Ilford Delta 100 compared with Kodak TMax 100

[MattKing]

I'm not sure Kodak Alaris's reason for the "13" imprint caused by sitting in a hot truck over the weekend is valid, I think it's one of those standard type brainwashing cliche answers that you get from any company deluged with complaints about their faulty products. I've actually had that imprint problem myself, and I'm not sure even if it was a Kodak film, the backing paper printing was affecting the film and if you looked closely you could read the print on the developed film. Anyway, if my TMY is faulty, I'll soon let you know.

That comment just reflects the searching for solutions that all parties involved were doing at the time - the effort was massive, it cost a huge amount of money, it nearly forced both Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris out of the 120 film business, and the final result was a proprietary replacement for the old style of backing paper that is a closely guarded trade secret.
All because the paper and printing industries had totally revolutionized the methods and material alternatives available since Kodak did their own backing paper manufacturing, leaving a several year inventory backlog of backing paper as a result of the implosion of the photographic film markets due to the rise of digital.
It was a huge challenge for a business trying to rebuild after coming out of bankruptcy.

 

[GregY]

per film4me - staining pyro developers do not suppress midtone gradation; quite the opposite. By the stain controlling the highlights better, that leaves room for more development midtone expansion. I prefer PMK pyrogallol formula over Pyrocat; but the principle is the same.

Per the transient Kodak 120 backing paper problem. I never encountered it at all with any of their roll films, black and white or color, despite having used quite a quantity over those questionable years - that is, until just a few months ago when I thawed out an old 5pk of 120 TMY400 and sacrificed a roll on a goof-off project just in case of what-if? Sure enough, bad mottling upon development. But that was the only suspect box I had; all my other roll film on hand was produced after the problem era, and is relatively fresh.

more mid tone expansion (pyrocat - efke & adox film)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh gosh, the Bugaboos. I hope I can see those someday. My nephew climbs there sometimes. He called me yesterday, planning to take a number of younger climbers to Cirque of the Towers in Wyoming, where I've been several times with 4x5 gear.

I used Ekfe 25 in roll film backs for awhile, while it was still around. Orthopan sensitivity, very wide range contrast capacity, and very high detail resolution. It's about the only 6X9 candidate for 20X24 inch prints in my own mtn photography vocabulary. Had to be really careful to load it in the shade, however.

A pal of mine converted to Ekfe 25 for his 6x6 SLR work. We had just come back from a 12-day outing over 11 high passes, mostly far off trail, and staggered to the trailhead exhausted after dark. He had placed his van keys in a magnetic Hide-A-Key inside the front bumper, but a chipmunk had gotten in there and stolen it. We wandered through the chaparral with headlamps until we spotted something shiny half an hour later, which was his key container. Then, still wearing his bright headlamp, he wanted to sort out and repack all his rolls of exposed film before returning home. Fogged nearly all of them.

 

[GregY]

Oh gosh, the Bugaboos. I hope I can see those someday. My nephew climbs there sometimes. He called me yesterday, planning to take a number of younger climbers to Cirque of the Towers in Wyoming, where I've been several times with 4x5 gear.

I used Ekfe 25 in roll film backs for awhile, while it was still around. Orthopan sensitivity, very wide range contrast capacity, and very high detail resolution. It's about the only 6X9 candidate for 20X24 inch prints in my own mtn photography vocabulary. Had to be really careful to load it in the shade, however.

A pal of mine converted to Ekfe 25 for his 6x6 SLR work. We had just come back from a 12-day outing over 11 high passes, mostly far off trail, and staggered to the trailhead exhausted after dark. He had placed his van keys in a magnetic Hide-A-Key inside the front bumper, but a chipmunk had gotten in there and stolen it. We wandered through the chaparral with headlamps until we spotted something shiny half an hour later, which was his key container. Then, still wearing his bright headlamp, he wanted to sort out and repack all his rolls of exposed film before returning home. Fogged nearly all of them.

That's pure bad luck!
The Bugaboos are a spectacular group... I hope you do get to see them.

 

[GregY]

Film4me, you asked a very good & observant question. I gave it some additional thought and my best guess is that the paper (Ultrafine Eagle) doesn't accurately show what's on the negative. I made a print on fresh Ilford Classic FB....and there's more sparkle and the deep shadows and mid tones don't block up. On the print you can see detail in them...& this was just with the wave of an incident meter rather than any more exposure/development adjustments. I think the iphone 'capture' increases the contrast somewhat and as we all know...doesn't quite show all the print complexity. In the end Delta 100 is a good film and will suit my purpose.

 

[film4Me]

That comment just reflects the searching for solutions that all parties involved were doing at the time - the effort was massive, it cost a huge amount of money, it nearly forced both Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris out of the 120 film business, and the final result was a proprietary replacement for the old style of backing paper that is a closely guarded trade secret.
All because the paper and printing industries had totally revolutionized the methods and material alternatives available since Kodak did their own backing paper manufacturing, leaving a several year inventory backlog of backing paper as a result of the implosion of the photographic film markets due to the rise of digital.
It was a huge challenge for a business trying to rebuild after coming out of bankruptcy.

I remember that now, it's coming back to me, the backing paper needed to be changed, the old paper was acting like a carbon paper so to speak. It wasn't all that long ago either if I remember correctly, wasn't it around 2013 or maybe a bit earlier? Not that it matters now, it's all fixed. I do recall though that it spoiled one of my films, so it may have certainly been a Kodak film I had in the camera at the time.

 

[MattKing]

I remember that now, it's coming back to me, the backing paper needed to be changed, the old paper was acting like a carbon paper so to speak.

The problem was with the interaction between all the different emulsions - colour and black and white - and the paper and inks that were available when EK was finally forced to go out in the market to find someone to make it for them.
They had finally used up years of inventory backlog of the backing papers that they had manufactured in house. That huge glut of inventory was a consequence of the collapse of the market for 120 film, and was one of the many examples of the capital crunch that drove EK into bankruptcy.
When the backlog was finally used up, their manufacturing capacity was long gone, the selection of specialist manufacturers of paper that might satisfy their needs was greatly reduced, and inks and printing technologies had changed radically. They tried to obtain replacements for the old backing paper, but exact matches were unavailable, not least because of changes in ink technology. And none of the then current ink and printing and paper combinations had been tested by anyone with respect to interactions when pressed for extended periods of time against very sensitive emulsions suspended in gelatin - which said emulsions had all been modified over time, but only tested against the Kodak manufactured inventory backing paper glut.

 

[GregY]

@100 iso prints even better on Fomatone 132 FB (pardon the stippling from light reflection on the left.

 

[BHuij]

@GregY Fabulous photos! I like to think of myself as a relatively experienced darkroom printer, but every now and then I see prints like that to remind me how impossibly high the skill ceiling goes on silver gelatin

 

[MattKing]

Having been fairly reminded about the reason for this thread (my apologies for the diversion), can anyone advise on the comparison between how readable the frame numbers printed on the backing paper are on the current versions of the two films.
Those of us with red window 120 cameras care about these things.

 

[GregY]

@GregY Fabulous photos! I like to think of myself as a relatively experienced darkroom printer, but every now and then I see prints like that to remind me how impossibly high the skill ceiling goes on silver gelatin

Thank you. You are too kind.

 

[GregY]

Having been fairly reminded about the reason for this thread (my apologies for the diversion), can anyone advise on the comparison between how readable the frame numbers printed on the backing paper are on the current versions of the two films.
Those of us with red window 120 cameras care about these things.

Thanks Matt, BTW I did use some in-date TMax100 this summer in Europe with the VoigtlanderPerkeo ll. The frame counter was not functioning and i had to resort to using the red window. I found the numbers to be faint and difficult to read.

 

[film4Me]

Thanks Matt, BTW I did use some in-date TMax100 this summer in Europe with the VoigtlanderPerkeo ll. The frame counter was not functioning and i had to resort to using the red window. I found the numbers to be faint and difficult to read.

Delta 100 is not much better, slightly faint and thin, however, number "1" at least has some numeral shape to it. FP4 number "1" has no numeral shape and just looks like this; "I", easy to wind past. On occasions, I've been tempted to use a mini torch to see the numbers, but how silly would that be? It was "instinctive reaction" bias, best left well enough alone.

 

[retina_restoration]

Having been fairly reminded about the reason for this thread (my apologies for the diversion), can anyone advise on the comparison between how readable the frame numbers printed on the backing paper are on the current versions of the two films.
Those of us with red window 120 cameras care about these things.

Both are very similar, which is to say, both are somewhat difficult to read through "the little red window" on most cameras. If the red window is scuffed or cloudy at all, you're going to find it a challenge to see the numbering. My Super Ikonta 531/2 has a grubby, scuffed window and it's a real challenge to see the numbering.

Update: I just checked (I save backing papers) and the TMX numbers are slightly darker (and therefore more visible) than the Delta 100 backing paper numbering. But better than either of those is Adox's CHS 100 II, which has white numbering on black paper! Those are extremely easy to read through the read window.

 

[ic-racer]

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.

View attachment 393069

Yes, I also tested TMX and D100 in the 1980s and 1990s and they were pretty much interchangeable for me. However, I have not used FP4 for years. What was your baseline shift for the FP4 to get it to match in the above graph.

Thank you.

 

[film4Me]

Here's another Delta 100 shot. It's not a keeper, you can see what's wrong with it straight away, the overexposed escarpment face right of center in the frame. I took it in the late afternoon when the Sun was low and it lit up that escarpment face like it was a mirror. That said, the Delta captured nearly all of the detail in the face, but to bring it out, the whole image ends up a dead flat grey. It's close to home so it will be shot again on both Delta 100 in the Retina IIIc, and TMY400 in the 4.5x6 Bronica. I'll use a tripod this time. The Delta is certainly fine grain, I can't detect any when the image is expanded. This mound in the Earth's crust was exposed through a 105mm f4.5 Tominon lens the first time, on a camera I made up for the purpose of obtaining slightly panoramic landscapes. The lens is fantastic for color, but not so good for B&W. It might be just me, perhaps I'm not trying hard enough, but I'll keep at it.

 

[Milpool]

Yes, I also tested TMX and D100 in the 1980s and 1990s and they were pretty much interchangeable for me. However, I have not used FP4 for years. What was your baseline shift for the FP4 to get it to match in the above graph.

Thank you.

I shifted the FP4+ curve 0.1 log-H units to the right and it lined up as shown (unsurprisingly all three films met the ISO criteria for their rated speeds in the developers I used - D-76 was my baseline).

 

[Milpool]

Here's another Delta 100 shot. It's not a keeper, you can see what's wrong with it straight away, the overexposed escarpment face right of center in the frame. I took it in the late afternoon when the Sun was low and it lit up that escarpment face like it was a mirror. That said, the Delta captured nearly all of the detail in the face, but to bring it out, the whole image ends up a dead flat grey. It's close to home so it will be shot again on both Delta 100 in the Retina IIIc, and TMY400 in the 4.5x6 Bronica. I'll use a tripod this time. The Delta is certainly fine grain, I can't detect any when the image is expanded. This mound in the Earth's crust was exposed through a 105mm f4.5 Tominon lens the first time, on a camera I made up for the purpose of obtaining slightly panoramic landscapes. The lens is fantastic for color, but not so good for B&W. It might be just me, perhaps I'm not trying hard enough, but I'll keep at it.

View attachment 393384

Localized adjustments when printing (or editing in software) are what it's all about. These films all easily handle this type of luminance range, and well beyond. There's no reason to print an entire image in a way you don't like in order to get one area right. If the picture is a keeper, work on it in the darkroom/lightroom. That has always been the way to great prints and there aren't really any shortcuts via films and developers.

 

[grain elevator]

Here's another Delta 100 shot. It's not a keeper, you can see what's wrong with it straight away, the overexposed escarpment face right of center in the frame. I took it in the late afternoon when the Sun was low and it lit up that escarpment face like it was a mirror. That said, the Delta captured nearly all of the detail in the face, but to bring it out, the whole image ends up a dead flat grey. It's close to home so it will be shot again on both Delta 100 in the Retina IIIc, and TMY400 in the 4.5x6 Bronica. I'll use a tripod this time. The Delta is certainly fine grain, I can't detect any when the image is expanded. This mound in the Earth's crust was exposed through a 105mm f4.5 Tominon lens the first time, on a camera I made up for the purpose of obtaining slightly panoramic landscapes. The lens is fantastic for color, but not so good for B&W. It might be just me, perhaps I'm not trying hard enough, but I'll keep at it.

View attachment 393384

Looks to me like it'll be great with a little bit of burning in the cliff face. I feel whenever you get more even lighting on it, it will also be boring and less plastic.

 

[ic-racer]

I shifted the FP4+ curve 0.1 log-H units to the right and it lined up as shown (unsurprisingly all three films met the ISO criteria for their rated speeds in the developers I used - D-76 was my baseline).

Thank you.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

you can see what's wrong with it straight away, the overexposed escarpment face right of center in the frame. I took it in the late afternoon when the Sun was low and it lit up that escarpment face like it was a mirror. That said, the Delta captured nearly all of the detail in the face, but to bring it out, the whole image ends up a dead flat grey.

I'm not sure I follow. If the film captured all the information, even though this was at the higher end of the curve, then there is no problem, meaning it's not overexposed, just that this part falls at the upper end of the subject's brightness range. What I find interesting is the shadow detail under the trees in the left hand side of the photograph, as well as the variety of tones throughout the rock face. I'd keep this one and work on it in the darkroom.

 

[MattKing]

Discussion about current mottling on some Delta 400 rolls moved here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/mottling-on-delta-400-negatives.212523/

 

[film4Me]

What I find interesting is the shadow detail under the trees in the left hand side of the photograph, as well as the variety of tones throughout the rock face. I'd keep this one and work on it in the darkroom.

Thanks. And thanks to the other posters as well for commenting. Alex, Photoshop is on my first computer, a 24"iMac and PS is worn out and needs reinstalling, the computer needs an internal clean also. But I see all that as a positive in the way that it'll make me do as much in the camera as I can before processing the film. It's a short drive on a dirt road to reach that massive lump in the ground, so I'll bracket three or four exposures and see how I go with that. While film is my life, I still have a lot to learn, hence why I haunt photo sites, and I consider Photrio the best one for tuition, reading about members experiences, and technical data about films.

I was in a similar position that Greg is in now, three years ago when I first began to use Delta 100, I praised it then too, but I've since realized FP4 is not a great deal different, small grain and wide tonal range. I'm happy to use either. Now the technical guys could point out the differences by referring us to graphs and curves, hoping we can translate those into practical use of exposing film in the camera. For a layman like myself, bracketing might be easier to do and understand. Of course not for every shot, just important ones I'm keen to record and hang on the wall.

What I think changes the game in here, is Greg's use of Pyrocat, when the range of Ilford developers are probably more popularly used, Greg asked for opinions about comparisons between Delta 100 and TMX100, and I think Greg would filter the info he gets from those opinions explicitly for his use of Pyrocat - is that correct Greg? Or was it just that you could buy Delta 100 cheaper than other films? I've bought Shanghai GP3 because it's cheaper, I don't always use it though. My questioning of the lack of mid-tones from Pyrocat was based on my observations of the work from a professional photographer over a couple of years and his photos never looked right to me. He changed his developer after to Spur .. something or other, and IMO, his his work improved out of sight, with as many mid-tones one could ever wish for, and of course great blacks and whites. So he may have been trying Pyrocat for the first time, I don't know, but I do accept that Pryocat can do better after viewing some of your shots Greg.

Speaking of detail in shadows Alex, I found the dirt road I drove along to get to the spot where I took the photo from. When this image is expanded even further the road can be seen as a narrow strip of grey. Only pointing it out because that shadow detail was of interest to me as well. The red arrow pin points the road. Just as a matter of interest, the escarpments are not close to the road as it looks here, they are a very long way from it, and even a greater distance from the spot where I took the photo.

 

[GregY]

Thanks. And thanks to the other posters as well for commenting. Alex, Photoshop is on my first computer, a 24"iMac and PS is worn out and needs reinstalling, the computer needs an internal clean also. But I see all that as a positive in the way that it'll make me do as much in the camera as I can before processing the film. It's a short drive on a dirt road to reach that massive lump in the ground, so I'll bracket three or four exposures and see how I go with that. While film is my life, I still have a lot to learn, hence why I haunt photo sites, and I consider Photrio the best one for tuition, reading about members experiences, and technical data about films.

I was in a similar position that Greg is in now, three years ago when I first began to use Delta 100, I praised it then too, but I've since realized FP4 is not a great deal different, small grain and wide tonal range. I'm happy to use either. Now the technical guys could point out the differences by referring us to graphs and curves, hoping we can translate those into practical use of exposing film in the camera. For a layman like myself, bracketing might be easier to do and understand. Of course not for every shot, just important ones I'm keen to record and hang on the wall.

What I think changes the game in here, is Greg's use of Pyrocat, when the range of Ilford developers are probably more popularly used, Greg asked for opinions about comparisons between Delta 100 and TMX100, and I think Greg would filter the info he gets from those opinions explicitly for his use of Pyrocat - is that correct Greg? Or was it just that you could buy Delta 100 cheaper than other films? I've bought Shanghai GP3 because it's cheaper, I don't always use it though. My questioning of the lack of mid-tones from Pyrocat was based on my observations of the work from a professional photographer over a couple of years and his photos never looked right to me. He changed his developer after to Spur .. something or other, and IMO, his his work improved out of sight, with as many mid-tones one could ever wish for, and of course great blacks and whites. So he may have been trying Pyrocat for the first time, I don't know, but I do accept that Pryocat can do better after viewing some of your shots Greg.

Speaking of detail in shadows Alex, I found the dirt road I drove along to get to the spot where I took the photo from. When this image is expanded even further the road can be seen as a narrow strip of grey. Only pointing it out because that shadow detail was of interest to me as well. The red arrow pin points the road. Just as a matter of interest, the escarpment are not cloae to the road, they are a very long way from it, and even a greater distance from the spot where I took the photo.

View attachment 393454

Film4Me My prime reason for changing from Kodak TMax (USA production) to Ilford (UK production) is the recent imposition of reciprocal 25% tariffs between USA/Canada/Mexico. Ilford comes directly into Canada from the UK.
No relation to price. Previously i used a lot of Kodak TMY2 in 5x7" when it could only be obtained from a single supplier in the USA and when with exchange & shipping it hit $500 Cdn/ $550 Aus $ for a 50 sheet box. I've never gone the route of buying the cheapest film. FP4+ is a great film, but when i need to use 35mm or need to produce large prints..... IMO the t grain films produce smoother tones.
Agfa 25 is no longer produced, and I find Pan F 50 too contrasty for landscape work. Here's an iphone photo (pale imitation) of a 16x20" print from tripod mounted 6x8cm camera negative...that can be easily displayed next to an image from a 4x5. (the splotchy reproduction is from overhead incandescent lighting & not the print). Even the tiny church in the meadow in the lower part of the image is sharp in the print. I'm pretty sure Delta 100 will hit the mark for these applications.

 

[film4Me]

Fair enough Greg. However, I'm assuming you'd still be using the Kodak film if there was no 25% tariff on it. I won't go on any more about it Greg, I admire your work, especially the sharpness and the certain contrast that makes the subject matter pop out.