Ilford Delta 100 compared with Kodak TMax 100

[GregY]

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.

I've been using Kodak films since i was a kid. Miles of Tri-X. Their sheet films have been flawless. I'd have to say my favourite two films all time are Ilford FP4+ & Tri-X. TMY2 in 5x7 was a revelation for it's reciprocity characteristics as well as its expansion/contraction capabilities in development. Time will tell if i use Kodak films again. I am very relieved that enlarging paper is made in UK & Eastern Europe.....

 

[GregY]

I think I've begun to crack the code on Delta 100 development. From the last roll, I set the iso at 80. As per Rob Skeoch, i reduced agitation ....4 inversions to start instead of 30 sec continuous, and then 4 inversions every minute instead of 4/30sec. I processed the film for 8.5 min at 20°C in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100. The negatives look less dense than the last roll & i could read a newspaper through them....if newspapers were still in print. Test prints tomorrow!

 

[images39]

Delta 100 has been my primary film for some years now, particularly in 120 for landscapes. Since I haven't used T-max 100 much, I'm not as helpful as others who've posted here, but I can attest to Delta 100's characteristics in terms of fine grain and sharpness (I have it lab developed in XTOL, dip and dunk process). I have some 645 negs enlarged to 11x14 that I think could pass for large format work. The grain is fine to the point that it takes some care to focus the enlarger using a Micromega grain focuser. It's a nice film.

Dale

 

[dokko]

I ran a comparison a while ago when I needed to test a new Magazine for my Hasselblad.
I shot the same scene under constant sun light with a Hasselblad 80mm FE @ F5.6, on Kodak T-Max 100 and Delta 100, developed in Adox FX-39II, Adox XT-3, and Spur HRX, scanned at 11'000ppi on my dokko scanner.

the full frame looks like this. the white rectangle marks the crops shown below:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53274336402_a558e65a67_k.jpg


Kodak T-Max 100 in Adox FX-39II 1+14:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275232816_eeb6e8a8b0_o.jpg


Kodak T-Max 100 in Adox XT-3 (XTOL clone) 1+2:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275232796_5f5067365d_o.jpg


Ilford Delta 100 in Adox FX-39II 1+14:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275698425_52677f8e9b_o.jpg


Ilford Delta 100 in Adox XT-3 (XTOL clone) 1+2:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275698415_625c4f5818_o.jpg


Ilford Delta 100 in Spur HRX:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275698390_7bdaa6b397_o.jpg

and finally a gif animation at 200% for retina like screens (open the link below in a new window for larger display size). again no digital sharpening has been applied:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53276525073_0971bd39ab_o.gif

some notes:

- I messed up the development of T-Max in HRX, so unfortunately no sample of that. I plan to run a larger test anyway, which will also include Ilfosol-3, Jobo Omega and others.

- even though the images have been captured in a period of about 15mins, the sun has moved enough that on the T-Max there is a bounce of something on the left, lifting the shadows a bit. the shadows on the right should be pretty comparable though.

- the scans are without digital sharpening applied, the inline images are resized by flickr and your web browser though. the 100% crops can be found on the flicker page if you click on the download button and choose original size:

Film Comparison

Explore this photo album by dokko scan on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

my personal conclusions for Delta 100:
- XT-3 and HRX both show virtually identical sharpness, detail and fine grain. the only difference is that HRX has slightly less shadow detail.
- FX39II is quite a bit grainier and has less sharpness and detail. It also has less shadow detail (and a lot more grain in the shadows then XT-3)

for TMX:
- XT-3 shows very fine grain but surprisingly looks quite a bit softer then in FX39II. If I add a lot of digital sharpening the detail is quite good (although a bit less then on FX-39II) but it starts to look very digitally processed.


the original discussion with more info can be found here:

Comparison of Kodak T-Max 100 vs Delta 100, in Adox FX-39II, Adox XT-3, and Spur HRX

