differences in FP4 and Delta 100???

I have shot FP4 and I like the results. I am curious about Delta 100 which I have never used before.
I know they are different films and just wondered what differences I might see between the two films if for example I shot the same scene same time same exposure same camera etc??
I am interested in sharpness and tonal graduations. I like contrast but do not want the contrast to be out of control.

Any thoughts?

I find Delta 100 very sharp, but too contrasty, whereas FP4 produces beautiful negatives for me. I usually use X-TOl 1:1, but sometimes Rodinal or HC-110. Yet I have seen great examples from other people of Delta 100. So I think the fault is all mine. My processing routine just doesn't bring out the best in Delta 100. Or, perhaps, Delta 100 negatives don't produce the look I like. I tried to make it work a few times, then shrugged and moved back to a film that I didn't have to work so hard on.

I don't regret trying it. Personally, I can never tell from other people's comments or even scanned shots whether a film will work for me. So I still recommend that you buy a few rolls, shoot and process them normally, and see if you like what you get. For me, that's part of the fun of the whole thing.

-Laura

Barry,

Delta 100 is more forgiving then FP4 in terms of exposure; you can overexpose quite a bit and still have all of the tones recorded normally on a straight line.

And just like TMax films it responds more to development changes, making you pay more attention to what you do when you process the film.

As always, do some testing; you need to know what to do in changing lighting conditions. Pick some subject matter in normal contrast, bracket the film at 50, 100, and 200. Process according to the developer (or film) manufacturer's recommendations for normal time.
Judge shadow detail by printing the negatives. The ones that have 'enough' represents the speed you shoot at.

Now it's time to work on the mid-tones and highlights. You know your film speed, so you shoot an entire roll in normal contrast lighting, and when you process, you process one third of the film at a time by cutting it in three pieces. Store the unprocessed pieces in appropriate darkness, perhaps an empty film dev tank, or something.

When you got results about shadow detail that was acceptable above, looking at those negatives - if you had too much highlight density (blocked up highlights) you reduce development, say 10-20%. If the highlights and mid-tones seemed dull you must increase development.
Do this, one third at a time until you reach densities across the board that you are happy with in a print.

Now you know, by spending some time and two rolls of film, how to use Delta 100.

Now you can start experimenting with different lighting scenarios. How does it need to be exposed and processed in harsh lighting of high contrast? Low contrast? There's a lot to learn to get the most out of your film.

What it boils down to is to match it to your paper and paper developer. You can compensate with filtration at the printing stage, but it is always best to start there. The better your negatives are for your paper and paper developer combination, the easier it will be to obtain great prints. Only testing can tell what you need.

Delta 100 can probably be used to look almost identical to FP4 with some tweaking in exposure and development.

Good luck,

- Thomas

The contrast was what I was most concerned with. From shots on the net
generally" they are a bit too contrasty for me but then I see other examples that are outstanding.

stradibarrius said:

The contrast was what I was most concerned with. From shots on the net generally" they are a bit too contrasty for me but then I see other examples that are outstanding.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about the contrast much, that's easy to adjust for in your development process.

Start out by shooting it at 1/2 of its box speed and developing it at ~20% less than the published time and go from there.

As Thomas said, it's quite forgiving of overexposure - you shouldn't have to worry about "muddy" highlights.

Don't expect that the film will perform exactly as a sharper and more fine-grained version of FP4+. It won't do that. Yes, you can probably match your G-bar, CI, gamma (or whatever metric you use to measure contrast) to whatever it is you are doing for FP4+ but the distribution of tones will still be different.

I find FP4+ to be a more versatile and forgiving film than Delta 100. Delta is great stuff if you hit the exposure and development right on the nose. It gains contrast very quickly, and if you overdevelop it, it can become very coarse and grainy looking, especially in roll film formats. Like the other "modern" films, it has more of a straight-line curve than the traditional films like FP4+, HP5+, Tri-X, etc. I'm going to stick my neck out here and say it has less latitude for exposure/development manipulation in Zone System controls, at least in my experience.

If you're just starting out with large format, I'd suggest going with FP4+ over Delta. At 16x20" enlargements, you will see no grain from a 4x5" negative, and the film is more forgiving of small errors. It doesn't blossom into harsh-looking grain with extended development, either. I like the overall look and general behavior of the film.

Peter Gomena

I think since I do have some experience with FP4, I will stick with that until I learn more about 4x5 photography. I am sure I will try Delta 100 at some point in the future but I don't want to be struggling with two unknowns at the same time.

It's a good idea to stick with what you know until you find either: a.) you are confident in your technique and really want a different look; or b.) it isn't doing what you want or need it to do.

I have used (and continue to use) Tri-X 320 in 4x5 because I know the film and have used it for 30 years. I've tried T-Max 100 and 400, Delta 100 and 400, and FP4+. I'm beginning to migrate to FP4+ for everything because it is one of the only films I can easily get in all the formats I use (120, 4x5, 5x7, whole plate. The other film is HP5+.) From my testing, it's close to the same speed as Tri-X 320, so I'm not losing much in the transition. Its look is pretty similar to Tri-X as well. I'm also more confident in the longevity of Ilford/Harman than Kodak at this point, so I'll put my dollars where they'll do me the most good.

Use about 300 sheets of whatever you decide to use before you chuck it for another brand or type. By time you've done that much exposure, processing and printing, you'll have a pretty good idea of how it's working for you.

Good luck and have fun with it!

Peter Gomena

Apples and oranges.

Can't think of anything sharper than Delta 100 and rodinal.

Can't think of anything smoother than FP4+ and PMK.

