Just when I got the Foma films dialed in, I tried Delta 100 in 35mm

[gone]

Knew something was up just from looking at the negs hanging in the bathroom. I've never seen negatives like these. These sorta glow, as if lit from inside, and talk about sharp! N8008s w/ 90 Leicaflex lens, Y fltr, shot at f2.8-f4 (EI 64, the camera takes off another f stop for the filter)) dev in F76+ 1:8 for 6:15 minutes. Time to break out the Ilford FB papers.

 

[removedacct1]

The Delta films are pretty much all I use now. Beautiful stuff!

 

[Alan9940]

IMO, there is something magical about the Delta 100 / Clayton F76+ combo! Definitely my go to formula for this film.

 

[Horatio]

Looks great! I bought a roll about a year ago, but haven’t got around to using it. Guess I’ll have to load it up now. @Old Gregg, be sure to post some of your Rodinal results. Anyone souped this in caffenol?

 

[pentaxuser]

Momus, what would these pics have looked like in Foma 100 in terms of differences from your experience of Foma? Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[gone]

This is a fun film, for sure. It won't work for everything, I still like the looks of Tri-X, the Foma films, etc, but what's surprising about the Delta 100 is the tonality. It's really good, w/ clean highlights and deep blacks. I've tried Tmax a few times and didn't care for it (probably didn't shoot/develop it right). The Delta 100 looks nothing like Tmax to my eyes. I'll try the Delta 400 now, which some people like to shoot at 800 and higher.

Of course, this 1 roll cost almost exactly what 2 rolls of Foma would cost. Is it worth the double price? I'd say that it certainly is at this point.

 

[pentaxuser]

. I'll try the Delta 400 now, which some people like to shoot at 800 and higher.

You sound like a natural experimenter with film and if your plans are to try D400 at more than 800 I'd appreciate seeing the results.

I don't think I ever used it beyond box speed and now use HP5+ but I was fascinated by the results that one user apparently got with D400 @3200 v D3200 @3200. He posted a video on it on YouTube. Worth a look if ever you are curious

Reasonable results at this speed did seem to produce unexpectedly good results but on the thread I posted about it a good deal of scepticism was expressed.

So any other forays into D400 at high speed interests me.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[madNbad]

I've been using T-Max forever but when Kodak changed the formula for HC-110, I decided to try some Ilfotec HC. I bought ten rolls of Delta 400 to give it a try and once the T-Max is gone this may be my go to film. Here's a not too exciting example from a Kodak Retina IIa using a Reveni Labs meter. Exposed at ISO 320 and developed in Ilfotec HC diluted 1:15 and developed for 4 minutes. Scanned using a Sony A7II with the FE90G 2.8.

 

[NB23]

Wait til you try FP4. Sparkle

 

[Agulliver]

It's not one of my "go to" films because I think it almost looks too perfect.....but it certainly does it's thing very well. There's no arguing with the quality of the images in this thread...they're just not usually what I'm looking for. However there are times when I shoot a landscape and think "Oh, that would have been better in Delta 100". Can't have five different camera bodies though....

 

[Pritam Singh]

Hello folks
I seek advice on development times for Fomapan 100... (35mm negative) It's my first time using this film and I find variations in suggested development time(s) on the Massive Dev Chart enough to make me unsure of what I ought to employ. I exposed it at box speed and my developer is Adox XT-3. I'd prefer to not develop in the stock solution because the time looks like it might be too short.
Not sure if my question is coherent or there's something I've overlooked. I am new at developing film at home.

 

[warden]

Knew something was up just from looking at the negs hanging in the bathroom. I've never seen negatives like these. These sorta glow, as if lit from inside, and talk about sharp! N8008s w/ 90 Leicaflex lens, Y fltr, shot at f2.8-f4 (EI 64, the camera takes off another f stop for the filter)) dev in F76+ 1:8 for 6:15 minutes. Time to break out the Ilford FB papers.

Very nice!

 

[madNbad]

Currently, I'm exposing the Delta 400 at box speed and will develop the roll soon. I've also moved away from regularly using a yellow filter with the t-grain films and haven't noticed much difference other than gaining a stop in speed.

 

[Lachlan Young]

What I love about both Delta films (especially the 400 version) is that there's no need to shoot them at slower EI. If your metering game is tight, you are not going to worry about the shadows when shooting at box speed, especially with Delta 400. Or maybe it's the Ilford thing... I never understood people who rate HP5+ below 400, or FP4 below 100.

Ilford tends to factor in a little more underexposure safety than Kodak's materials (which tend to be very close to dead-on) - and generally greater curve shape consistency between developers with the Delta films, rather than the stronger dichotomy that T-Max can display (both approaches having strengths and weaknesses). Where you place your exposure on the characteristic curve is really more a matter of personal taste in shadow placement than needing to rigidly comply with ISO standards - the problems arise when people demand that we accept their personal exposure preferences as being more absolute, immutable, inerrant and infallible than the ISO test procedures (which don't claim to be anything more than a rigorous means to create a sufficiently level playing field to compare the relative speeds of different films under meaningful and replicable circumstances). For what it's worth, the colour sensitivity of the Delta films is one of their biggest strengths - as is their very very high sharpness. I don't doubt that given the choice, Ilford would prefer to have moved to the Delta emulsions completely (more efficient emulsion plant).

 

[petrk]

@Pritam Singh: Follow developing times for Kodak Xtol. It should be fine.

 

[gone]

Thank the goddess for this forum. I'd asked earlier what EI to shoot this film and what developers it liked, since this was my first roll. Got some great answers too, and many thanks.

The massive development chart had no time for EI 64, just 50, so going from 1:9 to 1:8 for a little over 6 minutes seems to have worked. I'd tried the F76+ w/ Tri-X and didn't like it. The negs looked far too clean, and the tonality wasn't as good as D76 stock. On the other hand, Foma 400 shot at 200 and developed in F76+ looked really good. Good to have two films that work well w/ the same developer.

For years and years all I shot was Tri-X at 200 w/ a yellow filter and developed in D76 stock. It's a good, reliable combination w/ great tonality. These last couple of months I've used 5 different films and as many developers or more, and it's been a lot of fun and very instructive.

 

[relistan]

I love Delta 100. This is from my M2/Summarit-M 35mm in my PC-512 Borax developer:

 

[pentaxuser]

I agree with Old Gregg's sentiments. I sometime wonder if when it comes to seeing differences in different films, my taste lets me down. It is all in my mouth as the saying goes However this range of tones and perfect shadows eliminates any chance of it being P30 for me

pentaxuser

 

[relistan]

@relistan fantastic work!

And @pentaxuser

Thank you!

 

[YoIaMoNwater]

I love Delta 100. This is from my M2/Summarit-M 35mm in my PC-512 Borax developer:

View attachment 282275

Nice shot Karl!

I used Delta 100 and 400 when I took a photography intro course back in university since the professor insisted everyone to use it. Might have to go grab and shoot few rolls now.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes it is good stuff, YolaMoNwater, from my experience of using it maybe 10 years ago but when I look back I really cannot see much difference from prints from HP5+ BUT I do need to qualify this. I am speaking of prints at a max of 8x10 and in most cases 5x7. OK in 5x7 they were often crops of the negative so may have been the equivalent enlargement to a full neg 8x10 but when it concerns prints of that size it seems to my eye that D400 has a very marginal edge if any on HP5+

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

I remember when T Grain films came in. Astonishing development. Made Disc cameras and film possible. Made 1000 speed color film possible. It was revolutionary. Still is.

 

[foc]

I remember when T Grain films came in. Astonishing development. Made Disc cameras and film possible. Made 1000 speed color film possible. It was revolutionary. Still is.

Yes we can thank Disc film for the advancement of colour film into the Kodacolor HR and VR films that followed. The Kodak VR1000 and the Fuji Super HR1600 were good examples of what could be done.

I remember back in the early 1990's, developing a customer's Ilford Delts 100 film, the first one I had seen, and being blown away by the sharpness and how small the grain seemed. The last time I had been so impressed with a B&W film was when I saw Agfapan 25.

Yes T-grain was a game changer.

 

[NB23]

I am dumbfounded by what I am reading. Sure, Delta 100 is an excellent film. But it is nowhere near the fine grain of TMX100. It has a look that, despite “D” grain (and not “T”), is rather old school in looks.

Same for Delta 400, an excellent film for
sure, but cannot rival what I would call the best film ever, a marvel: TMY400.

 

[mshchem]

I am dumbfounded by what I am reading. Sure, Delta 100 is an excellent film. But it is nowhere near the fine grain of TMX100. It has a look that, despite “D” grain (and not “T”), is rather old school in looks.

Same for Delta 400, an excellent film for
sure, but cannot rival what I would call the best film ever, a marvel: TMY400.

I have much more experience with Kodak TMY than others. Mostly medium format. Amazing film. I have been using Ilford sheet film and have had great results. These tabular grain films are amazing compared to what came before, no matter if it's Ilford or Kodak. One thing to consider, Ilford is the only company to offer the entire range of black and white products. No other company has such a range of film, paper, chemistry, and hardware.