I thought this might be interesting for some, so I created a separate thread from the discussion at https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/similarity-between-fx-39-and-ilfosol-3.198293/ I ran a film/developer comparison recently because I wanted to check two new magazines for my Hasselblad and...

www.photrio.com

and here:

Scan of Grain Texture at 11'000ppi

I recently did a comparison of Kodak T-Max 100 vs Delta 100 developed in Adox FX-39II, Adox XT-3, and Spur HRX. Since the discussion involved scanning questions, it was suggested that I'd start a new thread in the scanning forum. The original discussion with the detailed info about the film...

www.photrio.com

 

[John Wiegerink]

I remember seeing your test just after you completed it and found it very interesting. The first thing I thought was if these two films are rated the same speed wise then Tmax 100 is slightly better due to the shadow area on the left. Now that you made clear the shadow area was filled in by a lighting change both films look much the same. Since I'm a big user, well big user for me anyway, of Xtol-R (actually Adox XT-3R) I rather like the Delta 100 in Xtol.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think I've begun to crack the code on Delta 100 development. From the last roll, I set the iso at 80. As per Rob Skeoch, i reduced agitation ....4 inversions to start instead of 30 sec continuous, and then 4 inversions every minute instead of 4/30sec. I processed the film for 8.5 min at 20°C in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100. The negatives look less dense than the last roll & i could read a newspaper through them....if newspapers were still in print. Test prints tomorrow!

View attachment 393707

I had always thought that the Ilford instructions for agitation was for 10 secs at start and then 10 secs every minute which is pretty much what you tried on your roll

At anything more than a comfortable agitation rhythm I found I could never get more than 4 inversions anyway

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

I ran a comparison a while ago when I needed to test a new Magazine for my Hasselblad.
I shot the same scene under constant sun light with a Hasselblad 80mm FE @ F5.6, on Kodak T-Max 100 and Delta 100, developed in Adox FX-39II, Adox XT-3, and Spur HRX, scanned at 11'000ppi on my dokko scanner.

the full frame looks like this. the white rectangle marks the crops shown below:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53274336402_a558e65a67_k.jpg


Kodak T-Max 100 in Adox FX-39II 1+14:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275232816_eeb6e8a8b0_o.jpg


Kodak T-Max 100 in Adox XT-3 (XTOL clone) 1+2:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275232796_5f5067365d_o.jpg


Ilford Delta 100 in Adox FX-39II 1+14:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275698425_52677f8e9b_o.jpg


Ilford Delta 100 in Adox XT-3 (XTOL clone) 1+2:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275698415_625c4f5818_o.jpg


Ilford Delta 100 in Spur HRX:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53275698390_7bdaa6b397_o.jpg

and finally a gif animation at 200% for retina like screens (open the link below in a new window for larger display size). again no digital sharpening has been applied:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53276525073_0971bd39ab_o.gif

some notes:

-

for TMX:
- XT-3 shows very fine grain but surprisingly looks quite a bit softer then in FX39II. If I add a lot of digital sharpening the detail is quite good (although a bit less then on FX-39II) but it starts to look very digitally processed.

I hope this time I can ask this question without causing a film v digital row but what are the characteristics what "digitally processed" is i.e. what are the differences

This is not a challenge to you but never having digitally processed anything I am genuinely curious to discover what these characteristics are?

Other than asking for further clarification, should I need to, when you reply, I promise that my only response will be "thanks"

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[GregY]

I had always thought that the Ilford instructions for agitation was for 10 secs at start and then 10 secs every minute which is pretty much what you tried on your roll

At anything more than a comfortable agitation rhythm I found I could never get more than 4 inversions anyway

pentaxuser

I've always agitated for 30 sec initially and 5 sec every 30sec....w PMK & Pyrocat.
Temperature & dilution have remained the same.....i can see that less agitation has been a positive thing with Delta 100.
Now the overall density is in line with other films i use. The detail that Delta 100 holds is impressive.
I'll happily use it as a substitute for TMax 100 which has been the goal of testing Delta 100

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've always agitated for 30 sec initially and 5 sec every 30sec....w PMK & Pyrocat.
Temperature & dilution have remained the same.....i can see that less agitation has been a positive thing with Delta 100.
Now the overall density is in line with other films i use. The detail that Delta 100 holds is impressive.
I'll happily use it as a substitute for TMax 100 which has been the goal of testing Delta 100

I just placed and order for a certain film developer and thought I might as well throw some 4X5 film on the same order. I was debating between FP4+ and Delta 100. Well, a box of Delta 100 is on the way thanks to this thread and your results. I do use Delta 100 in 120 and find it to my liking, but I also like FP4+ in my Pyrocat developer just fine also. I'm going to work with Delta 400 in sheet film and see how it goes. What I really wanted to do is cut my ISO 100 speed 4X5 film to just one and Delta 100 might now be it. My 400 speed film is HP5+ and for infrared I've kind of settled on Rollei 400 for now.

 

[GregY]

I just placed and order for a certain film developer and thought I might as well throw some 4X5 film on the same order. I was debating between FP4+ and Delta 100. Well, a box of Delta 100 is on the way thanks to this thread and your results. I do use Delta 100 in 120 and find it to my liking, but I also like FP4+ in my Pyrocat developer just fine also. I'm going to work with Delta 400 in sheet film and see how it goes. What I really wanted to do is cut my ISO 100 speed 4X5 film to just one and Delta 100 might now be it. My 400 speed film is HP5+ and for infrared I've kind of settled on Rollei 400 for now.

I look forward to hearing about & seeing the results John

 

[dokko]

I hope this time I can ask this question without causing a film v digital row but what are the characteristics what "digitally processed" is i.e. what are the differences

it probably means different things for different people, but for me it's a general term for image characteristics that can appear when you digitally process a file

let's take a simple example:

If we make an analog print and we want to soften it a bit, we have several options, like:
- throwing the lens slightly out of focus
- stopping the aperture way down so we get into diffraction
- adding a diffusion filter or net in front of the lens

all of these I'd call analog processes.

If we want to do this digitally in a computer, we can scan a sharp print and apply a gaussian blur for example. this would be a digital process.

all of these will look slightly different, and often the digital process has a different feel to it (sometimes subtle and sometimes obvious).

In the example of sharpening i mentioned above, the digital unsharp mask filter actually simulates the old analog unsharp mask process from the darkroom, but we can crank the digital version up to a much higher degree in which case it clearly looks very "digitally processed" for those who have experience (and subconsciously even for normal people). usually this is amplified because it also empathises other digital artefacts, like sampling aliasing or compression etc.

there are a lot of digital processes which don't have an analog equivalent, like modern denoise or upscale algorithms. those usually feel digitally processed as well (since we didn't see those results in analog processes).

hope that cleared things up a bit

 

[GregY]

Test prints from yesterday's negatives.(post #177) Delta 100 -120. No magical subjects but the fine detail in the film is very good.
I can make Delta work for me. The paper is Bergger Prestige Variable NB FB.

 

[pentaxuser]

dokko, thanks for your #186

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

I've always agitated for 30 sec initially and 5 sec every 30sec....w PMK & Pyrocat.
Temperature & dilution have remained the same.....i can see that less agitation has been a positive thing with Delta 100.
Now the overall density is in line with other films i use. The detail that Delta 100 holds is impressive.
I'll happily use it as a substitute for TMax 100 which has been the goal of testing Delta 100

Yes all I was saying was that a switch to close to what the Ilford agitation is seems to have worked for you

pentaxuser

 

[GregY]

Yes all I was saying was that a switch to close to what the Ilford agitation is seems to have worked for you

pentaxuser

Yes.... that and the reduced time (from 11min) to 8.5 min has resulted in less dense negatives. It does underline the fact that testing new materials is a necessary step before adopting them or casting them aside....(I had no idea Ilford had a suggested agitation method since i've never used their developers)

 

[Grafmatic]

I always found the highlights in TMax (the 400 anyway) difficult to control. I have seen nice looking results so others for whatever reason didn’t have the same problem. The Delta films were a lot more forgiving. If you Google it, John Sexton wrote a good blog entry. I think it was about the T. Max films. When I was in my previous incarnation as a large format shooter, I settled on Delta 400 (no longer made) in PMK Pyro. Delta 100 worked a lot better in PMKthan Tmax IME.

 

[Grafmatic]

The question was asked of Harman ín Simon Galley's day and I think the answer was that it believed that sheet film in D400 would only be unnecessarily competing with HP5 sheet film

Maybe others with better memories can chime in if I have got it wrong. It's a new company now so maybe their stance will be different but I think that the commercial argument which is what Simon Galley was making has probably not changed

pentaxuser

I sent a similar email LOL. You could make the same point between FP4 and Delta 100 though. I get it though, it’s probably not cost-effective to market both HP5 and Delta 400 in sheets. Personally, I would choose Delta 400 over HP5, given the chance. They probably just looked at which one sold more and kept that one in the lineup.

 

[GregY]

I always found the highlights in TMax (the 400 anyway) difficult to control. I have seen nice looking results so others for whatever reason didn’t have the same problem. The Delta films were a lot more forgiving. If you Google it, John Sexton wrote a good blog entry. I think it was about the T. Max films. When I was in my previous incarnation as a large format shooter, I settled on Delta 400 (no longer made) in PMK Pyro. Delta 100 worked a lot better in PMKthan Tmax IME.

By the time the Tmax films came out I had been using PMK for several years. I used a lot of Tmax 400 & TMY-2 mostly in 5x7"....and never had issues with highlights with PMK or subsequently Pyrocat HD.
Is this this Sexton piece on T grain films you're referring to ?

A few ideas on using Kodak T-Max Films Successfully by John Sexton

 

[Grafmatic]

Yep

Curious about what prompted your switch from PMK to Pyrocat and how you’d describe the differences…?

 

[GregY]

Yep

Curious about what prompted your switch from PMK to Pyrocat and how you’d describe the differences…?

Several things... First i was concerned about the toxicity of pyrogallol.
I was using a variable cold light head and the prints were beautiful, but the negative densities resulted in very long printing times (especially for big prints).
When i tried Pyrocat for the first time, I found i had the same degree of control and ease of printing with highlights, particularly clouds and snow.....so i've stuck with it for years now.

 

[Grafmatic]

Several things... First i was concerned about the toxicity of pyrogallol.
I was using a variable cold light head and the prints were beautiful, but the negative densities resulted in very long printing times (especially for big prints).
When i tried Pyrocat for the first time, I found i had the same degree of control and ease of printing with highlights, particularly clouds and snow.....so i've stuck with it for years now.

Apparently the processing is simpler too without the extra steps. Bought mine from Formulary in liquid form and tried to be careful. I wasn’t shuffling batches in trays or anything. The glycol option for the Pyrocat seems like a good option for us low volume users. Do they both stain about the same? Edge effects comparable? Thanks

 

[GregY]

Apparently the processing is simpler too without the extra steps. Bought mine from Formulary in liquid form and tried to be careful. I wasn’t shuffling batches in trays or anything. The glycol option for the Pyrocat seems like a good option for us low volume users. Do they both stain about the same? Edge effects comparable? Thanks

In my experience they work comparably..... kind of like Tmax /Delta..... close enough for me
& Yes the Pyrocat in glycol lasts well. My last 50 litre kit is over a year old and still working well and down to the last 1 1/2"

 

[Craig]

I really like D100, I have found the tonality in Xtol to be particularly good. I usually rate it at 80 in replenished Xtol and develop for 8.5 min in a jobo.

It's easily my favourite film if I don't need a higher speed. As a plus it's reasonably priced and available in all formats.