Dif between delta 100 and FP4

[mark]

What is the difference between these two films. I have never used FP4 and with the crazy cost of delta in the 8x10 neg realm I was wondering. I know delta is a t grain film and FP is a more traditional film but that should not matter in a contact print. Or does it? What is the expandability of FP4?

 

[cliveh]

FP4 is a real film with real integrity. Delta is one where the manufacturer is trying to align the grains in the same direction and I don't believe they are always completely successful in doing this, thus destroying the natural integrity of the film. But that is just my opinion.

 

[mark]

What do you mean by natural integrity of the film? I've shot delta for years.

 

[cliveh]

What do you mean by natural integrity of the film? I've shot delta for years.

Where the manufacturer is not trying to orientate the grains in on e direction.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Where the manufacturer is not trying to orientate the grains in on e direction.

I have to say, Clive, that you operate in strange ways sometimes. Not necessarily a bad thing (I like those that think differently), but this one I'm confused by.

Delta 100 and FP4+ look pretty similar in a print, actually, and at 8x10 size I don't think most people could tell a difference. When you print large, Delta 100 is sharper and finer grained, and when you expose film at night, Delta 100 has less reciprocity failure. The two films are a lot more similar than they are different.

 

[cliveh]

I have to say, Clive, that you operate in strange ways sometimes. Not necessarily a bad thing (I like those that think differently), but this one I'm confused by.

Delta 100 and FP4+ look pretty similar in a print, actually, and at 8x10 size I don't think most people could tell a difference. When you print large, Delta 100 is sharper and finer grained, and when you expose film at night, Delta 100 has less reciprocity failure. The two films are a lot more similar than they are different.

Thomas, you must remember that I am a purist who likes grains to be in the emulsion at whatever orientation they are laid down. The concept of tabular grain technology is fine, but I don't believe that all grains can be orientated in the same direction, thus destroying the integrity of the concept. But then I am probably slightly mad.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

But then I am probably slightly mad.

So much better than 'normal' or 'bland'. And I'm like you about the grain. Tri-X is my favorite flavor.

 

[mark]

Good god I HATE grain. I refuse to shoot Kodak for anything to be enlarged because of it, but with an 8x10 neg contact printing I should not see the grain, or does FP4 have boulder sized grain like Tri-x?.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Good god I HATE grain. I refuse to shoot Kodak for anything to be enlarged because of it, but with an 8x10 neg contact printing I should not see the grain, or does FP4 have boulder sized grain like Tri-x?.

Tri-X does not have boulder sized grain. What are you talking about? Kodak also happen to make some of the most grain free emulsions out there. Compare Tri-X to HP5+ or Delta 400, or Foma 400 for that matter and compare. Or better yet TMax 400, which has finer grain than FP4.
Then take TMax 100 and compare to any Ilford film and you'll see that your analysis is right out the window.

If you contact print 8x10 film, then grain should not be a concern no matter what film you use that's available in that format. You will NOT see grain. If you enlarge 4x5 film, Delta 100 is finer grained than FP4+. But not as fine grained as Fuji Acros or TMax 100.

 

[cliveh]

The manufacturer has nothing to do with a specific grain size, as all manufactures produce films at different speeds. FP4+ has a box speed of 125 ISO and TRI-X is 400. So FP4+ should have finer grain.

 

[Harry Lime]

Good god I HATE grain. I refuse to shoot Kodak for anything to be enlarged because of it, but with an 8x10 neg contact printing I should not see the grain, or does FP4 have boulder sized grain like Tri-x?.

If you despise grain, then why shoot film?

And I mean that in a sincere way.

 

[Athiril]

Good god I HATE grain. I refuse to shoot Kodak for anything to be enlarged because of it, but with an 8x10 neg contact printing I should not see the grain, or does FP4 have boulder sized grain like Tri-x?.

If you hate grain stick with T-grain films, Delta, Acros, T-Max, etc.

Data sheets show FP4+ also has a big shoulder, while most other films are straight lined after the toe (according to the sheets).

In 8x10, you're not going to notice it that much anyway. So FP4+, or even Shanghai GP3 is going to be fine.

If cost and grain are both issues, why not go back down to 4x5 T-grain films?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

While it is possible to make the generality that faster films have a larger RMS granularity than slower films. One cannot make a similar statement that all films of the same speed have the same granularity. Older style films from second tier manufacturers are granier than the same speed films from Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I asked the same thing this morning...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[markbarendt]

I have used both in MF. I like both and they both seem to expand a contract well.

It may simply be luck or the stars aligning or how I hold my mouth, but FP4 just seems to work easier/more reliably for me.

Heck for all I know though the next time I try Delta 100 it may finally click.

 

[dsmccrac]

Back in the day when the tabular films first came out, I was told that you only really benefit from them when they are matched with a developer designed for them, otherwise they behave like the more traditional films. Given the response in this thread has been quite, ahem, diverse, I might get a bit of a wide ranging response but I would b most interested in hearing from the tab-fans.

 

[jordanstarr]

...it will also depend on which developer you use. Since every person who has replied likely uses different agitation methods, developer type, concentration, temperature and container types, the results will vary. My experience with Delta 100 has been favorable for fine-art prints and portraiture, but I don't like it for general use or street photography because with my methods, way of shooting, developing techniques, etc. shadow detail has fallen off the map and the highlights hit too vibrantly and my mid-tones get lost in shadows.

But since we're talking about 8x10 contact prints...you'll notice nothing in difference in terms of grain -believe me. I can't see grain in fp4 or delta with a 35mm neg blown up to 8x10 to the point where I have to try to focus with a grain focuser until my back hurts trying to find any of the stuff. I'll give you one of my kidneys if you can prove otherwise.

...really what it should boil down to is characteristics, not grain, which is what you were kind of originally asking. And I would say that FP4 has a more classic look with a longer range of midtones and better controlled highlights, where Delta 100 has a more "digital" feel to it, where it's seemingly more crisp and sharp. I prefer FP4 for this reason, but that's just my opinion. Unfortunately, you'll likely have to buy a box of each and check it out for yourself.

 

[markbarendt]

Back in the day when the tabular films first came out, I was told that you only really benefit from them when they are matched with a developer designed for them, otherwise they behave like the more traditional films. Given the response in this thread has been quite, ahem, diverse, I might get a bit of a wide ranging response but I would b most interested in hearing from the tab-fans.

My developer of choice is DD-X and I still lean toward FP4 over Delta 100. In 400 speed films my preference is for Delta 400 over HP5.

For all I know it may be the way I hold my mouth but I like Delta 100 better in WD2D+ than in DD-X so far.

 

[brian steinberger]

Are you shooting medium/large format or 35mm? If 35mm and you "hate grain" then I would most definitely go with Delta 100. As many have said, they are more similar than different. I shoot MF and much prefer FP4 which I still find extremely fine grain. I develop in FP4 in rodinal frequently to bring out its grain and amazing sharpness. But if I were shooting 35mm I may not do so.

 

[cliveh]

If you hate grain, why not use something like XP2?

 

[markbarendt]

If you hate grain, why not use something like XP2?

Well for one thing the OP indicated he's using 8x10 film. XP 2 isn't available in sheets.

 

[Roger Cole]

Hating grain is irrelevant if you are shooting 8x10 and contact printing. I'm not aware of any film that has grain big enough to see when un-enlarged. Even if you enlarge 8x10 you won't enlarge it very much unless you are making huge, mural sized prints, so grain is still unlikely to be a factor.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

if i remember correctly ,i had a range from n-2 to n+2in d76 1+1 with fp4. it is a well baanced traditiobal emulsionif rated at EI64

 

[mark]

So much grumpiness over me hating grain. Kind of funny.

To the folks who have gotten expansion from delta 100 what were you developing in? Where I live there is very little separation between tones and I have to rely heavily on local contrast or expanded development.

Thanks for the info Ralph. Exactly what I was looking for.

 

[Harry Lime]

The TMax films have gotten a bad rap in my opinion. One look at John Sexton's prints and I knew the anti-tab thing was nonsense. Everyone has their own preferences though.

I agree. I'm a die hard Tri-X shooter, but if there is one film that would temp me away (and did for a while) it would be TMY-2 400. It truly is a brilliant film.

I'm not too fond of it's spectral response, but I could learn to live with that. At first I had some difficulties with the highlights, because it is not as forgiving as Tri-X, but once I adjusted my development procedure (Barry T. 2 Bath) I started to get the results I wanted.