Ilford Delta 100 compared with Kodak TMax 100

[film4Me]

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.

Possibly, but how would it look scanned to the equivalent of 116 MP, which that cloud one is on my computer, and it could have been scanned to well over 250 MP, maybe 300, it's been done before with 120 negatives. They'd make massive murals without any pixelation.

I'd love to see one of your 35mm landscapes, do you use APO Lanthar lenses?

 

[warden]

Sorry, but who uses 35mm for landscape photography?

I would guess about 90% of film photographers.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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

Yes, I'm impressed with HR-50 in 35mm and I haven't even used it with my best camera lenses yet. Little picky on the developer it like, but if you're careful it's really good. I can't wait until we get some green in Michigan so I can use my R72 filter with it.

 

[loccdor]

Yes, I'm impressed with HR-50 in 35mm and I haven't even used it with my best camera lenses yet. Little picky on the developer it like, but if you're careful it's really good. I can't wait until we get some green in Michigan so I can use my R72 filter with it.

Rodinal 1+25 10 minutes 22C semi-stand with 30 sec initial agitation and one gentle turn at 5 minutes. You'll love it. I never tried anything else with it because it works so well. Worked great with R72 and without.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry, but who uses 35mm for landscape photography?

Lots of us.
Scanned from a darkroom printed postcard, but the darkroom printed ~9.5" x x 14" enlargement on our wall is quite satisfying.

Taken with ~60 year old Kodak Retina IIIc, braced against a bridge railing - on TMax 400, IIRC. In the original, the transmission lines spanning the valley are clearly visible.
It isn't the film, or the lens, or the megapixels.

 

[koraks]

I'd love to see one of your 35mm landscapes, do you use APO Lanthar lenses?

They're easy to find, at least some of them. And no. I don't think it's very relevant.
I also don't think this exchange is going in a direction that I particularly like. You do it your way, I do it mine, and the next guy does it his way. Live and let live. The point I made subtly, and now more explicitly, is that it's fine that people have their own ways; we're not looking for someone to police us into their preferred direction. You've come to the wrong place if that's what you intend. The remark about who shoots landscapes with 35mm came across as condescending, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to see it that way. Again, this is not the place.

 

[film4Me]

I would guess about 90% of film photographers.

I surrender. I love film too much to argue.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I've long been a user of Tmax 100 as well as TMY-2. Given the imposition today of 25% tariffs, when my Kodak film runs out i'll be buying Ilford Delta 100 as my choice of fine grain film.
I'd appreciate any comments/comparisons from Ilford users about Ilford Delta 100 & Kodak TMX.
I typically process in Pyrocat HD and use mostly 120 and some 35mm. The MF negatives get enlarged as large as 20x24" and the 35mm usually only to 11x14."

They're both excellent films. Also consider Fuji 100 Acros II.

 

[warden]

I surrender. I love film too much to argue.

Hey, welcome to Photrio. Stick around and keep showing your work!

 

[film4Me]

Hey, welcome to Photrio. Stick around and keep showing your work!

Sure, but I'll apologize first, I got carried away, I didn't expect all the dialogue that emanated from my posts. I'll keep a cool head from now on.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I didn't expect all the dialogue that emanated from my posts.

Oh that was nothing. One day, quite innocently, you'll start a thread asking people whether they pre-wash their film or not. Then you'll get dialogue !

This thread inspired me to spend the day shooting the same stuff on both T-Max 100 and Delta 100. Will develop in Rodinal this week-end.

 

[film4Me]

This thread inspired me to spend the day shooting the same stuff on both T-Max 100 and Delta 100. Will develop in Rodinal this week-end.

I have some T-Max in the freezer I haven't got around to using yet. I'll put a roll in the Bronica and shoot it off, then I'll be able to compare it with the Delta 100. The Bronica has a metered finder, so it can do the metering while I concentrate on the scene/s.

 

[GregY]

They're both excellent films. Also consider Fuji 100 Acros II.

Thanks for the suggestion Keith. I have some in my fridge and have used both versions, but to me it's an outlier. I'm looking for a film that will be around in the long run and is easily obtainable. In Western Canada that's Ilford. I loved Neopan, but it's gone.... i'm not inclined to put effort into tweaking exposure and development with a film that could be gone tomorrow. For those reasons Acros didn't make my short list.

 

[GregY]

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.

Yes we're in the trad sub forum and i asked the question. I print in a darkroom and don't own a scanner

 

[GregY]

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

In looking for a substitute for TMax100, i didn't consider

-films made in USA (due to the ongoing tariff situation)
-films w known QC issues like Foma
-any films not readily available in Canada, (eg Adox)
- any rebrands, or any transparency film
- also for my purpose films i prioritized films available in a variety of sizes (35/120/sheet film)

 

[GregY]

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.

F4M.... I've dragged an 8x10 around, and skiied & climbed carrying MF cameras....sometimes you're a very long way from your car and 35 does the trick..
(LeicaM6/Summicron 50/Tmax 100/Print on Forte Polygrade FB, BTW i've made acceptable enlargements of this negative to 16"x20"...but these days i usually stop at 11x14")

 

[John Wiegerink]

F4M.... I've dragged an 8x10 around, and skiied & climbed with MF....sometimes you're a very long way from your car and 35 does the trick..
(LeicaM6/Summicron 50/Tmax 100/Print on Forte Polygrade FB, BTW i've made acceptable enlargements of this negative to 16"x20"...but these days i usually stop at 11x14")

Greg,
I can see in the photo above that 35mm is inferior. Just look at the blurry mess on the left side of the middle peak.

