Thank you BH. That's useful information for me & the print adds visual context. Sounds like I won't be disappointed.
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!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.
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.
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!@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
'more forgiving' also means less control for the Zone System via development. I'm not sure that's true for D100
'more forgiving' also means less control for the Zone System via development. I'm not sure that's true for D100
PS or Lightroom perhaps would fix this image up pretty good, but I don't have those editors on my computer.
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.
I'd hesitate to draw conclusions about the USA ility of this film for contrasty scenes based on this single image.
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
@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 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.
Yes of course, if I knew what you meant. USA ility?
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
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.My scanner actually taught me to underexpose negative film.
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?
blown out highlights
Sorry, but who uses 35mm for landscape photography?
35mm for landscape photography
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?