While I prefer to use ISO 400 films, I have gotten great photographs with ISO 100 Ilford films.
Thoughts on Ilford Delta 100
-
A
- Thread starter Disconnekt
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Metz SCA344 cables for Nikon F3 and Metz 45/60 series.
- Started by Chan Tran
-
For Sale Kodak's 1947 Sensitometric Step Table
- Started by Gaston 012
-
For Sale Photronix Mod 73 Transmission densitometer with instructions
- Started by Gaston 012
-
For Sale Eseco and XRite densitometers
- Started by gmikol
-
For Sale Speedotron 202 VF Flash Head and accessories
- Started by spoolman
Forum statistics
Great to see the range of experiences - but still remarkably few people have tried Delta 100 pushed to 400, and those that have, seem pretty negative!!! Within the Ilford range (which works for me for cost and availability) I guess that leaves HP5 in ISO 400 for sheet film use. There are starting times for Delta 100 pushed to 400 in the massive Dev chart - so somewhere to start with testing. I suppose I should do a side by side with HP5 as the most readily available alternative. I might need to switch from ID-11 to Microphen which is inconvenient - I love the simplicity and reliability of working with ID11 stock one shot dev in the Jobo. More bottles!
What did you particularly like about this combination?
This is just a look at D100 in all the mention developer from scanned negatives so take it from there. The reason I liked the negative from ID-11 was that it seemed to have the best balance between negative sharpness and grain. The reason I went with a dilution of 1+3 instead of stock, 1+1 or 1+2 is D100's grain is fine enough where a higher dilution wouldn't make the appearance of grain objectionable. It also seemed to take a little less white point-black point curve adjustment to get the rendering right in VueScan. Like I said earlier, I have more work to do with the developers that showed promise, so we'll see. I was a little surprised in ID-11 being that good, but I haven't used it in a long, long time. I guess I was swayed into trying and liking some other developers and just drifted away from ID-11 or even Kodak D-76 which is pretty much the same.
Thanks. I have some home-brewed D-23 (close enough to ID-11), so I might try it at 1+3.
There's nothing wrong with the D-76 class of developers (that's what ID-11 is) when used wisely. And since we're talking about 4x5 format film, how a developer affects grain is (almost) irrelevant, unless you are making 8x10 foot prints. Your choice of developer is going to have more of an effect on acutance, tonality and contrast, but really won't matter much in terms of grain characteristics. For large format work, select a developer that is going to "play nice" with the film you've chosen, and give the "look" you're after. (And the look of an image is very much determined by the photographer's personal tastes, and is therefore subjective)
My personal favorites for most films are: one of the Ascorbic acid formulas (Xtol, TX-3, Mytol, etc.), PMK/Pyrocat HD, and Barry Thornton 2-Bath. The ascorbic acid developers give a bit of a boost in film speed and optimize shadow detail without murdering the brightest high values, and they deliver smooth grain. The Pyro recipes like Pyrocat HD give you superior acutance (edge definition that enhances the impression of sharpness and emphasizes texture, if that's something you desire) and preserve the delicate high values better than most other developers, which can be a huge asset when working with a range of brightness values that come close to exceeding the film's ability. Pyro developers, however, involve a certain amount of loss of film speed, so it's often necessary to give up to a stop more exposure to get optimal results. The Thornton 2-Bath developer delivers remarkably good negatives for such a simple recipe: excellent sharpness, great shadow information, well-preserved high values and brilliant tonal separation throughout the tonal scale. On top of that, it gives very smooth grain characteristics. It's only downside is that it requires up to a full stop more exposure, so you will have to halve your film speed to get optimal results.
Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, here are two images made for the purpose of comparing two developers from opposite ends of the scale, in terms of their delivery of acutance: D-23, VS Pyrocat HD
Tmax 100 developed in D-23
Tmax 100 developed in Pyrocat HD
(For those who may not know how Flickr works, click twice on the image to see it at full size, where you can examine the small details) Acutance characteristics are best observed in the grasses in the lower right corner.
A comparison of two very dissimilar developers like D-23 and Pyrocat HD illustrates some things about their abilities - acutance, tonality and - to a degree - grain qualities. There are instances in which choosing a "soft working" developer like D-23 would be a better choice than something like Pyrocat HD, and to be honest, I think the D-23 negative in this case gives a better impression of the foggy conditions than the Pyrocat negative does, which seems overly sharp and emphasizes texture too much for my liking.
Finally, let me show you an example of Delta 100 (8x10 size) developed in the Thornton 2-Bath recipe: August 1, 2024.
Your technical choices shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all decision: choose the right process to emphasize your intended message.
Last edited:
Me too, although TMax 100 and Delta 100 are also excellent films.
Delta 100 is currently $2.50 more per roll than Tmax 100 in 120 format at B&H (although you can only buy Kodak 120 film in batches of 5). Reason enough for me to shoot Tmax.
One of the reasons I shot Ilford in the past was because it was cheaper than Kodak. I never thought I'd see Kodak film cheaper than Ilford.
One of the reasons I shot Ilford in the past was because it was cheaper than Kodak. I never thought I'd see Kodak film cheaper than Ilford.
That’s a good thing. The T-Max films are the best anyway.
Show me the image.... that's what counts....
Love this. I haven't tried it yet in TTB, it's my next step. Did you rate it at box speed? And how long for each bath?
