,
Just for the heck of it I fired off an email to Ilford/Harman last night, asking about the possibility of bringing Delta 400 out in sheet film sizes since the dreaded tariffs on other countries had a big possibility of really increasing their sales. Of course, I learned that just got shot down. I'm starting to think the Vancouver area might just be a very nice place to live instead of where I am now.
I can't wait to see what Ilford/Harman sends for a reply. I bet it won't be positive.

Delta 400 used to be available in sheet film. I used it a bit around 1999 maybe 2000.

 

[loccdor]

@film4Me Many scanners have trouble dealing with density in positives and negatives. I'm able to extract a lot more highlight detail from negatives and shadow detail from slide film when using a DSLR copystand setup. It has to do with the brightness of the light source and the sensitivity of the sensor.

 

[film4Me]

I'd hesitate to draw conclusions about the USA ility of this film for contrasty scenes based on this single image.

Yes of course, if I knew what you meant. USA ility?

 

[GregY]

Unfortunately I'm not conversant with all the technical aspects of Delta 100, but this image was exposed on the medium and with very limited time to take the shot, all I could do with the light meter was to point it straight ahead level with the ground and using that one single reading, quickly set the camera then pressed the cable release. The 120 film was developed in ID II 1:1 for 8mins if I recall correctly. There was blown out highlights in the top cloud and the scanner found it difficult to deal with them, so I checked the negative and shadow detail was definitely in those highlights. Persistent scanning got them to show eventually, at the cost of dark trees, however, PS or Lightroom perhaps would fix this image up pretty good, but I don't have those editors on my computer. Please judge for yourself about tonality and dynamic range of this Delta 100 image. The exposing and processing was all pretty standard stuff, no pushing or pulling, what you see is what came from the camera. If It was possibly to do this shot again, I think I'd use Kodak Plus X Pan with the least amount of expiration, I have plenty. As usual, metering is important, I should have angled the meter up more towards the clouds, or known more about exposing for shadows and developing for the highlights, but just the same, detail was there in the negative. Would I use Delta 100 again? Yes, but for less contrasty scenes.

View attachment 393066

In what ways do you think the Plus-X image would differ?
One of the reasons for using TMax/Delta in 35mm is to get smoother results for landscape type photos. For portraits i don't mind a little grainier results as long as the tonality is good. For most of us Plus X is moot since it has long been discontinued, but i'm interest in your observations on tonality....

 

[film4Me]

@film4Me Many scanners have trouble dealing with density in positives and negatives. I'm able to extract a lot more highlight detail from negatives and shadow detail from slide film when using a DSLR copystand setup. It has to do with the brightness of the light source and the sensitivity of the sensor.

Thanks. However, I might try multi exposure scanning to see if I can improve that image. I did expose the whole roll of that Delta 100, so I've studied the other images as well, and I found that blown out highlights were a problem in other shots too.Spot metering and experimenting with processing I'd say are fairly critical to good viewable results from that film. But then, I'm still on my learning curve with it. I shoot mainly FP4, and as much Plus X Pan I can get my hands on. Even expired, Plus X Pan is a brilliant film for tonal range and handling highlights adequately IMO.

 

[albireo]

@film4Me Many scanners have trouble dealing with density in positives and negatives. I'm able to extract a lot more highlight detail from negatives and shadow detail from slide film when using a DSLR copystand setup. It has to do with the brightness of the light source and the sensitivity of the sensor.

Unless you're dealing with really, really wrongly exposed slide film, which you shouldn't even bother scanning, this is nonsense.

Anyways, this thread is about Delta 100 and any scanner above a consumer Epson v600-class device will have zero problems scanning a contrasty Delta 100 negative such as the one shown above.

The issue is, rather, that often bundled scanner software makes debatable choices on curves to apply to the raw image, and often sacrifices the tails of the histogram to offer midtone readability, and many users don't defeat this software layer (perhaps they don't want to or don't know how to do it).

