differences in FP4 and Delta 100???

I know this post is quite old, but I thought I would post here and see if anyone can offer their input.

I have what I hope is a straight forward question. Currently, I'm shooting Ilford Delta 100. I have been having issues with the midtones. I keep adjusting the development time less and less as I'm trying to wrestle them in. It seems as if there is a steep curve that goes from black to white very quickly. Here is what I'm using:

Ilford Delta 100 - 8x10
Rotary drum
Developer: Ilfosol 3 @ 1+14
Time: 6:00 @ 68°F/20°C
Quantity: 90ml/3oz.

Most of my scenes have been higher contrast scenes living here in Florida. I have been told to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. I did some research on Delta 100 and it sounds like everyone else is having similar issues.

My question is, many seem to like Ilford FP4+. What I have been reading is that it holds the midtones well. Any advise would greatly be appreciated. Thanks...

macmaster77 said:

I know this post is quite old, but I thought I would post here and see if anyone can offer their input.

I have what I hope is a straight forward question. Currently, I'm shooting Ilford Delta 100. I have been having issues with the midtones. I keep adjusting the development time less and less as I'm trying to wrestle them in. It seems as if there is a steep curve that goes from black to white very quickly. Here is what I'm using:

Ilford Delta 100 - 8x10
Rotary drum
Developer: Ilfosol 3 @ 1+14
Time: 6:00 @ 68°F/20°C
Quantity: 90ml/3oz.

Most of my scenes have been higher contrast scenes living here in Florida. I have been told to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. I did some research on Delta 100 and it sounds like everyone else is having similar issues.

My question is, many seem to like Ilford FP4+. What I have been reading is that it holds the midtones well. Any advise would greatly be appreciated. Thanks...

Click to expand...

At first glance, you're probably overdeveloping for the contrast situation. Do you have a record of what the SBR was? Ilford state elsewhere in their documentation of their films that if you are using continuous agitation without a pre-wet, that you should take 15% off the printed time to compensate. Given that you've already subtracted approx. 15% off the recommended time, you'll possibly be sitting somewhere round about the contrast Ilford recommend for a 'normal' situation. Taking your time down nearer to 5 minutes, & increasing exposure (what EI were you using?) may get you closer to your desired result.

As you can see, Ilfosol may not be the best choice of developer, given the very short times that result.

For what it's worth, I've always found both Delta 100 & FP4+ to be controllable, easy to use films in most developers

macmaster77 said:

I know this post is quite old, but I thought I would post here and see if anyone can offer their input.

I have what I hope is a straight forward question. Currently, I'm shooting Ilford Delta 100. I have been having issues with the midtones. I keep adjusting the development time less and less as I'm trying to wrestle them in. It seems as if there is a steep curve that goes from black to white very quickly. Here is what I'm using:

Ilford Delta 100 - 8x10
Rotary drum
Developer: Ilfosol 3 @ 1+14
Time: 6:00 @ 68°F/20°C
Quantity: 90ml/3oz.

Most of my scenes have been higher contrast scenes living here in Florida. I have been told to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. I did some research on Delta 100 and it sounds like everyone else is having similar issues.

My question is, many seem to like Ilford FP4+. What I have been reading is that it holds the midtones well. Any advise would greatly be appreciated. Thanks...

Click to expand...

FP-4 is a great film, that said I don't know that there is a simple answer to whether FP-4 is a fix for your problem or not, except by you shooting some.

For example FP-4 ls less sensitive to blues than Delta so certain colors in the scene will respond differently. For example skys and shadows might automatically look darker in a print from FP-4, the flip side of that is that there may not be as much detail in those areas either depending on your subject matter. This color response can be adjusted with filters while shooting so using a filter might solve part of your problem, or eliminating a filter if you are using one now.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201062894918374.pdf
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010712125850702.pdf

What you haven't told us is how you are printing/making positives, that means you've left out half of the process that defines the contrast you get in a positive.

So look on the characteristic curves in the Ilford pdf's and you'll see the curve shapes are different but don't read too much into that. Look at the density axis on the right, on a print to grade 2 paper only a range of about 1.0 will straight print, that's 2 squares tall on that graph. You'll notice that that leaves lots of room and with a decently exposed frame so you won't normally be bumping the toe or shoulder with either film. You'll also see that the straight slopes of the curves are about the same. That means that the curve shape doesn't affect to print that much.

There are ways to get at the rest of the detail on the negative.

Softer paper will print 1.1 or 1.2 ... of the negatives curve, that change does essentially the same thing as developing your film less, harder paper will print .9 or .8 ... it does what developing your film more does.

You can also burn and dodge.

The curve shapes are different. Delta will handle the mid and upper ranges nicely, but give less shadow separation; so you might have been attempting to wrestle with it by overexposure or overdevelopment. FP-4 is more of a general-purpose film if there ever was one; not a true straight
line film, but one which will resolve shadows a little further down before it kicks off onto a straight line. Different flavors of ice cream. Grain is
obviously different too. For high-contrast scenes, I'd avoid Delta unless deep shadow values can be sacrificed. But I wouldn't use either for extreme
situations.

I wonder if the developer is a bit too high energy, and is building contrast too much? I've had excellent results using the Delta 100/ Xtol combination and following Ilford's recommendation for time.

Test your current times with a scene of normal contrast and see how it looks. If your current time looks ok for a normal scene (7 stops, isch) you know that you have a decent normal time, and you can probably guess at times for high and low contrast scenes as well.

If it's not ok with a normal scene, figure out if the contrast is too high (too much development) or if the shadows are thin (too little exposure). Correct as necessary and try again.

I know nothing about Delta 100 but the above is true for all films and all developers.

The dependable ole mantra: expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

For reasons I can't explain, I believe one of the strength's of "tabular" grain films such as Delta, is existing light shots, specifically speaking, citiscapes at night - tall office buildings near day's end ( when they're not turned off),
highrises, lighting from street level, signs, etc.
FP4 is my main film daylight film for it's ideal speed, wider exposure latitude - as opposed to PanF+. And of course its sharpness, contrast, and good grey balance. Of course these things are said of virtually every film, so it's amatter of experience & taste.

FP4 is a real film with integrity, Delta is not.

Hmmm. I wouldn't go that far. I'd just classify FP4 as more versatile, not more honest.

To answer some questions, I'm limited on space right now, so what I'm using to get a positive is an Epson V800 with all of the adjustments turned off. This will give me as much of a raw scan as I can expect. I can make changes in the computer, but I would rather get it right in the camera/processing. Where I'm at for now, is I have developed some negatives at 6:00 (1+14) with continuous agitation which equates to 20% off Ilford's recommend time. I'll try 25% next (5:38) to see how that looks. This is all new to me, so I'm trying as I go. I want to keep the same film, developer, temp, etc so only one variable is changing (time) at a time to keep it easy. Thanks...

cliveh said:

FP4 is a real film with integrity, Delta is not.

Click to expand...

In what respect?

Any films is as good as you as the photographer make it in terms of contrast, tonal range etc. I switched to Delta 100 (120 & LF) and 400 (120 only) about 8 years ago because I just couldn't get Tmax 100 or 400 where I was living.

I've been very happy with Delta 100 it does everything I was getting from Tmax100 and before that Agfa APX100, excellent fine grain, superb sharpness, good tonal range, negatives that are very easy to print (or scan).

You'll notice more differences in terms of fine grain and sharpness with 35mm, Delta being noticeably better, some though don't like the smoother tones etc of Tmax, Delta and similar films, I've heard the term " integrity" used with Tri-X to indicate the photographers liked grain Maybe FP4 has more latitude for error but Delta 100 hasn't let me down in that respect so I don't see that as an issue unless maybe working without a light meter.

I've been shooting Delta 100 in high contrast situations and it copes well with deep shadow details, this is more about determining the effective EI and appropriate development times but choice of developer helps enormously in taming the highlight area, I use Pyrocat HD.

Ian

macmaster77 said:

... but I would rather get it right in the camera/processing. ...

Click to expand...

Well, as I suggested above, camera and film processing are only part of the equation.

In essence, what you are asking for is perfect straight prints. Perfect/great straight prints are in the real world, truly quite rare. What can be regularly had in straight prints are nice snapshots. If you want truly special prints you almost certainly need to do more work, whether analog or digital.

In the analog world, the target paper grade and printing techniques in use, define what's "right" for the film processing.

So for example Ansel Adams had a target paper grade of 2. Adams' film processing was targeted to that standard and adjusted subjectively to suit the subject matter and his intent. In your case, instead of grade 2 paper, you have chosen a scanner set at a certain setting as your standard. To state the obvious, those two output standards are different. Sorry, but that's just the way it is and that means perfecting your process means experimentation and may be significantly different than what Ilford's instructions suggest depending on your artistic preferences too.

Adams was also quite willing to burn and dodge and otherwise play with print exposure and processing of the paper to get a good print. In fact it's obvious that all of Adams prints were manipulated during printing to get the result he wanted. That isn't a failure of camera work or film processing, it is the nature of the negative to positive process and even photography in general.

Rich Ullsmith said:

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

Click to expand...

FP4+ and full strength Perceptol... smooooth...

Yep, I loved Perceptol too, until I discovered PMK.