Thank you Alex. BTTB rarely disappoints.
When using BTTB, I always overexpose by at least 1/2 stop over box speed, but typically a full stop. I find it's necessary to preserve sufficient shadow information.
The time in each bath depends on what the film is and how contrasty the scene was. 95% of what I do is photograph in soft light, so I can afford a bit of extra contrast, (unless reciprocity is in the 10 seconds and beyond range: longer exposures = accumulation of contrast).
For soft lighting and most medium/slower films (the 100ASA range) I will do 5 + 5 minutes. For faster films I will sometimes reduce the time to 4.5 and 4.5 but it depends on the scene contrast. There have been instances where extra contrast is needed, so I will go as far as 6 minutes in each.
But 5+5 minutes is a good starting point.
But of course "best" is a personal decision. There's no such thing as "best" films, only "best for my needs".
In many instances, I find FP4+ to be the perfect film to get me where I want to go. It's so flexible and produces beautiful tonality. You can develop it in pretty much anything and it will look great.
Last edited:
Of course you can push Delta 100 in development, but you will always see a loss of deep shadow detail in your results: no amount of extra time in the developer will compensate for the loss of exposure in the darkest shadows. If you need a 400 speed film, then use a 400 speed film. While there are differences in how Delta 100 and HP5+ render tonality in an image (I find there's more crisp separation of values in the high end with Delta 100, whereas HP5+ leans toward softer high value detail), when working with large format negatives, there's no good reason to opt to push a slower film in order to gain 2 stops of speed, rather than just using a faster film. You're just making it harder to work with your negs if you are underexposing and overdeveloping, which is what "pushing" is.
If i had to choose one film in all formats i've used (35mm-8x10) there's no question it would be FP4+.
But Delta 100 in 35 & MF....is a pretty smooth look
Last edited:
Yes of course, I completely agree. I don’t mean to say you can make better pictures with Kodak films - in fact I found the sensitometry (tone reproduction etc.) of TMX and Delta 100 virtually identical, and any of these films can do whatever is required image-wise. I only mean I find Kodak films to be the easiest to work with. Not by much, and it’s pretty much a tie when it comes to 35mm but I find it a little easier to process Kodak sheet films.
Mileage may differ.... I've used sheet films from Bergger, Efke, Ilford, Kodak......and it's never crossed my mind that one was "easier to process"....... I've gotten excellent results from all. Do you care to elaborate?
Indeed, mileage may differ. This is only my opinion/experience. For B&W I’ve only ever used Kodak and Ilford sheet film so I can’t comment on the other brands. I tend to be (overly?) obsessive about development uniformity and I have found Kodak sheet films to give the best results most easily. I also found when I used to tray-process that Kodak sheet films seemed to be a little more resistant to damage. Anyway it’s not important.
To be fair, two pluses for Ilford over Kodak. (1) the emulsion side has the traditional matte finish whereas the Kodak TMax films are shinier which can sometimes mean extra Newton ring nuisances. (2) years ago I badgered Harman into redoing their (at the time) generic reciprocity information which resulted in film-specific factors that are easy to apply. Kodak’s information is not the greatest.
Apologies for trolling the thread.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,662
- Format
- 8x10 Format
Kodak sheet film is unquestionably a little more resistant to scratches etc during tray development than Ilford sheet films, and way better than Foma films in that respect.
Most films nowadays are thin emulsion and shiny. No more retouching surface except on Tri-X 320 sheet film. Kodak color sheet films do come which an extra surface treatment for sake of better scanning, which slightly helps with respect to Newton rings too. But I use AN glass on both sides of the negative carrier in all of my enlargers. Have to in this damp foggy climate.
Most films nowadays are thin emulsion and shiny. No more retouching surface except on Tri-X 320 sheet film. Kodak color sheet films do come which an extra surface treatment for sake of better scanning, which slightly helps with respect to Newton rings too. But I use AN glass on both sides of the negative carrier in all of my enlargers. Have to in this damp foggy climate.
I like Delta 100 in 35mm for situations where the details matter. This is an example from yesterday, developed in BT2B. There is cloud detail in the negative, I just chose to play it down.
Here's a recent 6x12 shot using Delta 100 develped in Ilfotec HC.
I have to say I loved old Agfa 25, and have long preferred traditional grain films, but my recent use of Delta 100 and Tmax100 certainly showed that those films provide more than ample detail in 35mm.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,662
- Format
- 8x10 Format
"Pushing" D 100 to 400 is really out there in the outer darkness of the Kuiper Belt. For all practical purposes I consider it a 50 film, because that's what it takes to boost deep shadows up onto the straight line. So "400" would amount to a 3 stop underexposure. And then overdeveloping the balance, with a film which already has a high contrast characteristic, could really get "interesting" (in a Munsters movie manner).
But the characteristic curve does NOT match that of TMX100, which has a significantly longer straight line way down into the toe. To get a reasonable approximation to what TMX100 does at box speed, you do have to expose D100 at 50, and then it still won't be equal. They have somewhat different spectral sensitivities too.
But the characteristic curve does NOT match that of TMX100, which has a significantly longer straight line way down into the toe. To get a reasonable approximation to what TMX100 does at box speed, you do have to expose D100 at 50, and then it still won't be equal. They have somewhat different spectral sensitivities too.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |