Delta 400 vs. Tri-X

Tim Gray · Apr 4, 2012

Athiril said:
Using 1000:1 figures as a relative comparison basis is flawed.

And as you showed, using the MTF 50% figures, or the 1.6:1 figures as a relative comparison basis can be flawed too.

Like I said in my first reply, unless I missed something, for some of the films mentioned, we don't have any other numbers to go on. Yes, the 1000:1 figures aren't necessarily appropriate for everything, or even much of anything for pictorial. That should be stated. But it IS a point of comparison. Just not a comparison of something YOU might find useful. Then again, it might - that ordering of films by resolution in that chart pretty much matches my experiences with the films that I've shot with. And even then, while there might be some films whose resolution doesn't scale to lower contrasts, it IS information and it IS a valid comparison.

And by the way, all of your faulty and flawed logic you are attributing to me, I quote myself, "It should give a good sense of relative resolution between the films." Let me break that down for you:

'Good sense' - an estimate. Maybe not totally correct in every case, but a guide from to work from.
'relative resolution' - not that film A has 4 times the resolution than B at all contrasts, just that film A is 'higher resolution' than B.

It's an estimate based on easily available published data from the manufacturer. I wouldn't bet my life on it. But if all I had to go on was that chart to pick a highly resolving film, I think I'd do alright if I realized that HIE can't revolve shit compared a number of other films.

And please, where are the 1.6:1 numbers for some of these films?

MaximusM3 · Apr 4, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
The only way the original poster is going to properly make up his/her mind is by purchasing a brick of each and get down to business of practicing with them.

That's what it'll end up being anyway. The films are different in their specifications, but in something as subjective as art, it doesn't really say much until you start using them.

Tri-X is hardly a high resolution or fine grained film. 75% of major brand films have better specifications, but I use it because I love what my prints look like. None of the numbers mean anything to me.

No way! Why do that when one can go the easy way and come in here and get 2000 different opinions and miss the entertainment of people throwing crap at each other? At the end of the day, there is probably less time involved in shooting two rolls and process them than to read everyone's answers, but what do I know..
Sometimes I really wonder how photographers survived and made good art before the internet.

Athiril · Apr 4, 2012

Tim Gray, the 1000:1 figures are not a point of comparison unless you are photographing a subject with high spatial frequencies at 1000:1 contrast ratio. Almost no one is. Therefore it is completely unusable (unless you are photographing 1000:1) as a point of comparison between, because it does not in any way shape or form scale to pictorial resolution. It isn't a valid comparison.

It doesn't give an estimate between the films.

"'relative resolution' - not that film A has 4 times the resolution than B at all contrasts, just that film A is 'higher resolution' than B."

I already demonstrated that film A is lower resolution than film B, despite having a high resolution for higher contrast. I already deomonstrated a difference between 2 films with the same 1000:1 contrast level.

I don't think you have actually looked for the information, because they are in manufacturer data sheets for many films, if they give out 1000:1 they also give out 1.6:1 and usually (though not always) the MTF chart too. Eg: http://wwwau.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4043/f4043.pdf I'm sure you are more than capable of looking up films on the manufacturer website and clicking on the PDF links for the rest of them.

If you got your data from a book that listed only 1000:1, and compared resolution to films like that when that book is not about scientific high contrast applications, I would probably throw that book in the bin because they neglected the rest of the data. It is misleading, especially for document contrast films as these figures come straight from the manufacturer for standard developing. T-Max 100 has a better MTF 50% than Technical Pan does.

Tech Pan 100 lp/mm @ 50%, T-Max 100 125.

Yet T-Max 100 is listed at 63 lp/mm for 1.6:1 and Tech Pan 125 lp/mm @ 1.6:1 (in HC-110) and 100 lp/mm in Technidol (only MTF is in Tech Pan PDF, stated resolution at contrasts is in the glass plate tech pan PDF).

That HC-110 is dilution D, which for the given times has a contrast index of 1.35 to 2 @ ISO 80 to 125. With Technidol being more normal from 0.48 to 0.70 (ISO 16 to 25) (also the dMaxis 1.2 @ CI 0.48). The suggested time is 9 minutes at ISO 25, so that is their basis for the technidol resolution figures (they state so), that has a contrast index of 0.64.

The HC-110 Dil B basis (for 125 lp/mm) is 8 minutes with a contrast index of 2. The grain is also significantly finer, listed at RMS 5 vs RMS 8 for the Technidol basis (vs T-Max value of 8 on their standard basis for their figures which is D-76).

These books are usually about photography not high contrast scientific applications. Generally you want to use those films at pictoial contrast levels for pictorial photography. You may see a correlation there between contrast and resolution, as being able to resolve something is being able to detect contrast between something. Less contrast, less resolution.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 4, 2012

MaximusM3 said:
Sometimes I really wonder how photographers survived and made good art before the internet.

It is a question well worth examining and pondering.

Tim Gray · Apr 4, 2012

Athiril said:
I don't think you have actually looked for the information, because they are in manufacturer data sheets for many films, if they give out 1000:1 they also give out 1.6:1 and usually (though not always) the MTF chart too. Eg: http://wwwau.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4043/f4043.pdf I'm sure you are more than capable of looking up films on the manufacturer website and clicking on the PDF links for the rest of them.

So now we are patronizing too.

Yup, I had already looked. And if you had have looked, you'd have seen that Tri-X and several other films don't give any of these numbers, just the MTF charts (unless of course I'm mistaken, which I've said three times now). Which are useful, but again, not that same. I found numbers for TMY, TMX, TMZ, Plus-X, but not for Techpan, HIE, or Tri-X. I stopped looking after that. The only place I've seen numbers for some of these films is in the Kodak B&W Dataguide, and they apparently only quote the 1000:1 number. WHICH WAS MY F****** POINT.

Again, also stated for the third time, that the chart pretty much matches up with my experiences, and I bet it matches up with most others' experiences as well, and isn't totally invalid. But here, just for you: YES, YOU ARE RIGHT.

So to recap, the next time any one asks me if Tri-X is sharper than Techpan, I'll say I don't know. Athiril told me that I should only use the 1.6:1 numbers for comparison, and I can't find that for Tri-X. Also, too, you should throw your Kodak B&W Dataguide in the garbage, because it quoted 1000:1 numbers.

Sorry for the digressions. I won't bother this thread anymore.

MaximusM3 · Apr 4, 2012

Athiril said:
Tim Gray, the 1000:1 figures are not a point of comparison unless you are photographing a subject with high spatial frequencies at 1000:1 contrast ratio. Almost no one is. Therefore it is completely unusable (unless you are photographing 1000:1) as a point of comparison between, because it does not in any way shape or form scale to pictorial resolution. It isn't a valid comparison.

It doesn't give an estimate between the films.

"'relative resolution' - not that film A has 4 times the resolution than B at all contrasts, just that film A is 'higher resolution' than B."

I already demonstrated that film A is lower resolution than film B, despite having a high resolution for higher contrast. I already deomonstrated a difference between 2 films with the same 1000:1 contrast level.

I don't think you have actually looked for the information, because they are in manufacturer data sheets for many films, if they give out 1000:1 they also give out 1.6:1 and usually (though not always) the MTF chart too. Eg: http://wwwau.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4043/f4043.pdf I'm sure you are more than capable of looking up films on the manufacturer website and clicking on the PDF links for the rest of them.

If you got your data from a book that listed only 1000:1, and compared resolution to films like that when that book is not about scientific high contrast applications, I would probably throw that book in the bin because they neglected the rest of the data. It is misleading, especially for document contrast films as these figures come straight from the manufacturer for standard developing. T-Max 100 has a better MTF 50% than Technical Pan does.

Tech Pan 100 lp/mm @ 50%, T-Max 100 125.

Yet T-Max 100 is listed at 63 lp/mm for 1.6:1 and Tech Pan 125 lp/mm @ 1.6:1 (in HC-110) and 100 lp/mm in Technidol (only MTF is in Tech Pan PDF, stated resolution at contrasts is in the glass plate tech pan PDF).

That HC-110 is dilution D, which for the given times has a contrast index of 1.35 to 2 @ ISO 80 to 125. With Technidol being more normal from 0.48 to 0.70 (ISO 16 to 25) (also the dMaxis 1.2 @ CI 0.48). The suggested time is 9 minutes at ISO 25, so that is their basis for the technidol resolution figures (they state so), that has a contrast index of 0.64.

The HC-110 Dil B basis (for 125 lp/mm) is 8 minutes with a contrast index of 2. The grain is also significantly finer, listed at RMS 5 vs RMS 8 for the Technidol basis (vs T-Max value of 8 on their standard basis for their figures which is D-76).

These books are usually about photography not high contrast scientific applications. Generally you want to use those films at pictoial contrast levels for pictorial photography. You may see a correlation there between contrast and resolution, as being able to resolve something is being able to detect contrast between something. Less contrast, less resolution.

If only such great knowledge would translate to prints hanging in galleries, museums, being sold, you'd be in great shape..then again, if that was the case, one would probably have little time for meaningless arguments on APUG. Are you really helping the OP with any of this pointless mumbo jumbo?

Athiril · Apr 4, 2012

You ignored that part where I said if they give them out (in context to the data sheets for that particular film) it is there for 1.6:1 also. IE: in Tech Pan's glass plate doc, it is in there.

Tech Pan is available in another Tech Pan document, you should be able to find it with the information above.

Tri-X info is available elsewhere like Tech Pan, but I have forgotten that one, I think it is is 50 lp/mm @ 1.6:1 iirc. HIE is not something you can easily produce data for, it is situation dependant.

Take things as an insult if you wish, but don't twist words I've said to mean something else, if you wish to continue things take it to PM, this is distracting from the OP.

MaximusM3 said:
If only such great knowledge would translate to prints hanging in galleries, museums, being sold, you'd be in great shape..then again, if that was the case, one would probably have little time for meaningless arguments on APUG. Are you really helping the OP with any of this pointless mumbo jumbo?

I pointed something out, I was questioned on it, so I answered.

Are you helping the OP by implying that my work must suck and I don't sell anything because I value technical knowledge and discuss it on forums. My motivation in photography isn't monetary and fame driven and materialistic. I enjoy the process of spending time trying to achieve a shot, and sometimes the end result. I also like to take periods of reflection of what I've done and what I'd like to do differently.

Putting people down for taking the time to respond to people in some detail with technical information or knowledge (be it wrong or right, that doesn't matter, it's the process and effort here you're putting down) belongs in high school.. actually in fact it doesn't belong there either. This attitude is ugly.

pstake · Apr 4, 2012

Guess I missed a lot this morning.

Thank you, Ken N., for your experience with Delta 400 I'm going to test it in Rodinal, Ilfotec-HC and D-76 (which I have stocked) and will report back about how it turns out (in a few weeks).

Thomas Bert ... I'm not going to buy a brick of Delta 400 just yet; I'm going to buy a few rolls to try. But your point is a good one

Tim Gray ... you were right. I posted that information just as a relative comparison. Hopefully it's useful to some of the folks who read it.

Thanks for all the good information, everybody.

Tom Stanworth · Apr 4, 2012

This thread is hilarious. A simple question followed by the splitting of the atom (with accompanying algebra)

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 4, 2012

pstake said:
Guess I missed a lot this morning.

Thank you, Ken N., for your experience with Delta 400 I'm going to test it in Rodinal, Ilfotec-HC and D-76 (which I have stocked) and will report back about how it turns out (in a few weeks).