Of course, this depends on what you consider "sharp" and "smooth".

Think of the difference between a handmade wooden violin and a minimalist electric one.

Peter Gomena

pgomena said:

Think of the difference between a handmade wooden violin and a minimalist electric one.

Click to expand...

So which is FP4 Plus and which is Delta 100?

stradibarrius said:

I think since I do have some experience with FP4, I will stick with that until I learn more about 4x5 photography. I am sure I will try Delta 100 at some point in the future but I don't want to be struggling with two unknowns at the same time.

Click to expand...

Good decision. Both FP4 and D100 are capable of amazing results.

Re: contrast of Delta 100 - contrast is adjusted in development to suit what your paper is capable of. A film can build contrast faster than others in development, and that is usually the case with slower films, but that just means that it reacts more quickly to changes you make in your processing.
If you shorten development time and/or lengthen your agitation intervals, you are in control of the negative contrast.

What I'm trying to say is that it is up to the photographer using the film to make sure that exposure and development is such that it fits your paper. That doesn't change whether you shoot Efke 25 or Delta 3200 - two radically different films. If you want the most out of them you have to make them fit your paper and paper developer combination.

I think you're making a great choice in sticking with FP4+, Barry. It will allow you to go make pictures and you will know more about what to expect when you expose your film, and that promotes good printmaking, which I hope is the goal.

- Thomas

I this the handmade acoustic violin is FP4 and the electric is the Delta 100???

I think both of these films are more similar than they are different. I'm a huge FP4 fan, but have been and will continue playing with Delta 100 (all 120). My impression is that Delta 100 has a longer straighter line curve meaning greater highlight contrast at the loss of shadow contrast of course. I have used Delta 100 in sunny conditions and find it renders the brilliance of 'sunlight' better than FP4. Though I like FP4 better in overcast or flat lighting. It's all about choosing the right film for the job, or lighting. I'm still in the playing around phase, but if these results stay consistent I will use Delta 100 for sunlit conditions and FP4 for everything else.

Also, I should add, I just ordered a few rolls of Acros to try out and compare with Delta 100. I've heard nothing but great things about it. Understanding it's "modern grain" characteristics I'm excited to try it out!

I will second everything Thomas said. Right now, I'm in the same boat where I have a few rolls of Delta, FP4 and Tmax 100 to see where to go from here. Since Plus-x will likely be gone soon enough, I need to switch to something else. I'm siding with FP4 so far because it's Ilford, which will likely keep their film lines for longer than Kodak will (in my opinion) and I've had good results so far with it. That being said, I do have a very nice print in my possession I shot with Delta. What I might do is pick a scene with moderate contrast (lightly overcast) and shoot a roll of each with my most used camera and lens, cut, snip test each, then make a print with each to see what I like. It would take me a whole day and cost about $30 worth of materials, but I figure it would be worth it.

I've been shooting all three (and some of my expired VP :sniff and am preferring FP4+ to either Delta 100 or T-Max 100. I like the curve of FP4+ better, the contrast, just seems to yield more interesting images in the negative. At $3.69/roll it is easy to buy. PanF+ is really good too though for ultimate low grain and I love its contrast too.

I like Acros better than Delta 100 in some ways, but not in others. I love Acros' reciprocity characteristics for long exposures, but I'm not fond of how it renders green foliage in some instances. It's sharp and grainless, as is Delta. It's wonderful in Pyrocat-HD.

I was making a little joke with the violin reference. FP4+ being more the "classic" style film as opposed to the "modern" Delta.

Thomas, I agree you can modify the look of Delta through development changes. I found that in PMK, the difference between normal and plus development can be as little as 30 seconds to a minute according to my Beyond the Zone System testing. I tray develop my sheet film, and it's a little tricky to be absolutely accurate with timing and agitation to that degree. Yes, I can change other variables like dilution, but that's asking for trouble with a dilute Pyro developer like PMK. It's likely to lose strength to oxidation. FP4+ is much slower to build contrast, so it's easier for me to manage. My favorite format for Delta 100 was 35mm. Great stuff. I just don't shoot 35mm any more. Hate those tiny negatives! (Eyesight's not improving with age, either.)

Peter Gomena

pgomena said:

FP4+ is much slower to build contrast,

Click to expand...

Seems to me that this is true of both FP4 and HP5. Their resistance to changes in development is probably my biggest complaint about them.

This problem regularly borders on truly frustrating for me.

I've learned to use a bigger hammer (double my guessed adjustments) and still it can fall short.

In this sense I prefer Delta's responsiveness.

I took the Delta 100 to be the electric violin.

markbarendt said:

Seems to me that this is true of both FP4 and HP5. Their resistance to changes in development is probably my biggest complaint about them.

This problem regularly borders on truly frustrating for me.

I've learned to use a bigger hammer (double my guessed adjustments) and still it can fall short.

In this sense I prefer Delta's responsiveness.

Click to expand...

Mark the photo in your gallery of the statue of the priest with the church crosses in the background Is amazing! Every time I look at it I am amazed. So it looks like you have figured out how to get outstanding results with FP4.

stradibarrius said:

Mark the photo in your gallery of the statue of the priest with the church crosses in the background Is amazing! Every time I look at it I am amazed. So it looks like you have figured out how to get outstanding results with FP4.

Click to expand...

Thanks Barry

stradibarrius said:

I this the handmade acoustic violin is FP4 and the electric is the Delta 100???

Click to expand...

One is a Stradivarius and the other is a Stradibarrius. :munch:

JPD said:

One is a Stradivarius and the other is a Stradibarrius. :munch:

Click to expand...

I'm afraid to ask which is which...