Compare Delta 100 & FP-4

I am sure we have had a thread on this subject before but, I can't find it and since we have so many new faces maybe it is worthwhile to bring it up again.

I am reletively familiar with Ilford's FP-4 and am about to try Delta 100 for the first time. I have a few specific questions but, please, let's not limit the conversation to just these...

I am mostly interested in the exposure latitude of Delta 100 compared to FP-4 (as I must confess, FP-4's lattide has allowed me to be a bit lax in metering - usually I give a scene one incident reading and go).

Also, I'm interested in comparing...hmmm, how to say it, is Delta 100 "fussy" about how it is processed? (like Tmax 100) or, is it forgiving (like Tri-X).

I guess it all comes down to my style of work - which tends to be pretty relaxed....so the gist of my question is: can I get away with this relatively casual approach? Experience has shown that I can with films like FP-4 and Tri-x...is Delta 100 going to fit my style or, is it going to ruin my day - like Tmax 100?

Of course, discussion of grain and tones and all that are interesting too.

TIA

Personally, I really like the Deltas. In 35mm I use D100, D400, and APX100. In 120 I use D100 and FP4+.

FWIW, in my own experience, D-100 is a lot less tolerant of 'foolishness' than either FP4+ or APX100. I found, in my own trials, that D100 is much more tolerant in DD-X and ID-11, but hard to tame in Rodinal.

I really prefer D100 to either FP4+ or APX100, but bought the latter two when D100 wasn't available. I'm a freak for high contrast and found that D100 (and D400 for that matter) gives me amazing contrast and really 'crisp' negs in DDX and ID-11. If you like contrast, D100 won't let you down, but it is fussy.

Just my $0.02

Kent

I've been using Delta 100 in 120 and 4x5 for a few years now, and I find them a bit more tolerant to slight development variations than TMax 100. Can't compare them with FP4 as I don't use it. I say slight because I'm pretty careful with time, temperature and agitation. I use Phil Davis' Beyond the Zone System method of eposure and development and have the system pretty well tuned.

I develop D100 in PMK at the standard temperature (70F) and dilution, and usually expose at 100 ISO, metering as prescribed in the Davis method.

I find that I get excellent results from N-1 to N+1, but that reducing development to N-2 doesn't work. Using PMK keeps my highlights from blocking, so N+ or -1 is adequate for 99% of my work.

I used T-Max 100 for several years in various dilutions of HC-110, and liked it until I discovered PMK and D100. Less persnickety. On the other hand, I have a good friend who uses T-Max 100 with PMK and gets results that work well for him. He's not as obsessive about process controls as I am, so there you are. Your methods and results may vary.

Despite reports to the contrary, PMK does work with T-grain films, and I think pretty well. It may not give the depth and quantity of stain as other films do, but there is a definite safety net effect in the highlights and specular highlights. I may eventually try other staining developers, but for now I'm pleased with the results I'm getting.

Peter Gomena

I really like Delta 100 in 4x5 and 8x10. I like a braod tonal range and I get that from Delta 100. Although I have not deliberately deviated very far from the book values of exposure and development, Delta 100 seem to hang in well as the developer becomes exhausted.

I started LF with FP-4 and bought some Delta 100 shortly after. Half a box of FP-4 is still sitting in the fridge.

For your professed style of shooting (a style which I also use sometimes, especially for 35mm), I'd stick with FP4+. It's a great film and it does what I want it to do. I find Delta 100 to be a great film as well, but more finicky.

I have to admit, I love FP-4 for my 4x5 and wouldn't even have bothered with Delta 100 if a box had not fallen into my hands for next to nothing (Thanks Brent ). Although I find Tmax 400 (400TMY) to be both easy to work with and capable of outstanding results my brief and stormy affair with Tmax-100 left me disgusted and cautious toward Delta 100. I guess I'll justhave to load up some film holders and start flapping the shutter!

I would not choose between the two films based on technical issues - both are great films, both "look" much different. Since I have found that Delta 100 is great, fine grained film that gives you all the adventages of Tmax films without the hassles - I use it when I need fine grain. It also looks nicer than Tmax I find - less clinical. Then there is FP4+ - my favorite film right now. It will be more grainy than D100, it looks different, it is even more forginving in development, and seems to have a little more latitude exposure wise. But those are not the reasons I would choose between the two.
Lets say Delta is the "all the benefits of Tmax for people who hate Tmax".
FP4+ is... well, FP4+ - a film for people who... like FP4+.

In 35mm, I find that the way I treat it - most people do not like. I soup it in Rodinal (what else!) and the results I get are just awesome to me - but many people comment that the grain is a bit much. So its not for everyone, at least not the way I "do it"

Delta 100 I find almost grainless when handled with care, and like someone mentioned, capable of a rare mix of contrast without sacrificing much of shadow or highlight detail - it seems to keep a nice range even in high contrast. The FP4+ I find does too - but with much more grain and a totally different flavor. On the other hand - printing 8x10 prints from 35mm, I find that I personally can't see any difference in grain size between PanF and Delta 100 - and its a much faster emultion

OK - I don't know if that made much sense - hope it is hopeful in some way

I have used a lot of FP4 plus and a smallish amount of D100. My impressions are:

D100 has a far smaller grain and as fast.

D100 grain is very crisp indeed. So much so that in fine grain developers, grain becomes lessened further, but retains some cripsness. I tried D100 in aculux 2 and was amazed. From a 6x6 neg enlarged to 14", grain is totally invisible on a print and tonality very creamy. However, sharpness remains superb (and I dont mean resolution).

D100 is less tolerant than FP4 plus. My first uses were early on and printed on a condenser. At times I had real trouble with highlights. Now that I am more aware, I still find it gives me a hard time sometimes, but less often.

FP4 plus is a wonderful all round film with a very neutral look ie it does not have a particular character to my eye and will always look good. Grain is not bad, but nowhere near as fine as D100. D100 however does look more modern and is sometimes too clinical looking. I personally think moden films are bad for subjects which need to look hard, raw, gritty etc but great for those which need to look modern, clean etc. Does not sound very scientific, but still seems to fit my experiences! I do think it is the crispest of all the modern films (Acros/Tmax100), the others being finer grained but lacking bite in normal devs.

My 2Cents is this. Shoot both alongside for the same subjects. Rating both at the same speed wont be far out I am sure and have a play about with development. Maybe then you will get enough of a feel for D100 to decide whether you like it and if you would like to learn more about it. Personally I do not agree with those who feel you cannot comment on a film unless you have rigorously and scientifically tested it. I think if you produce a decent neg with a decent scale (to your eye and knowledge of what prints well) and print it, that will tell you quite a bit for starters.

I agree that D100 is as fine as Pan F and also agree with something I read somewhere that D100 actually has the crisper grain. Again tho, it is more modern looking.

When i get round to using more D100, I am going to try 120/5x4 in pyrocat as I think this will be dynamite (and prevent me blowing highlights when I make errors). If I wanted absolute cream and no grain, Aculux would do the trick.

I have had good luck since switching to Delta 100, but on the other hand I am pretty careful about spot metering and exposing for important shadow areas, and precise about my development process, time, dilution, and temperature. I use HC110, and recently needed to go to "Dilution H," (1:63 dilution developed for twice the time as Dilution B) to get longer development time. Again, I calculated and followed my dilution amounts and times very carefully (I developed for 6:08 as calculated, not rounding to 6 minutes) and had no problems. I do notice that if I miss on the exposure by metering the wrong area, forgetting to calculate filter factors, etc, on the underexposure side, the negative is as thin as skim milk.

FirePhoto said:

I developed for 6:08 as calculated, not rounding to 6 minutes) and had no problems. .

Click to expand...

Delta 100 might be more sensitive to dev time than FP4 plus but it is not that bad! I am sure 6 mins would have been fine too!

Well, I like them both... but I started out very unhappy with the film. Now, I've re-discovered it and I'm starting to like it again. (no a fickle woman... just more understanding now. )

I've used the 35mm and the 120 versions, and shot it at 50 and 100. It's very happy being shot at both these speeds!

Since Rodinal is the developer I use... I have to be VERY gentle with Delta 100, no matter what speed I shoot it. So if you develop it in Rodinal, just be sure that your agitations are very slow and gentle. I have discovered that if I do 4 gentle inversions, twisting the 'can' about a quarter turn with each, every minute, that's all I need. If I miss a minute for some reason, it doesn't seem to bother it one little bit!

Do a search for delta here, or pm "Doc Morten"... he's the Delta guy! You should find lots of info on this film!

Thanks all for sharing your personal insight. This is exactly what I was looking for. I doubt that Delta 100 can replace FP-4 in my 4x5 film bag but, it sounds like it may well be added.

I'll probably dev in HC-110 at first and see how that goes. I also have Clayton's F76 and Paterson Acculux 2 in stock...one of those should do the trick. Sounds like Acculux is a good choice for the smaller format.

I've also used Delta 100 and gotten good results. I've developed in Rodinal 1:50 and Pyrocat-HD 1+1+100. Had good results with both developers - with high SBR's highlight control was better with Pyrocat.