Delta 400 vs. Tri-X

I can say that in the end it probably doesn't matter much which one you choose as long as you learn how to use it properly.

The attached print scans are both medium format negatives, shot in the same part of the world, in similar lighting conditions. I really don't care which is Delta 400 and which is Tri-X. Both were in flat lighting so exposed at 800.

Who here thinks that either shot would have improved if I had used 'the other' film?

Ken N said:

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.

Click to expand...

All the films I tend to like shooting b&w portraiture on... once I looked at the similarities, I found they were all more blue sensitive. So I like to see what other people are doing and see if their results suit my aesthetic.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I can say that in the end it probably doesn't matter much which one you choose as long as you learn how to use it properly.

Click to expand...

Id say using MF or larger formats you are absolutely right.

And no I don't think they could have been improved by switching between those two films.

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.

Click to expand...

Tom, I found your thread from four years ago. Good read and it looks like you did some thorough testing between these two films.

For everybody else, the thread is here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Tom S., did you ever try pushing Delta 400 to 1600? In this post, you eluded to the fact that Tri-X doesn't blow out highlights as bad, when pushed, which is one of the great, time-tested things about Tri-X.

Wow Thomas, scans you posted are beautiful! Amazing work!!!

pstake said:

Do you have any Delta 400 photos taken in 35mm?

Click to expand...

I will soon. I have a roll of Delta 35mm that is ready to go in my Canon A-1

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.

Click to expand...

Also, since the articles, Tri-Xhas been improved which I understand has improved the grain size. Since the demise of 120 Neopan400 I'm looking for a new film. I'll give Delta a try.

I like them both. They have different looks. If Delta 400 could be made in sheet sizes, I'd use more of it.

john_s said:

Also, since the articles, Tri-Xhas been improved which I understand has improved the grain size. Since the demise of 120 Neopan400 I'm looking for a new film. I'll give Delta a try.

Click to expand...

Because of the larger grain, believe it or not, I actually like the old Tri-X better. So some of us actually think the grain was made worse.

Well I wanted to check back in. I bought and used a roll of Delta 400 at box speed, just shooting street scenes around downtown and at a local recreational area / park / lake / bike and running trail. I tried to vary light conditions in the same frame to get a good feel for its latitude in relation to Tri-X ... but I have not yet tried pushing it. That said, it performed very well. I developed in Rodinal stand dev 1:100 for 1 hour. Negatives came out great.

First, these are my impressions and should not be taken as declarations of fact. YMMV.

It is noticeably sharper / more resolving than Tri-X. This was especially apparent in scenes among vegetation, clumps of grass and foliage — as you would expect, delineation between adjacent shades are more discernable. The finer grain may play a role here. The tones are pleasant. Even frames that are split between daylight on one half, and dim light on the other (ie. shooting out the window from inside a restaurant), still show a good amount of detail in both highlights and shadows.

What I was most after was clearer, sharper rendering of people / facial features when shooting with a narrow depth of field and trying to capture multiple persons in different planes. What I mean is, if you take a portrait, focused perfectly on a person, with either film, the difference in the results will be less noticeable than if you shoot at F2 into a room full of people. In the latter case, the Delta 400 would, IMHO, render facial features better than Tri-X. But I was surprised at my own reaction to getting what I wanted.

After all my bemoaning clarity, sharpness, resolution, etc. — in the end, I have to agree with Thomas B.

There is just something about Tri-X. Certainly the tonality of Tri-X is better. I'm still going to play around with Delta 400 and try pushing it to 800 and 1600 —*but I doubt I'll ever make it my default film. My default film is still Tri-X ... and when I can afford to use slower, finer-grained, sharper film, my default is still Delta 100.

Sorry that I have no images to post. I'm still mostly living in the daguerrotype era, at least until I can afford a decent negative scanner, which will be a few months yet. When I have one, I'll try to post a few images here so it's not all just my hypothesizing and ranting.