Delta 400, the bastard stepchild?

[Roger Cole]

I don't push film very often but I have had more success pushing D400 to EI 800 and 1600 than I have with using D3200 at these speeds.


Steve.

That's... interesting. I've never tried D3200 lower than 3200 because I rely on Tri-X in Diafine for those speeds. But I get superb results-for-the-speed with Delta 3200 at 3200.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xmas]

Interesting and useful Steve, given the price premium that is charged with D3200

pentaxuser

Well it is risky but you can also shoot Kentmere at 800 ISO in Microphen at Ilfords normal times and temp if you meter religiously like Ansell.

If you additionally try Barry Thortons 2nd bath for 1/3 the time again you will have different shadow detail both more detail and more compression - almost normal negatives.

Depends on how much you like split grade printing relative to Kentmere being cheaper again and more grainy- I like grain...

 

[ghart]

I'm very pleased to read of Simon Galley's support for Delta 400. The OP asked about favorite (sp?) and forgiving, and my answers are yes and yes! For what I do this film is a winner in the tonality department, because it translates the values from top to bottom with an even-handedness that other films don't. Some are better at low values, others at mid, but Delta 400 in MF does the whole range in a way that mimics the competence of large (here meaning >5x4) format.

Forgiveness implies sin at the time of exposure and like every other film, this one needs iteration to find the optimum settings. For what it's worth, I expose at EI 200 and develop for 8 min in ID-11 1+1, at 20 degC. Mainly outdoor work, spot metering, etc. etc. As they say YMMV, and probably does.

Delta 400 has quality tonality.

George

PS I happen to reside in Cheshire but I have no connection with Harman Technology Ltd, other than as a happy user of their products!

 

[photo buddy]

your delta

I settled on Delta 400 for a 'fast' film in 120 size. After Neopan 400 was discontinued, I tried Tri-X (again), HP5, TXMax 400, and Delta 400.

First, I have to say so people can stop reading right now- I develop and then scan and photoshop, which many here consider not real photography. So be it.

Anyway, I found that Delta 400 with a light green filter (for me this is important- I don't like the look without it), developed in HC-110 (1:50, 12 min) gave me the look I wanted. A bit more grain than TMax 400, a nice grain that reminded me of Tri-X in D-76 1:1 30 years ago. Nice tonality, etc. And it seems very forgiving. Even gross overexposures retain detail. It works for me. And with what is going on with film makers, I figure that Ilford is going to be the last one standing so I might as well dial it in now.

Well, it's all personal.

Never had a problem processed it in recipe compounded D72 for 8 minutes.

 

[marciofs]

I always shoot with Delta 100 and I prefer it than Tmax100. O don't like Tmax 400 so if I would use ISO 400 it would be Delta 400 but I have never tried yet.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I agree 100% with your assessment of shooting the same film to learn how it works in all situations, David.

I've been shooting Tri-X for a year or two, switching from using TMax 400 for a long time. While my prints have a bit more grain now and are not as sharp, the most striking realization is that my pictures are not of better or worse quality than they were before. Just slightly different.
I'm sure that if I shot with HP5+ or Delta 400 my resulting photographs would be hugely similar to what they are today, and experience with shooting a few rolls of HP5+ here and there indicate the same. Sometimes I receive film for free from generous souls, and I end up using it because I can't resist free materials. If I had to purchase all my film I would most definitely keep coming back to a single emulsion.

Delta 400 with a personal EI of 200 developed in Barry Thornton's two-bath has been my sole combination for the past 12 years. This combination meets all of my needs. However, in my opinion, the make of film/developer combination that a photographer chooses is not that important. Far more important is sticking to a chosen combination so that you can get on making photographs and gain an in-depth knowledge as to how your chosen tools react over a wide variety of situations.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

What spurred me to post this is that I have a few bricks of Delta 400 that I got for a good price a year or so ago. I used it for landscape shooting and just haven't gotten the snap, or the look that I like but then again haven't worked with it that much. When searching APUG did not find many threads on it.

I shot a roll yesterday of my wife, little girl and her friends with my Hasselblad 500CM and 150 Sonnar with an old Metz 36CT3 flash and then developed in HC 110 dilution B for eight minutes 18 C. The results are actually stunning. I'll post some samples later.

Now to dial it in for landscape work too. At least I know I can shoot it at a friends wedding in a couple of weeks and get what I'm looking for portraits and such with this flash. Thanks again for everyone's thoughts.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What spurred me to post this is that I have a few bricks of Delta 400 that I got for a good price a year or so ago. I used it for landscape shooting and just haven't gotten the snap, or the look that I like but then again haven't worked with it that much. When searching APUG did not find many threads on it.

I shot a roll yesterday of my wife, little girl and her friends with my Hasselblad 500CM and 150 Sonnar with an old Metz 36CT3 flash and then developed in HC 110 dilution B for eight minutes 18 C. The results are actually stunning. I'll post some samples later.

Now to dial it in for landscape work too. At least I know I can shoot it at a friends wedding in a couple of weeks and get what I'm looking for portraits and such with this flash. Thanks again for everyone's thoughts.

Delta 400 has a shoulder, which means the highlights taper off at the top end compared to HP5+ and TMax 400, which offer a straighter line and more highlight contrast.

I imagine D400 would be great for portraits because of the shoulder, like FP4+. It's probably best to use Delta 400 with a developer that is not compensating, like Edwal 12 or something like HC-110 that offers a somewhat upswept curve compared to other developers.

 

[Arcturus]

For some reason I can't seem to get Delta 400 to work right. I use Ilfotec HC and D76 but Delta 400 always comes out super grainy, much more so than HP5+ even. I don't have this problem with any other tabular style films, TMX/TMY-2, Delta 100/3200, Acros 100 etc. It's not the films fault, but something I do in processing just doesn't agree with it.

 

[MattKing]

I have to say it is one thread title that I could'nt miss.....!

DELTA 400 is a deeply loved and cared for child, one of our 400 iso family that we adore.

Simon ( Dad ) ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

So are you saying that Delta 400 is Harman's love child?

:devil:

 

[polyglot]

I don't push film very often but I have had more success pushing D400 to EI 800 and 1600 than I have with using D3200 at these speeds.
Steve.

Well, that is good to hear because at this point, I trust Kodak about as far as I could throw them in terms of ability to stay in business.

But better than D3200? I loves me some D3200 and that's a big call.

I have to say it is one thread title that I could'nt miss.....!

DELTA 400 is a deeply loved and cared for child, one of our 400 iso family that we adore.

Simon ( Dad ) ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

So, Dad, are you going to send your lovechild to Sheet Film University with his little sister, Pan-F?

 

[L Gebhardt]

I would shoot it if it was available in sheets. As it is I use mostly TMax 400 since I can get it in both 120 and sheets. But I do like Delta 400.

 

[StoneNYC]

I would shoot it if it was available in sheets. As it is I use mostly TMax 400 since I can get it in both 120 and sheets. But I do like Delta 400.

Agreed, I'm on the fence, because I would like to be all Illford (except acros100 for reciprocity and spectral response reasons) but I want something finer than HP5+ sometimes and delta400 isn't available in sheet so I've sort of been forced to switch to TMY-2 out of wanting to be able to move up and down formats without having to learn a new film.

He only's exception I'm making is for PanF+ because it's just that good... I'm just hoping someday ilford will actually come out with it in sheet. But I know there are reasons not to, just like HP5+ if Delta400 were available then it possibly cuts into the HP5+ market more than the TMY-2 market, so could PanF+ cut into the FP4+/Delta100 market more than it might the TMX/Acros100 market.

Such is life...

 

[Roger Cole]

HP5+ and Tri-X are quite fine grained enough for me, at least in medium format much less 4x5. Bottom line is that I never see grain in any print I make from 4x5 regardless of the film so I choose 4x5 film on other criteria, and very rarely in prints (up to 16x20, the largest I can make) from medium format. I will grant that if I printed to 16x20 from one of my 645 negs, or cropped to that from 6x6, and cropped a bit I might get a bit more from Tri-X (I can see it in 11x14s but it's hardly bothersome) but I think even then it wouldn't be a problem.

Those who shoot 35mm black and white and print large have more cause to be concerned with grain. I've pretty much stopped shooting black and white in 35mm since I got a couple of medium format cameras and a few lenses for my 645, the exception being "available darkness" where the speed of my 35mm lenses becomes a big advantage.

 

[Athiril]

Delta 400 is one of my favourite landscape films. I dont do this for increased shadow detail or lower contrast, but I shoot it at 100, and process it in replenished Xtol @ 24 degrees with minimal per minute agitation, 2 gentle inversions per cycle, dev time is very short, it takes on a different kind of character that isn't simply contraction.

