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

[dokko]

More specifically the FX39ii works best for T-grain films according to the manufacturer, but I used it once for T-max 400 (35mm!)

I seem to remember that Henning Serger wrote in this forum that he got record numbers in terms of resolution with that combo. Definitely will try that since I got quite a lot of TMY-2 for a good price.

Xtol is very nice but has a less pronounced grain which is mostly not my choice and I find the quantity of 5ltr stock too much, where I don't like powders in the first place.

Adox XT-3 made the whole mixing aspect much less of a hassle (less dust and better dissolving without caking of the second bag). I divide it into 500ml glass bottles, takes a bit more space but very convenient because I don't need to measure anymore. I just pour one bottle into a 1.5l measurement cup, fill it up up to 1500ml for 1+2 and process three 120 or five 135 films in one go in a large paterson tank.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I processed two T-Max 100 in old Adox FX39-II 1+14 yesterday.
the bottle states manufactured in 04/2022, I have first opened in summer 2022 and probably reopened it about 4 times. It has been standing around 80% empty in the original bottle with no protectan/vacuum for at least half a year now.

The negatives look good in general, but looking at the edge markings and comparing it to films that I processed with the same technique a few weeks ago in fresh FX-39II, they look indeed slightly weaker.
It wasn't a controlled test since I didn't split the film and developed half of it in fresh developer. assuming the T-Max films had the same edge markings exposed (they were of similar age but I'm no sure if the same batch) I would guess that 10-20% more developing time would have brought it to similar density, but hard to know how/if the gradation and grain structure would be affected.

That was pretty much my experience with a partly used 6 to 8 month old bottle. I didn't gas it or put it into a brown glass bottle, but will if I buy more.

 

[albireo]

Thanks for sharing. I really like your Delta 100 results. Which 11K dpi scanner are you using?

I thought this might be interesting for some, so I created a separate thread from the discussion at

Similarity between FX-39 and Ilfosol 3?

I've been meaning to try FX-39 ever since ADOX re-introduced it to the market, but I've been unlucky with timing and its availability in the US. Meanwhile, I have discovered Ilfosol 3 last year and have been quite impressed with it. I am seeing Rodinal-like sharpness, tight grain and no loss of...

www.photrio.com

I ran a film/developer comparison recently because I wanted to check two new magazines for my Hasselblad and thought why not fill it with different film, and try some different developers with it.

so I shot the same scene under constant sun light with a Hasselblad 203FE and a 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.


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

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 should also include Ilfosol-3 (will take a while though).

- 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. 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

I've also created a layered .tif file with all the samples in one file:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.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.

let me know if you have any questions.

(edit: replaced the flickr link to the original size uploads)

 

[Roger Cole]

sure, a wet print certainly will show different results, but it's hard to share online

Huh? No it isn't. Make the print then scan the print. Sure, it's still a scan but the enlargement of the details is done pretty much entirely optically.

 

[dokko]

Huh? No it isn't. Make the print then scan the print. Sure, it's still a scan but the enlargement of the details is done pretty much entirely optically.

well, what I meant is that in my experience, the print on a wall will look different then a scan of the print viewed on a screen.

But as mentioned, with a wet print the difference in grain texture will be less pronounced (which can be a good thing depending on taste) since the common enlarging lenses are somewhat soft.

I rarely do wet prints of b/w anymore (I still do color sometimes for my own pictures). I mostly scan for people who want to do very large prints (like 150 to 500cm wide) and use a hybrid workflow.

 

[blee1996]

Anyone like FX39II when using Kentmere 400, HP5+, Delta 400 or Foam 400? Those are the only ones I might be using when it comes to "higher" speed films.

I tried FX-39 II with Kodak Tri-X, Ilford HP5+, and Arista EDU 400: the results were ok, but a bit too grainy for my taste. I used 1+19 dilution, 8 min @68F to control the contrast. It worked very well with slower "modern" film like Kentmere 100 and T-MAX 100. But with traditional film, it seems like I don't get the full ISO out of them. The negatives are a bit thin. Thus I reverted back to F76 1+9 for higher speed film.

 

[dokko]

Thanks for sharing. I really like your Delta 100 results. Which 11K dpi scanner are you using?

It's a custom made scanner that I've developed myself over that last several years because I've been disappointed with the results of the usual scanners like Imacon/Hasselblad or drum scanners, neither of which being able to capture the full texture of analog film.

It can scan up to 40'000ppi, but the sweet spot for most films is around 10'000ppi. with some fine grain films it's worth going to 20'000ppi for extreme enlargements.

 

[albireo]

It's a custom made scanner that I've developed myself over that last several years because I've been disappointed with the results of the usual scanners like Imacon/Hasselblad or drum scanners

Fantastic! Hats off to you. Can you patent it or is it based on patented designs (eg digital camera + repro stand etc)?

 

[John Wiegerink]

I tried FX-39 II with Kodak Tri-X, Ilford HP5+, and Arista EDU 400: the results were ok, but a bit too grainy for my taste. I used 1+19 dilution, 8 min @68F to control the contrast. It worked very well with slower "modern" film like Kentmere 100 and T-MAX 100. But with traditional film, it seems like I don't get the full ISO out of them. The negatives are a bit thin. Thus I reverted back to F76 1+9 for higher speed film.

I have some Kentmere 100 120 and like it very much, but that's with XT3-R and not FX39II. Are you saying you couldn't get "box speed" with Kentmere 100 and FX39II? I easily can get box speed with XT3-R and Kentmere 100.

 

[dokko]

Fantastic! Hats off to you. Can you patent it or is it based on patented designs (eg digital camera + repro stand etc)?

It's probably not possible to patent it since it's just a light source, a lens and a sensor, which is how nearly all scanners have been operating over the last 20 years.

the challenge is in the details and the tolerances once you go over 5000ppi. it's very hard to get accurate focus until the edges with 10'000ppi and at 40'000ppi the depth of field is thinner than the emulsion layer, meaning one has to use focus stacking to get all the grains in focus.

 

[MattKing]

It's probably not possible to patent it since it's just a light source, a lens and a sensor, which is how nearly all scanners have been operating over the last 20 years.

the challenge is in the details and the tolerances once you go over 5000ppi. it's very hard to get accurate focus until the edges with 10'000ppi and at 40'000ppi the depth of field is thinner than the emulsion layer, meaning one has to use focus stacking to get all the grains in focus.

dokko:
Perhaps you should start a thread about your scanner in the Scanner and Scanning sub-forum - this part of the discussion would fit better there, and people interested in the subject would be more likely to see it.

 

[dokko]

dokko:
Perhaps you should start a thread about your scanner in the Scanner and Scanning sub-forum - this part of the discussion would fit better there, and people interested in the subject would be more likely to see it.

yes, good idea. I created a new thread there, so any scanning question can be addressed:

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

while discussions about film and developers can continue here.

 

[blee1996]

I have some Kentmere 100 120 and like it very much, but that's with XT3-R and not FX39II. Are you saying you couldn't get "box speed" with Kentmere 100 and FX39II? I easily can get box speed with XT3-R and Kentmere 100.

I did not write clearly. For Kentmere 100 and T-Max 100 I got full iso speed with FX-39II. The negatives look great and scans well.

But the negatives from FP4+, Arista EDU 400, HP5+, and Tri-X are a bit thin with FX-39II at 1+19 dilution.