 

[koraks]

Sure, but I'll apologize first, I got carried away, I didn't expect all the dialogue that emanated from my posts. I'll keep a cool head from now on.

Hey, it's OK, but I appreciate it. I apologize from my end; I shouldn't have given you such a hard time over it. I'm sorry about that. I'm glad you've joined given your passion for film and photography in general!

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Thanks for the suggestion Keith. I have some in my fridge and have used both versions, but to me it's an outlier. I'm looking for a film that will be around in the long run and is easily obtainable. In Western Canada that's Ilford. I loved Neopan, but it's gone.... i'm not inclined to put effort into tweaking exposure and development with a film that could be gone tomorrow. For those reasons Acros didn't make my short list.

Unless you specifically want special grain films like TMax, Delta or Acros, good old FP4 Plus is a very capable film.
Get the exposure and development right and it produces beautiful tonality.

 

[retina_restoration]

In looking for a substitute for TMax100, i didn't consider

-films made in USA (due to the ongoing tariff situation)
-films w known QC issues like Foma
-any films not readily available in Canada, (eg Adox)
- any rebrands, or any transparency film
- also for my purpose films i prioritized films available in a variety of sizes (35/120/sheet film)

Your list of qualifiers is well thought out. By the end of that set of requirements you’ve arrived at a very short list of options that is essentially nothing but Ilford products. That’s not a bad thing, not at all.
In fact, you’ve narrowed it down to two options: FP4 and Delta 100. Those are the only two that meet your requirements. I’ve said this before: if all of a sudden the only B&W film left on the planet was FP4, I could live with that. It’s malleable, versatile, and produces beautiful negs, and can be used for all kinds of different processes. In many ways it’s the perfect film.
But I could easily say the same of Delta 100. Some say it’s fussy to expose/develop to get ideal results, but I have not found this to be so. I’ve used Delta 100 sheet film to produce negatives for Salt and Kallitype printing and it performs as well as FP4 does. Exposed well and developed with intent, it gives shimmering high values with beautiful separation of the delicate bright tones, and holds shadow information nicely (you’ll want to determine its practically ASA for your needs, if course. (I tend to expose it at 64 ASA in most situations)
Anyway, you could easily choose either of those two and be happy with them.

 

[GregY]

Your list of qualifiers is well thought out. By the end of that set of requirements you’ve arrived at a very short list of options that is essentially nothing but Ilford products. That’s not a bad thing, not at all.
In fact, you’ve narrowed it down to two options: FP4 and Delta 100. Those are the only two that meet your requirements. I’ve said this before: if all of a sudden the only B&W film left on the planet was FP4, I could live with that. It’s malleable, versatile, and produces beautiful negs, and can be used for all kinds of different processes. In many ways it’s the perfect film.
But I could easily say the same of Delta 100. Some say it’s fussy to expose/develop to get ideal results, but I have not found this to be so. I’ve used Delta 100 sheet film to produce negatives for Salt and Kallitype printing and it performs as well as FP4 does. Exposed well and developed with intent, it gives shimmering high values with beautiful separation of the delicate bright tones, and holds shadow information nicely (you’ll want to determine its practically ASA for your needs, if course. (I tend to expose it at 64 ASA in most situations)
Anyway, you could easily choose either of those two and be happy with them.

i do agree with you on FP4....if it came down to it....i'd be happy using just that. I have quite a bit of FP4 in the fridge. I just bought a bag full of 35mm & 120 Delta 100 yesterday and am looking forward to some exposure/development testing. My lights went on wiith TMax 100 when i found that in 35mm the smoothness and detail sharpness approached the look of MF and in 6x7/6x9 almost LF. So I look forward to the results with Delta 100.
Here are iphone photos of 11x14 prints w TMax that illustrate that point

 

[GregY]

Here's another photo that illustrates the answer to "who shoots landscapes w 35mm anyway?" I was guiding the Japanese photographer Shiro Shirahata to photograph some peaks in the Canadian Rockies. His porter was a Japanese university student who carried his 85lb Linhof outfit....
Leica photo...

 

[koraks]

Here's another photo that illustrates the answer to "who shoots landscapes w 35mm anyway?"

This is not to be flippant, and I'm sure the real-world print looks a lot different, but the digital version shown here is very problematic from a technical viewpoint. I don't feel it illustrates well what a 35mm landscape can look like. A lot is lost here in the smartphone capture.

 

[GregY]

This is not to be flippant, and I'm sure the real-world print looks a lot different, but the digital version shown here is very problematic from a technical viewpoint. I don't feel it illustrates well what a 35mm landscape can look like. A lot is lost here in the smartphone capture.

I agree....but not enough to buy a scanner for the purpose of posting on a forum....at the same time the photo does illustrate the size of a complete 4x5 pro kit....more than 100 yards from the car, which was its intended purpose.....

 

[Alex Benjamin]

This is not to be flippant, and I'm sure the real-world print looks a lot different, but the digital version shown here is very problematic from a technical viewpoint. I don't feel it illustrates well what a 35mm landscape can look like. A lot is lost here in the smartphone capture.

...and maybe those interested in the subject could start a "Show your 35mm landscape photos" thread rather than throw this (very interesting and informative) thread off topic? Just sayin'...