 

[Xmas]

HP5+ and Tri-X are quite fine grained enough for me, at least in medium format much less 4x5. Bottom line is that I never see grain in any print I make from 4x5 regardless of the film so I choose 4x5 film on other criteria, and very rarely in prints (up to 16x20, the largest I can make) from medium format. I will grant that if I printed to 16x20 from one of my 645 negs, or cropped to that from 6x6, and cropped a bit I might get a bit more from Tri-X (I can see it in 11x14s but it's hardly bothersome) but I think even then it wouldn't be a problem.

Those who shoot 35mm black and white and print large have more cause to be concerned with grain. I've pretty much stopped shooting black and white in 35mm since I got a couple of medium format cameras and a few lenses for my 645, the exception being "available darkness" where the speed of my 35mm lenses becomes a big advantage.

but I like grain... need to go larger than 10x8 with D400

 

[Roger Cole]

If you like grain it doesn't make any sense to use any t-grain film. Use the fastest and most conventional and old-school film you can find.

My recommendation would be Fomapan 400. Push it a bit but be careful as it builds contrast very rapidly.

 

[hoffy]

Add me to the list of people who don't mind hanging down the pool hall with this bastard child. I've only trialled it a few times as a hp5+ alternative in 35mm and have really liked it. The only reason I haven't used it more is because I had so much hp5.

 

[Steve Smith]

That's... interesting. I've never tried D3200 lower than 3200 because I rely on Tri-X in Diafine for those speeds. But I get superb results-for-the-speed with Delta 3200 at 3200.

It's strange (and good) that we all get different results from different films. I love the look of Tri X in the photographs of others which I have seen but have never had any luck with it myself. Probably because I have only ever used two rolls!

Equally, there are many Delta 3200 photographs I have seen which I like, despite not getting anything like the same results from it myself.


Steve.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Delta 400 is a beautiful film. I used to like it particularly in Perceptol. I'd use it all the time, if it were available in sheet sizes, but when I asked about it, as I recall, they weren't making it because of a coating issue, and it would have to be reformulated to work with the sheet film base.

 

[Roger Cole]

They used to make it in sheets. I still have a frozen box from the 90s. Maybe the emulsion has changed in some way to make it incompatible but I don't know.

 

[kintatsu]

Ah yes - I shouldn't have forgotten XP2 Super. I was the one over on LFPF saying if you made it in sheets I'd order C41 chems for the Jobo the next day. It's a wonderful film.

I developed some XP-2 Super in Ultrafin 1+20 last year. It was 120, shot a 70 year old Ikoflex, in snowy and foggy conditions. I metered for 200. The bright part were slightly overexposed, but the shadows were nice. Given enough film and time, I probably would have worked up a system to use it in B$W chemicals.


This was shot Feb 2012, and developed for 13.5 minutes in Ultrafin 1+20. Sorry about my scanning skills, or lack thereof.

I decided to try it after all the labs close to me got all my prints either greenish or reddish-brown. Don't even try it with BW400 from Kodak. You end up with an unprintable gob of arange and black, almost like it hase no mids due to the orange mask. The XP-2 comes out clear, just like any other film, and the mask washes away.

I haven't tried Delta 400, as I'm shooting 4x5, but Delta 100 is great stuff. My current fave is FP-4+. I figure if I work with just FP-4+ and HP-5+, I'll get to know them enough to make something good!

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I have to say it is one thread title that I could'nt miss.....!

DELTA 400 is a deeply loved and cared for child, one of our 400 iso family that we adore.

Simon ( Dad ) ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Simon, why isn't it available in LF sizes like Delta 100?

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

My current fave is FP-4+. I figure if I work with just FP-4+ and HP-5+, I'll get to know them enough to make something good!

Those are my personal favourites. I also like Delta 100.

 

[kintatsu]

Those are my personal favourites. I also like Delta 100.

I've managed to get FP-4+ tested. With my meter and camera, it comes in at box speed. HP-5+ needs some testing for EI and development. It's interesting to me, that I started out liking HP-5+ better, but now I prefer FP-4+. Something about the images. Maybe it's just that I've learned more and need to go back to the HP-5+, as I haven't shot it in about 9 months.

I tried the Delta 100, but only used a few sheets. What I got was good, but testing is required before I can use it seriously, as my times were off for my development. With only 5 sheets, and no more for a while, that's going to have to wait! I'll likely use up my last 5 sheets for some Christmas time photos.