Thomas Bert ... I'm not going to buy a brick of Delta 400 just yet; I'm going to buy a few rolls to try. But your point is a good one

Tim Gray ... you were right. I posted that information just as a relative comparison. Hopefully it's useful to some of the folks who read it.

Thanks for all the good information, everybody.

(Bold above added by me)

Good man! Let us know how it works out. There's nothing like hard work.

In the sharpness department, go with something like Rodinal or Paterson FX-39 are tough to beat (if you can get them). Otherwise I have a recipe (thanks, Clay) for FX-37 that you can mix on your own, if you don't mind mixing at home. It yields very sharp negatives. But as with anything else, it's not anywhere near as important as knowing your materials inside and out, and that just might take a brick's worth of practice to achieve... Best to try one or two developers and just run with it for a few months.

Good luck!

vpwphoto · Apr 4, 2012

I miss the days when I shot Ilford because they gave the photo department a brick for the professor to pass out... then Kodak gave us a few rolls of T-max to mess with. Blalalabllaaaa.
Do what works for you and don't look back.
Why doesn't anyone post a "Look what I did, and I think it looks great." Thread?

Ditto to what Thomas said above too.

Ken N · Apr 4, 2012

Athiril said:
I haven't used it that extensively for portraiture, can you post some examples or a link?

Eeeeee. Not an easy proposition at the moment due to my living in temporary quarters. But also this is potentially problematic because without comparative images from other means it is hard to identify what I'm talking about without it digressing into a "I do this by other means" discussion. But I'll word picture this a bit.

When photographing teens and young adults, we typically have a bunch of zits to work through. What I discovered is by using Delta400 with an orange filter, the zits and other similar blemishes almost totally disappear. Even without the filteration the zits lighten up.

Another factor worth considering is for indoor shooting under incandescent lighting, I'll get a slight exposure lifting. Films with a deeper IR cut will tend to underexpose in comparison.

I'm a big fan of DD-X. I like how it keeps grain down without sacrificing the edginess too much. It also is a "film speed developer" so it is far better for pushing and pulling than the common developers which increase or decrease contrast. But not being much of a lab rat, I suppose Rodinol is better for everything but I'm just too ignorant to know what it is. I just go with what I'm comfortable with.

michaelbsc · Apr 4, 2012

I will second the Delta 400 in DD-X recommendation.

DD-X is pricy. But it's good.

But I can't say I've pushed it that hard.

john_s · Apr 4, 2012

pstake said:
First, my question: Does anyone have experience pushing Delta 400 to 1600? Are you able to obtain the latitude of Tri-X as far as tones and shadow detail, whilst retaining the Delta 400 resolution?
.............
I already use Delta 100 rated at 50 when I can afford the loss of speed, usually for portraits and other non-candid photos. It is damn sharp, high-resolution film, and with beautiful tones to boot as is Delta 400 at box speed. But what if it's pushed two stops?

Any advice is appreciated (maybe another film not mentioned here?)

Thanks,
Phil

When Delta 400 first appeared in its improved version over 400 Delta in around the year 2000, Geoffrey Crawley did two articles in BJP about it and competing 400 speed films. These articles used to be freely available on the internet and I've copied them, but they seem to have disappeared now. Maybe I could upload them to APUG, since they were freely available some years ago. Anyway, he says this about Delta 400 pushed two stops:

"The EI1600 results at CI=0.85 sorted the films out. In shadow
penetration Delta 400 Pro scored very marginally over the Fujifilm
and Kodak. APX 400 again lagged behind. However, the grain
image in the Delta 400 prints was now noticeably more evident
than in the others: both T-Max 400 and Neopan 400 retained
grain control with Tri-X close to. With such extended development
there may be bi-pack interference occurring with Delta 400, but it
retains its speed edge nevertheless."

Since then, the Kodak films have been changed (maybe improved in every way? maybe not?). So his take on pushing Delta 400 is that speed is good, but grain is not.

john_s · Apr 4, 2012

Incidentally the Crawley article discussed how to compare films, with particular emphasis on matching their contrast by trial and error in developing times before making judgements. In the article, he used D-76 for all of them since it is such a standard. He stated that relative differences would be the same in a different developer. Maybe that's not entirely the case.

pstake · Apr 4, 2012

Thanks, John S ... I wouldn't mind reading the whole article some time if you are comfortable sharing it.

What is "bi-pack interference?"

john_s · Apr 4, 2012

Can I post the articles to APUG? They are two pdf files, about 60kbytes and 70kbytes.

Bi-pack interference i think is something to do with the fact that there are two emulsions layered on the film. There is some explanation of them in the articles.

pstake · Apr 4, 2012

I think .pdf files can be posted as images...

john_s · Apr 4, 2012

I have uploaded the two text files to APUG. See Articles>Materials.

They appear in the wrong order, second one first.

robbalbrecht · Apr 4, 2012

I like Delta400. I shot this image with it in a Holga of all cameras and it's still one of my favorites. I was pretty surprised by the smooth tones.

This one was on Delta3200 in my BronicaSQ.

I've had better results with Ilford B&W films than Kodak but that's just my $.02

pstake · Apr 5, 2012

john_s said:
I have uploaded the two text files to APUG. See Articles>Materials.

They appear in the wrong order, second one first.

Thanks for posting those, John. Read them last night. Both are worth reading (IMHO).

pstake · Apr 5, 2012

robbalbrecht said:
I like Delta400. I shot this image with it in a Holga of all cameras and it's still one of my favorites. I was pretty surprised by the smooth tones.

This one was on Delta3200 in my BronicaSQ.

I've had better results with Ilford B&W films than Kodak but that's just my $.02

Thanks, Robb, for sharing these. The tones are VERY nice ... the holga is remarkably sharp in the middle. Do you have any Delta 400 photos taken in 35mm? The difference in red / blue sensitivity between Delta 400 and Tri-X, which Ken N, talked about, seems apparent to me, in the tones. I still very much like the tonal quality of Tri-X but I'm going to give Delta 400 a try ... and 3200 as well (I already love TMax 3200 so the Delta will be a hard sell on me considering it's only a couple dollars cheaper per roll.)

Tom Stanworth · Apr 6, 2012

I'm amazed that G Crawley says that it takes a 28x enlargement to see the grain difference between D400 and TriX at ei 400. That does not square with my experience at all over several years, with several developers. D400 is noticeably finer grained at normal print sizes from 35mm and 120 negs when rated at 400. D400 also has much higher resolution.

markbarendt · Apr 6, 2012

Tom Stanworth said:
I'm amazed that G Crawley says that it takes a 28x enlargement to see the grain difference between D400 and TriX at ei 400. That does not square with my experience at all over several years, with several developers. D400 is noticeably finer grained at normal print sizes from 35mm and 120 negs when rated at 400. D400 also has much higher resolution.

I see similar things in practical experience, 8x10 prints from 35mm negatives seem to work fine for me with most any 400 speed film.

At 11x14 though the grain in Tri-X and HP-5 seems to start competing with smaller subject details. For example a head and shoulders portrait will typically look fine to me but at 3/4 or full length the subjects eyes and ears and jewelry can easily be competing with the grain for my attention.

This isn't always a deal killer, but for me it's a variable I can do without. I'm typically going to adjust those variables with aperture and don't necessarily want the film making those choices for me.

Ken N · Apr 6, 2012

I agee that the tests and the usage don't always square with each other. I learned that D400/DD-X is quite flexible. With a minor change in exposure and development it is a very good Tri-X knockoff and can almost be perfectly interchangeable with HP5. But where they start to part ways is when you shoot and process specifically for the "modern look". It becomes it's own animal.

I personally can't stand processing D400 in D76, but that's primarily because I prefer to push the film a touch to 500. DD-X restrains the highlights enough that it keeps my contrast range in check.

Delta 400 vs. Tri-X

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency