ILFORD Delta 400 grain

[Tom Kershaw]

Although I've used a fair amount of Delta 400, I have achieved varying results in terms of grain, even from well exposed negatives. In comparison to T-Max 400, Delta 400 seems significantly higher in grain. I'm interested general impressions of image quality from others who are familiar with the film. Processing for Delta 400: Pyrocat-HD 1:1:100, E.I. 400.

As a side note, ILFORD Delta 100 has been my standard film.

Tom

 

[PhotoJim]

It's grainier than TMY. I've not yet tried TMY-2 so I can't compare it to that.

I didn't have good luck with D400 with PMK so I gave up trying it with pyrogallol developers, and I've never tried it with a pyrocatechin developer like Pyrocat. It's terrific in XTOL and D-76/ID-11, however. I tend to dilute each 1:1.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Prior to developing in Pyrocat-HD I had been using Tetenal Ultrafin and Ilfotec HC. The HC developer gave good results actually, in a Paterson tank. Perhaps D400 is better suited to XTOL. Ultrafin and Delta 100 give excellent results.

 

[Barry S]

I've never found Delta 400 to be grainy. After some extensive testing against Delta 100, I felt like there was very little reason not to use Delta 400 all the time. Delta 400 was reformulated in 2001 and I found it to have smoother tonality and a bit less grain than TMY. I develop Delta 400 in XTOL 1+1 and I'm very careful to expose correctly and not overdevelop. Delta 400 gets very grainy in a hurry if overdeveloped, so maybe you're underexposing and overdeveloping. I've never found any black and white film that's as fast as its rated speed. Just my own experience.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

When talking about grain, I think it is a good idea to mention the format we are using.

That said, I find D400 looks a lot grainer than TMY-2 in 35mm. Both in Microdol-X 1:3.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

When talking about grain, I think it is a good idea to mention the format we are using.

That said, I find D400 looks a lot grainer than TMY-2 in 35mm. Both in Microdol-X 1:3.

Nicholas,

A good point, I'm referring to 645 and 6x6 Delta 400 negatives. My experience with TMY-2 has as yet been mostly limited to 35mm, although I may well switch over to TMY-2 for my 400 speed standard medium format stock.

Tom

 

[randyB]

I've used Delta 400 a lot in 35mm processed in PMK. Grain has been quite fine and excellant sharpness for a 400 ISO film. I did a test of several 400 speed films a few years ago and found almost no difference between Delta 400 and TMY-400 (the 2 best). I choose the Delta 400 for the better highlight detail. I am now trying to compare it to the TMY-2 but the day job keeps getting in the way.

 

[PhotoJim]

The grain is the same in all formats. It's just less obvious in smaller prints from larger formats.

I was talking about 35mm, but if you print large enough 6x7 prints, you'll see grain too.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I haven't shot Delta Yet. T-Max has rather fine grain.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've been using Delta 400 in Pyrocat HD 1+1+100 @200 EI 15 mins 20° C for nearly 2 years now and haven't found a problem with grain, I'm shooting 6x6 & 6x17 and I prefer Delta 400 to HP5 and wish it was available in LF.

I had to stop using Tmax100 &400 because I found it almost impossible to find Kodak B&W films (outside the UK) but Ilford & Foma are much easier to find.

Image quality with Delta 400 is excellent, I can't see any point in going back to Tmax. I have a particular dislike of grain and have yet to see any real difference in grain between my prints made from TMax 400 & Delta 400 negs. ( guess I might if I still used 35mm).

Ian

 

[Tom Stanworth]

D400 is very fine grained in Xtol 1+X, but when enlarged a great deal the grain does tend to make a very sharp appearance - more so than some older films IMO. I find d400 far finer grained than the old Tmax 400, but I have not used TMY-2. Many D400 users tend to agree that Xtol offers among the finest grain and best speed.

 

[john_s]

This is cut and pasted from Crawley's Article in BJP October 2000, reviewing the 400 speed films, just after the improved Delta 400 was released. After discussing their qualities at 400, he discussed them pushed to a CI of 0.85, a two stop push:

[start of quote]
The EI1600 results at CI=0.85 sorted the films out. In shadow penetration Delta 400 Pro scored very marginally over the Fujifilm and Kodak. APX 400 again lagged behind. However, the grain image in the Delta 400 prints was now noticeably more evident than in the others: both T-Max 400 and Neopan 400 retained grain control with Tri-X close to. With such extended development there may be bi-pack interference occurring with Delta 400, but it retains its speed edge nevertheless.
[end of quote]

Perhaps the explains the OP's observations: perhaps he is developing to a higher CI than those who don't find the grain especially noticeable.

 

[Vincent Brady]

I develope my Delta 400 35 mm film in ID11 stock for 9.5 minutes as recommended by Ilford and am very happy with it.

Cheers
TEX

 

[Tom Kershaw]

As an addendum to this discussion, on Sunday I made some comparisons between HP5 Plus, Delta 400, and Fuji Neopan 400 (41 months out of date, and worse image quality than I remember from this film) 645 negatives processed in Kodak XTOL replenished. The HP5 Plus held up surprisingly well (@ 400 EI), with no real increase in grain over Delta 400 (@ 320 E.I.). Maybe Delta 400 would do better exposed at an exposure index of 200 and developed accordingly.

Tom

 

[pgomena]

I have 5 rolls of Delta 400 120 drying in a friend's darkroom right now. I haven't used This particular film in several years and wanted to revisit it. I processed it in divided Pyrocat HD. I'll post my impressions when I have a chance to print it. The negatives look good, but impressions of grain are going to have to wait a bit. I know that Delta 100 underexposed and overdeveloped will create a storm of grain, as will any film, so it will be interesting to see how a "normal" negative behaves with this film.

Peter Gomena