Ilford Delta 100 vs Pan F Plus

pjm1289 · Dec 1, 2006

I shoot mainly in the studio. Last spring, I shot with Ilford Delta 100 with a 35mm camera and the photos came out with a "dreamy" effect. Now, when I shoot with Pan F Plus in 120mm, the dream effect isn't there anymore. Now that I think, it could be because of the lighting, but I just want to make sure. Does the dream effect have to do with the type of emulsion or even the one stop difference?

Thanks!
Paolo

reub2000 · Dec 1, 2006

Delta 100 is a tabular grain emulsion based on new technology, while Pan F Plus is a traditionally film based on old technology. Besides for both being slow films, the 2 films aren't really comparable.

mikeb6350 · Dec 1, 2006

I have been shooting both Delta 100 and Pan F in 120 lately.
I've shot about 5 rolls of each in the last month.
I haven't seen the dreamy effect you mention.

Peter Black · Dec 1, 2006

How about posting a couple of comparison shots so we can get a better idea of the effect?

Ryuji · Dec 2, 2006

It would be a lot better to illustrate your "dreamy effect" and question by showing a representative example image.

I can only imagine what it is. If you mean soft image with lots of flare-ish loss of contrast, the effect would be a lot more dependent on the lens and the aperture you shot at. If this is the case, if you stopped down by 2 stops, the effect may be gone.

Generally Pan F Plus is a PiTA in many developers, since it offers less overexposure latitude than Delta 100, TMX or Fujifilm Acros. In right developers this problem is kept to a minimum, but generally speaking I find Fuji Acros to be a better film overall.

Woolliscroft · Dec 2, 2006

I do find Pan-F a bit sharper than Delta 100, especially in Neofin Blue. I don't know if that might be at least part of the explaination.

Does Delta really have more exposure latitude? I tend to find traditional grain films more forgiving than T grains and had assumed they had more latitude. I have never actually looked up the specs.

David.

Roger Hicks · Dec 2, 2006

Woolliscroft said:
I do find Pan-F a bit sharper than Delta 100, especially in Neofin Blue.

Interesting. Ilford's own tests indicate that Delta 100 is sharper, though Pan F is finer grained.

I've always found Pan F a very finicky film, with a modest developer repertoire and little latitude, and Delta 100 rather more forgiving -- the opposite of my usual experiences with 'new technology' films such as Ilford's epitaxial crystals and Kodak's tabular grains (which are not the same thing).

Cheers,

R. (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Soeren · Dec 2, 2006

I notice that apart from films you are also comparing formats and lenses.
Can't get much more complicated than that, can it? Now don't say you also used different developers.
Cheers
Søren

Woolliscroft · Dec 2, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Interesting. Ilford's own tests indicate that Delta 100 is sharper, though Pan F is finer grained.

I've always found Pan F a very finicky film, with a modest developer repertoire and little latitude, and Delta 100 rather more forgiving -- the opposite of my usual experiences with 'new technology' films such as Ilford's epitaxial crystals and Kodak's tabular grains (which are not the same thing).

Cheers,

R. (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Oh, maybe I'm seeing things, or maybe something happens with Neofin Bleu, which is all I ever use with Pan F these days. In fairness, high accutance developers might give a subjective feel of sharpness but not an underlying measurable reality.

David.

pjm1289 · Dec 2, 2006

I believe that could be it, the developers and the formats. Thank you. I probably should have figured that out myself.

Unforuntaely, I can't show you my images because I don't have a scanner to scan in my prints.

For the Pan F Plus, I've been using D-76 developer and when I shot Delta 100 I used XTol developer.

I believe it would be the lenses because I was using a zoom lens in the studio (I was told that was a crime! haha) but when I shot with my RB67, I was using the new KL lenses.

Thanks for your help everyone!

Ryuji · Dec 2, 2006

Woolliscroft said:
Does Delta really have more exposure latitude? I tend to find traditional grain films more forgiving than T grains and had assumed they had more latitude. I have never actually looked up the specs.

Oh YES. Pan F Plus and APX 25 offered little exposure latitude (for negative film standard). Acros, Delta 100, TMX, any of these would be a LOT more forgiving of overexposure. One problem of APX25 and Pan F Plus is that they have rather abrupt shoulder, and you get highlight saturation similar to clipping you see when overexposing with digital cameras. TMX is more straight-line type film that you get very rich ighlight details even if overexposed, if you burn in enough. Delta is also practically straight line. Acros changes its curve shape depending on developer and development time. For most beautiful results, I tend to slightly underdevelop Acros to get gentle shoulder.

Overexposure latitude is not determined by the type of crystals. It is determined by the blending of primitive emulsions to make product emulsion.

TMX is a rather unpopular film because of its low visual accutance, although its resolving power is very high. This film is actually a fine film for those who shoot film and then scan for output, since accutance can be easily boosted digitally. TMX also has pretty much straight line curve with low fog, fine grain, etc. that are particularly good for scanning. Acros is another good film for scanning applications.

john_s · Dec 2, 2006

Ryuji said:
...............
TMX is a rather unpopular film because of its low visual accutance, although its resolving power is very high. This film is actually a fine film for those who shoot film and then scan for output, since accutance can be easily boosted digitally. TMX also has pretty much straight line curve with low fog, fine grain, etc. that are particularly good for scanning. Acros is another good film for scanning applications.

Ryuji, would this make TMX a particularly good film for copying black and white photos? I have a large project coming up and I was planning to first try with Delta_100 (120 size). The reproductions will be done on fibre paper with the enlarger, not by scanning.

As an aside: Many years ago I used some Adox KB14 (40ASA) to take some photos of friends. I was told, and belived that "finer grain= better results!". To make matters worse, it was at high altitude in full sun. Developed in Rodinal 1+25 according to the maker's instructions. The contrast is unbelievable. I gave up trying to print them. This sort of film takes quite some experience to exploit. A good medium speed film, generously exposed and developed just enough makes darkroom life so much easier and rewarding.

Ryuji · Dec 2, 2006

John, I think so. But in your case, what you want is for the film AND paper together to be fairly straight-line reproduction. You might want to think about the choice of paper from this viewpoint as well.

I don't know if he's here, but DK Thompson does (or at lead had done at one point) this kind of work for his main work. He might be able to tell you how he does it. Ken Sinclair is another person you might want to ask.

I agree that 100-speed tabular grain films are easier to use and deliver just as good results, if not better, in many applications. Extreme accutance developers may be an exception, but such a developer is not my preferred choice for making enlarged prints.

In terms of grain, I have made virtually grainless 24 inch prints from 35mm Acros using my new developer. I used a fixed-focal length lens at f/5.6 with the camera on tripod, but the lens's resolution was the limiting factor rather than bothering grain. I'm not sure if there is anything to be gained by using Pan F Plus or APX25, or KB14 for that matter.

Woolliscroft · Dec 3, 2006

I am learning a lot here and many thanks to one and all. The trouble is that I am also starting to feel a bit guilty, as we have rather switched topic to my issue and away from the original questioners problem

David.

Ilford Delta 100 vs Pan F Plus

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency