Delta 400-Wow!

[ColColt]

Not being 100% satisfied so far with Tri-X and HP-5 in HC-110 I decided to order a few rolls of Ilford's Delta 400 and I have to say after developing the negatives earlier the results looks superb. With an 10x loupe I see very little discernible grain, the sharpness is outstanding and the tonal range is amazing.

I wasn't sure what times/agitation method I should use so decided on 10 minutes with ID-11 1:1 for 10 minutes with agitation the first 30 seconds and then five inversions every minute thereafter. I think I may have hit it right for my methods and the water here. Developing temperature was 74 degrees. The negatives are drying but as soon as they're done I'll scan a few and see what you think. I'm more than happy with the resultant negatives. EI was box 400.

 

[Vincent Brady]

Ilford recommend 9 :30 minutes in stock ID11 with no pre wash and I have found this to be give excellent results.

 

[Rick A]

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2015416153431192.pdf

 

[Xmas]

You did not say if it dries flat in your dry climate.

But the tabulars are all low grain.

TMAX 100, delta 100, Acros etc.

 

[ColColt]

Here's a few of the scans from Delta 400 shot today...I'm impressed.

D200111 by David Fincher, on Flickr

I went to Dunkin doughnuts today and as I pulled up to pay I had my camera around my neck with Delta 400 loaded and snapped this quick shot of the cashier.

D400113 by David Fincher, on Flickr

Some more miscellaneous shots.

D200115 by David Fincher, on Flickr
D400109 by David Fincher, on Flickr
D400106 by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There are a variety of criteria involved in choosing a film besides grain. Such things as tonality, spectral response, latitude, etc. I would not be so quick to write off either Tri-X or HP5+. What film you choose depends on the subject matter that you usually film. There are actually photographers that like grain.

 

[ColColt]

No problem with the tone, it's the sharpness but that could be due to the trouble I've had getting it to lie flat for scanning purposes as opposed to the Delta 400. I haven't written Tri-X off and it may do better when I get another upcoming scanner next week, the Plustek 8200i.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Very nice. You "dialed it in" sort of by accident and found a result you like. Nothing wrong with that! I was not overly fond of Delta 400 for a while and then I too dialed it in with fill flash using it with my Hassy 500CM and developed in HC-110 and love it. I even shot a friend's wedding with it (I don't do weddings but she asked and gave me free rein as to style and approach, so I did), phenomenal results.

All that said don't give up or discount Tri-X and HP5+, both capable of incredible results too, with tweaking and experimenting.

I used to not like Tri-X in HC-110 for years, just did not click with me, but then one time it just came out perfectly. I remembered my exposure technique, development times/temps and technique, and now I love it. I joke about how they must have changed the formula. Ha.

 

[PeteZ8]

With an 10x loupe I see very little discernible grain, the sharpness is outstanding and the tonal range is amazing.

"That is called grain. It is supposed to be there." -Flotsam

 

[John Bragg]

Very good results David. I could happily use Delta 400 as my standard film as it suits my methods well, but HP5+ is still my personal favorite. Some say it is a hard film to dial in, but I have not found it so and you have hit bullseye first shot ! It does play nice in HC-110H as well as in ID-11 and I have a few examples on my flickr. It handles long contrast range very well and is great for interiors with window light. You may just have found your perfect film

!https://www.flickr.com/photos/25714267@N06/albums/72157631575725300

 

[Xmas]

Tx is finer grain than Trix, it uses a different or additional sensitation.
Tmax400 is finer still.
Some people do have trouble with curl.
Lots of the scanners have 3rd party film holders for better performance.
Some enlargers had glass less negative carriers some glass...

 

[Athiril]

I always liked Delta 400 for landscape type stuff and buildings and things rated at 100, pulled 2 stops in warm xtol with only gentle agitation, changed the look quite a lot.

 

[ToddB]

If you 400 is good. You should burn a roll Delta 100. Very tight.

Todd

 

[ColColt]

The instructions inside the box indicated developing times and temperatures with various developers. With ID-11 at 68 degrees it was 14 minutes and at 75 degrees 11.5 minutes. Knowing manufacturers usually give too long a time for developing(Kodak did) I cut it back to 10 minutes at 74 degrees(room temp for my chemistry) and agitated five inversions each minute. I may cut it back to 9 1/2 minutes next time as they were just a bit too contrasty-not much but I think that will work better.

If I can ever achieve the beautiful negatives John apparently has with HP-5 and HC-110, I surely won't cull that combination as in 35mm I haven't seen better. I'll have to work on my technique a bit more, however, with that one. I'm amazed at the way it handles highlights and shadows. Must be something in that UK water.

I tried TMY long ago and while it produced a good looking negative I was most happy with Tri-X...back then.

 

[MattKing]

TMY was upgraded in 2007 and became TMY-2. Be sure to refer to the current, TMY-2 only data sheet.

It is a wonderful film.

 

[AlexMalm01]

Colcolt, I would recommend looking into a kodak pakon f135 scanner if you are good with computers. It must be run on windows xp, but it speeds up the scanning process considerably and gives great results. Plus they can be bought for about $300 on ebay and there's a facebook group for technical help. Curl or no curl doesn't matter; the scanner uses rollers to pull the film flat through a scanning gate and auto focus does the rest.

F135 used to be thousands of dollars about 10 years ago. Was used with various minilabs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ColColt]

Only runs on XP? that's an ancient OS. I still have my old Dell XP but the absolute worse OS Microsoft ever created...slow as molasses in winter. Just yesterday I bought the Plustek 8200i. I'm hoping for better success with scanning 35mm negatives.

I think I've pretty much decided between HP-5, Tri-X and Delta 400 as my 400 speed film. The jury's still out. I see things with Tri-X I like and other factors Delta 400 is the champion. I'm still going to try the 1:63 dilution with HP-5 to see if I have the luck some others do.

 

[pentaxuser]

The instructions inside the box indicated developing times and temperatures with various developers. With ID-11 at 68 degrees it was 14 minutes and at 75 degrees 11.5 minutes. Knowing manufacturers usually give too long a time for developing(Kodak did) I cut it back to 10 minutes at 74 degrees(room temp for my chemistry) and agitated five inversions each minute. I may cut it back to 9 1/2 minutes next time as they were just a bit too contrasty-not much but I think that will work better.

If you look at the Ilford table for different temperatures it seems to indicate about 9 mins 40 secs for 75 degrees and not 11.5 mins so 9.5 mins is just about the Ilford recommendation which is what you are now aiming for.

pentaxuser

 

[ColColt]

I'm looking inside the box the film came in and it indicates 11 1/2 minutes at 75 degrees for the rated 400 speed. That's ID-11 1:1.

 

[pentaxuser]

I'm looking inside the box the film came in and it indicates 11 1/2 minutes at 75 degrees for the rated 400 speed. That's ID-11 1:1.

There may be a discrepancy between the box instructions and the Ilford table. Ilford table agrees with Ralph Lambrecht's table as well.

I wasn't suggesting that you haven't read the box instructions properly, simply that the Ilford table to be found with any of its films technical details looks to be the more accurate as your trials suggest.

pentaxuser

 

[ColColt]

It's rather odd that inside the box and the Ilford table I got off the web both say 11 1/2 minutes for 75 degrees. I don't know. I know the time I used with the 1:1 dilution worked fine.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010628953322222.pdf

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Delta... Meh... It looks lifeless and digital on scans and prints.
Love TRI-X; but price is stupid. HP5 is great film to me.

 

[ColColt]

Tri-X is pretty cheap here at less than $5 per roll for 24 exposures...just a tad bit more than HP-5. In fact, about 20 cents more.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm not doing my 135 film photography by rolls, but by meters.
The bulk of Kodak stuff is twice more expensive comparing to Ilford bulk at BH (my place for getting bw films in bulks).
The price I'm getting for 24 exposures is bellow two bucks.

 

[Roger Cole]

Only runs on XP? that's an ancient OS. I still have my old Dell XP but the absolute worse OS Microsoft ever created...slow as molasses in winter. Just yesterday I bought the Plustek 8200i. I'm hoping for better success with scanning 35mm negatives.

I think I've pretty much decided between HP-5, Tri-X and Delta 400 as my 400 speed film. The jury's still out. I see things with Tri-X I like and other factors Delta 400 is the champion. I'm still going to try the 1:63 dilution with HP-5 to see if I have the luck some others do.

Worst?

Um, no. XP was great and I still run it on an old laptop. Worst was Win ME. Oh, and Vista, that was the worst too.