Ilford Delta 100 compared with Kodak TMax 100

[koraks]

@GregY & @Alex Benjamin points taken from both, thanks!

 

[GregY]

Well the first roll of Ilford Delta 100 is hanging to dry. Developed in Pyrocat HD in glycol. I metered with an incident meter, shot half the roll at iso 100 and the 2nd half at iso 80. Processed in dilution 1:1:100 for 11 minutes @20°C. Some photos with no filter, some with yellow & some with orange. The highlight separation in clouds looks pretty good to the naked eye. I used a Leica with 21 Voigtlander and 40 mm & 50 mm Summicrons. The next step is to try a roll of 120.... not with my sharpest lenses but with my Rolleiflex w Tessar and the Perkeo ll with the Color Skopar. At a glance the negatives look a bit dense, but not bullet proof (some users process for 15min !). The next roll i'll shoot at box speed and and process for 10 minutes & make further adjustments after that.
I plan to make some prints tomorrow or monday....not using my best paper stock (Foma & Ilford FB) but some FB Ultrafine Silver Eagle i've been using for proofing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, a 35mm photo of Shirahata's porter carrying his gear is one thing, the result of his own 4x5 gear is another. I had to search all around to find a good copy of his Himalaya photography to match my book of his Karakoram work. I'm poor and stupid enough to have been not only been my own camera porter all my life, but my own pack mule (real mules are smarter). Sometimes it included 8x10 gear. Now I'm certainly sizing down somewhat, at least with respect to pack loads. The 8x10 won't get used except within a reasonable distance from the my truck. And I find myself using my little 4x5 Ebony folder more than the Sinar Norma system these days.

You know the saying ... you begin life in diapers, and end life in diapers; you begin photography with a 35mm camera hanging around your neck; and then end life by hanging yourself from the same 35mm camera strap because you can't afford sheet film anymore. But in my case, I have plenty of TMax sheet film still in the freezer. Whether or not I'll still be able to tote an 8x10 eight or ten years from now is a different question.

 

[GregY]

Well, a 35mm photo of Shirahata's porter carrying his gear is one thing, the result of his own 4x5 gear is another. I had to search all around to find a good copy of his Himalaya photography to match my book of his Karakoram work. I'm poor and stupid enough to have been not only been my own camera porter all my life, but my own pack mule (real mules are smarter). Sometimes it included 8x10 gear. Now I'm certainly sizing down somewhat, at least with respect to pack loads. The 8x10 won't get used except within a reasonable distance from the my truck. And I find myself using my little 4x5 Ebony folder more than the Sinar Norma system these days.

You know the saying ... you begin life in diapers, and end life in diapers; you begin photography with a 35mm camera hanging around your neck; and then end life by hanging yourself from the same 35mm camera strap because you can't afford sheet film anymore. But in my case, I have plenty of TMax sheet film still in the freezer. Whether or not I'll still be able to tote an 8x10 eight or ten years from now is a different question.

That's true DW, but the comment of 35mm for landscape is an aside to this post....a reaction to F4Me's comment. Ilford Delta 100 in roll film is the real topic...
As always, what size film/camera you're using depends on your activity and often which camera you happen to have with you....
Especially when travelling, the view camera is rarely my weapon of choice. & like you I have a soft spot for the big reliable Fuji GW690 style.

 

[GregY]

Well looking at the negatives on the light box...they certainly don't show much grain, and the detail is there in the complex highlights. I made a point to shoot a number of frames into the sun to see how cloud detail shows up. I am satisfied with the level of detail in the negatives. My sense is that Delta 100 will be an acceptable replacement for TMax100 for me. I'll comment more with images once i print a few.
Thanks to those Delta 100 users who commented with their experiences.
(All the images are from the last 24 hrs driving home from the city & around town... test shots to get a sense of Ilford Delta 100 in pyrocat for 35mm & 120.)
It remains to be seen if Delta will be my choice for portraits in MF where FP4+ is my go to by virtue of its tonality.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I did made number of 16X20 prints from D100 6x7 roll film and compared them to the TMX100 results. My intent was to find out if it would be a suitable replacement for TMax if availability issues popped up. As far as the object of that experiment went, it was pretty successful as long as I exposed D100 a stop slower. I still prefer TMX and find it somewhat more versatile, especially for high contrast subjects where excellent shadow gradation is vital. And the filter factors are somewhat different. But if a shortage of TMX transpires, at least I don't have to panic.

FP4 is a wonderful film, but not quite tight enough in detail for my typical roll film needs, or a bit too grainy. I have used a lot of it in 4x5 and 8x10 sheet sizes, and as a suitable masking film for those larger formats. This is another film which I shoot at half box speed in order to elevate shadow values up onto the straight line.

Often when shooting 35mm film, unless I'm printing it very small, I don't even want it to look like larger film results. I'm perfectly OK with grain. In fact, in the absence of high detail capacity, graininess often rescues the midtones from boredom. I recently did a number of TMX sub-8X10 prints, and then enlarged further up to the point at which they simply didn't hold together any more. It was kinda the "nuclear option" prognosis if I ever have to resort back to handheld 35mm photography for backpacking reasons. I sure did enough of it in my youth; but that was mostly all in Kodachrome. But enlarging even TMX to 11X14-ish looks pretty disappointing compared to 6X9 results. But break the rules with an unabashedly grainy film like D3200, and you're dealing with a different look entirely, so why not? Well, not for mountain pictures; but it has worked pretty well for portraits of horses and cattle, and poetic urban subjects.

 

[film4Me]

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!

Not a problem, no need to apologize, I'm new here and learning the ropes of the forum etiquette. Your moderation is very helpful in that respect.

Staying on topic, I've loaded the Bronica magazine with TMX 400, is that the same as T-Max 400? I'm not familiar with these Kodak films since I mainly expose Ilford films, and dare I say it, Shanghai GP 100 (do everything right and it's not bad)

 

[dokko]

Staying on topic, I've loaded the Bronica magazine with TMX 400, is that the same as T-Max 400?

usually T-Max 400 is referred as T-Max 400, or TMY-2 for short (the old version being TMY).

TMX usually refers to T-Max 100, and TMZ to T-Max 3200.

so TMX 400 is not an usual description, I could imagine that you mean 400TX, which is the short version of Tri-X 400.

Tri-X a lovely film, older and more grainy and softer than T-Max 400, but feels less technical, so it's my favourite film for medium format portraits and moody shots.

 

[retina_restoration]

Staying on topic, I've loaded the Bronica magazine with TMX 400, is that the same as T-Max 400?

Kodak's code name for T-max 400 is TMY
Kodak's code name for T-max 100 is TMX, so if you say TMX you are saying T-max 100.

 

[film4Me]

Ok, thanks to both. The wrapper is in my car so tomorrow morning I'll check it again. It had TM, so I'll check for "X" or "Y", but the 400 was not next to them, it was separate, like as an ASA number that's somewhere else on the wrapper.

While we're at it retina, how would you rate the Xenon in the IIIc? Do you think it would be ok for landscapes?

 

[retina_restoration]

While we're at it retina, how would you rate the Xenon in the IIIc? Would you use it for landscapes?

The Schneider Retina-Xenon lens is a Double Gauss design with six elements in four groups. It is essentially the same design as the Zeiss Planar, which tells us a lot about the quality of the lens. The Xenon design is more recent (refined) than the Planar and has some advantages. Zeiss lenses often focus on delivering clinical sharpness and color fidelity. The Xenon design tends to produce a smoother, more painterly rendering, with a focus on pleasing bokeh and soft transitions between in-focus and out-of-focus areas. (The Xenon lenses offer excellent sharpness as well, comparable to any of the best lenses of the period)

There's no reason you shouldn't use the Retina-Xenon lenses for anything at all, including landscapes. They are excellent all-purpose lenses.

 

[GregY]

Ok, thanks to both. The wrapper is in my car so tomorrow morning I'll check it again. It had TM, so I'll check for "X" or "Y", but the 400 was not next to them, it was separate, like as an ASA number that's somewhere else on the wrapper.

While we're at it retina, how would you rate the Xenon in the IIIc? Do you think it would be ok for landscapes?

F, if it is ISO 400 the film would look like this (with/without wrapper)...... if there's an X and ISO 400 it's Tri-X......TMX then it's TMax 100

 

[film4Me]

Thanks, I'll respond tomorrow, it's very late here.

 

[GregY]

Thanks, I'll respond tomorrow, it's very late here.

Having them all lined up i can see how it could be confusing

 

[GregY]

I did made number of 16X20 prints from D100 6x7 roll film and compared them to the TMX100 results. My intent was to find out if it would be a suitable replacement for TMax if availability issues popped up. As far as the object of that experiment went, it was pretty successful as long as I exposed D100 a stop slower. I still prefer TMX and find it somewhat more versatile, especially for high contrast subjects where excellent shadow gradation is vital. And the filter factors are somewhat different. But if a shortage of TMX transpires, at least I don't have to panic.

FP4 is a wonderful film, but not quite tight enough in detail for my typical roll film needs, or a bit too grainy. I have used a lot of it in 4x5 and 8x10 sheet sizes, and as a suitable masking film for those larger formats. This is another film which I shoot at half box speed in order to elevate shadow values up onto the straight line.

Often when shooting 35mm film, unless I'm printing it very small, I don't even want it to look like larger film results. I'm perfectly OK with grain. In fact, in the absence of high detail capacity, graininess often rescues the midtones from boredom. I recently did a number of TMX sub-8X10 prints, and then enlarged further up to the point at which they simply didn't hold together any more. It was kinda the "nuclear option" prognosis if I ever have to resort back to handheld 35mm photography for backpacking reasons. I sure did enough of it in my youth; but that was mostly all in Kodachrome. But enlarging even TMX to 11X14-ish looks pretty disappointing compared to 6X9 results. But break the rules with an unabashedly grainy film like D3200, and you're dealing with a different look entirely, so why not? Well, not for mountain pictures; but it has worked pretty well for portraits of horses and cattle, and poetic urban subjects.

Your point about comparisons w larger formats are well taken, though my goal when using smaller formats (for all their advantages in size/weight/portability) is to eke the best possible prints out of them. Limiting the print size is one aspect, but i also was pleasantly surprised at what iso 100 Tgrain films can do to optimize the results with older lenses. (1934 Elmar 3.5cm top photo / early 50s Color Skopar bottom photo)

 

[John Wiegerink]

The Schneider Retina-Xenon lens is a Double Gauss design with six elements in four groups. It is essentially the same design as the Zeiss Planar, which tells us a lot about the quality of the lens. The Xenon design is more recent (refined) than the Planar and has some advantages. Zeiss lenses often focus on delivering clinical sharpness and color fidelity. The Xenon design tends to produce a smoother, more painterly rendering, with a focus on pleasing bokeh and soft transitions between in-focus and out-of-focus areas. (The Xenon lenses offer excellent sharpness as well, comparable to any of the best lenses of the period)

There's no reason you shouldn't use the Retina-Xenon lenses for anything at all, including landscapes. They are excellent all-purpose lenses.

That's exactly why I keep a pretty well used Retina IIa. I've tried the IIC and IIIC, but they showed me nothing better in image quality to the IIa. Plus, the IIa is easier to pocket. I had the LTM Xenon lens, but didn't think it to be as good as the f2 version on the Retina cameras. I always wondered if it was the same design?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Your point about comparisons w larger formats are well taken, though my goal when using smaller formats (for all their advantages in size/weight/portability) is to eke the best possible prints out of them. Limiting the print size is one aspect, but i also was pleasantly surprised at what iso 100 Tgrain films can do to optimize the results with older lenses. (1934 Elmar 3.5cm top photo / early 50s Color Skopar bottom photo)

View attachment 393256 View attachment 393257

I do like that top photo. In film, size does matter. Once I got a medium format camera with excellent glass it was very hard to get serious about 35mm again. I just turned 75 today and have started using my Contax G1 outfit just a little more, but still have no problem lugging a Super Ikonta, Rollei or even more very nice Kodak Monitor Six-20. 4X5 and 8X10 are now a different story at the 75 yard line. In fact 75 yards is about as far as I want to lug the 8X10 now.

 

[retina_restoration]

That's exactly why I keep a pretty well used Retina IIa. I've tried the IIC and IIIC, but they showed me nothing better in image quality to the IIa.

Both iterations of the Retina have the same Xenon lens design. But there are likely to be slight differences in their performance due to the more advanced coatings used in the IIIc/IIIC types. But the differences are likely to be very small and difficult to discern.

The biggest problem with the Xenon on the IIa is that the majority of them suffers from a clouding of the coatings on the inward facing glass surfaces that occurs, and that coating damage is permanent. Many IIa cameras I have serviced have a minor amount of cloudiness on one or both of the inward facing surfaces (the surfaces that face into the shutter), and maybe 10% of the cameras have moderate to severe clouding, which will definitely impact image quality.
If the cloudiness is minor, you can expect the lens to perform very well. Loss of contrast is the symptom with these lenses. Severe cases have a significant loss of contrast and increased flare, and a kind of "soft focus" effect to the images. Fortunately, only a few cameras I have seen suffer from severe coating damage.

Plus, the IIa is easier to pocket. I had the LTM Xenon lens, but didn't think it to be as good as the f2 version on the Retina cameras. I always wondered if it was the same design?

The two versions of the Xenon are the same design, but with some differences, due mainly to the aperture value and the coatings.

This is what I can determine:
• LTM Xenon:

• Softer at wide apertures with a glow effect.

• Dreamy bokeh, especially at f/1.5.

• Sharper when stopped down, but still exhibits vintage character.

• Desirable for portraits and artistic rendering.

• Retina-Xenon:

• Similar glow wide open, but usually higher contrast due to coatings on later models.

• Sharper center even at wide apertures, with slightly harsher bokeh than the LTM Xenon.

• Optimized for general photography rather than solely portraiture.

Key Difference: The LTM Xenon has a dreamier, softer look, while the Retina-Xenon is sharper and higher contrast.

 

[GregY]

I do like that top photo. In film, size does matter. Once I got a medium format camera with excellent glass it was very hard to get serious about 35mm again. I just turned 75 today and have started using my Contax G1 outfit just a little more, but still have no problem lugging a Super Ikonta, Rollei or even more very nice Kodak Monitor Six-20. 4X5 and 8X10 are now a different story at the 75 yard line. In fact 75 yards is about as far as I want to lug the 8X10 now.

John, I use a bunch of different formats and i'm not really being an apologist for 35mm..... but some very impressive & serious work (with fine analog prints) has been done with the format for almost 100 years now. There was a period of about 15 yrs where my last Leica was gathering dust in a drawer and i didn't use 35mm at all. These days the 5x7" is gathering dust and i do more with my Rolleiflex as well as re-discovering the strengths of 35mm....in the end for me it's getting the image that presents itself with whichever camera i have with me.....& that was the topic of this thread..... tgrain alternatives to TMax 100...to optimize small format images.

 

[MattKing]

Ok, thanks to both. The wrapper is in my car so tomorrow morning I'll check it again. It had TM, so I'll check for "X" or "Y", but the 400 was not next to them, it was separate, like as an ASA number that's somewhere else on the wrapper.

While we're at it retina, how would you rate the Xenon in the IIIc? Do you think it would be ok for landscapes?

See my post #80 with included image. That was taken with my IIIc equipped with the f/2 Xenon lens.

 

[MattKing]

F, if it is ISO 400 the film would look like this (with/without wrapper)...... if there's an X and ISO 400 it's Tri-X......TMX then it's TMax 100

View attachment 393247 View attachment 393248 View attachment 393249 View attachment 393250

When speaking of the T-Max films, it helps to understand that over the years the 400 speed versions have changed their names and badging slightly during their evolution. Greg's post shows the current films, but this excerpt from the 2007 f4016 datasheet illustrates some older, slightly different versions.

The most important change probably happened in 2002, when the TMY designation was replaced with TMY-2.
All of those slight changes in name are only relevant if you are using old film.

 

[GregY]

When speaking of the T-Max films, it helps to understand that over the years the 400 speed versions have changed their names and badging slightly during their evolution. Greg's post shows the current films, but this excerpt from the 2007 f4016 datasheet illustrates some older, slightly different versions.
View attachment 393262
The most important change probably happened in 2002, when the TMY designation was replaced with TMY-2.
All of those slight changes in name are only relevant if you are using old film.

Matt I posted the medium formats because F4M had said he had just loaded his Bronica w 120...

 

[MattKing]

Matt I posted the medium formats because F4M had said he had just loaded his Bronica w 120...

Understood Greg. The image I shared happen to show 35mm box ends, but the slight name changes were mirrored in the 120 film packaging and branding.
Note this excerpt from the 2002 version of the D-76 datasheet, which shows both versions of the 400 speed T-Max film name - old and new - and shows as well both versions of the 100 speed T-Max film name - old and new - with the quite large difference in recommended development time for those films.

 

[GregY]

Understood Greg. The image I shared happen to show 35mm box ends, but the slight name changes were mirrored in the 120 film packaging and branding.
Note this excerpt from the 2002 version of the D-76 datasheet, which shows both versions of the 400 speed T-Max film name - old and new - and shows as well both versions of the 100 speed T-Max film name - old and new - with the quite large difference in recommended development time for those films.

View attachment 393263

Yes... the differences in developing time are significant....

 

[pentaxuser]

GregY was there a clear difference between the 80 and 100 negs and if so what were those differences

Thanks