 

[loccdor]

Unless you're dealing with really, really wrongly exposed slide film, which you shouldn't even bother scanning, this is nonsense.

Not to make this thread about scanning, but the next time you scan something very contrasty like Velvia 50 with sun and shade in the image, see if you can't make out more shadow detail on a light table than what your scanner is able to pick up with all automatic settings turned off. And sometimes people do miss exposure by a bit on a film like Delta 100 and could find a similar situation. My scanner actually taught me to underexpose negative film.

 

[koraks]

Yes of course, if I knew what you meant. USA ility?

Sorry about that; phone autocorrect (auto-incorrect, more like). I meant 'usability'.

Not to make this thread about scanning, but the next time you scan something very contrasty like Velvia 50 with sun and shade in the image

That's >4.0logD. Very, very, very, VERY dense Delta 100 will struggle to make it to 3.0 logD. That's a factor of 1000 difference in light transmittance, and even that is a worst-case scenario!!
I regularly scan very, very (etc.) dense B&W negative that's developed specifically for carbon DAS, which means >2.5logD. Scans OK - while image quality is better if I keep it below 2.2logD or so, it's totally acceptable especially for web versions.
The whole story about scanners struggling with dense B&W negs is way overblown. Sorry to be so blunt about it!

 

[John Wiegerink]

My scanner actually taught me to underexpose negative film.

Yes, this is not about scanning, but I found that even my well thought of Nikon LS8000 liked a thinner negative compared to the good old enlarger with VC head.

 

[film4Me]

In what ways do you think the Plus-X image would differ?
One of the reasons for using TMax/Delta in 35mm is to get smoother results for landscape type photos. For portraits i don't mind a little grainier results as long as the tonality is good. For most of us Plus X is moot since it has long been discontinued, but i'm interest in your observations on tonality....

Sorry, but who uses 35mm for landscape photography? Wouldn't no less than 4x5 be better? I used 120 for the clouds shot and I'm moving to 4x5 in the future, like right now. 120 is alright, but for sharp detail in backgrounds, I reckon a larger format is needed. Of course it depends on your depth of field, but just the same, why have a murky out of focus background due to a format that is too small for the job? Good clean bokeh is just as important as a good sharp subject.

Yes Plus X Pan is discontinued so I'll refrain from mentioning it any further. I liked the rendering of the blacks and whites and all the tones in between, there's a magic about them, and perhaps it's the fogging of the expired film that suppresses bright highlights that warranted my attention, because blown out highlights have been a thorn in my side almost forever. I need to learn how to meter like the Pros. It's also fine grained if developed in fresh diluted developer, or even the second development of a one-shot developer. So, with Delta 100, I will be using semi stand or a much diluted developer process in the future, and experiment with times, to get slightly flatter images that the scanner can handle, and then post process to suit my taste.

 

[koraks]

Sorry, but who uses 35mm for landscape photography?

Plenty of people! We all have our own preferences. I personally do loads of 35mm landscape work.
The example you posted at that resolution would have been every bit as good as it is now if it had been shot on 35mm.

blown out highlights

One of the nicer things about B&W negative is that it's virtually impossible with most modern films to actually blow out highlights.

 

[albireo]

Sorry, but who uses 35mm for landscape photography?

I do. Sometimes I like a close to grainless Ektar 100 landscape out of my Fuji GW690 III, but many times I'll go for a grainy, gritty 35mm landscape on black and white film for instance. Try some HP5+ in Rodinal 1:50 or Foma 400 on a nice foggy day. Can be wonderful!

I've been trying landscapes on Orwo NC500 colour negative film lately. A gritty, imperfect, dull, colour film which oozes grain and offers only hints of colour. I'm loving the results.

The year is 2025. Grain is often a feature, not a bug like in 1970.

 

[loccdor]

35mm for landscape photography

Scala 50 / HR-50 with a modern sharp lens can do it very well. Fuji slide is nice, too.