T-Max versus Delta

Terrance Hounsell · Nov 15, 2005

I have been using TMX and TMY in all formats (but primarily 4x5) for many years and I love them both. I get absolutely wonderful negatives using D-23 and I have developed (no pun intended) a system that gets me from N-2 to N+3 without reverting to the two bath method.

If Kodak stopped making T-Max films how would Ilford's Delta compare?

Surprisingly there isn't much on the web on this subject and so I am interested in hearing from anyone who has extensive experience with both.

What matters most to me is the ability to meter a scene and then by altering development create a negative having the range of tones desired, all else is secondary. I would like to stick with D-23 but would be interested in other developers that can be home made as well.

Thanks in advance

Jorge · Nov 15, 2005

Terrance Hounsell said:
I have been using TMX and TMY in all formats (but primarily 4x5) for many years and I love them both. I get absolutely wonderful negatives using D-23 and I have developed (no pun intended) a system that gets me from N-2 to N+3 without reverting to the two bath method.

If Kodak stopped making T-Max films how would Ilford's Delta compare?

Surprisingly there isn't much on the web on this subject and so I am interested in hearing from anyone who has extensive experience with both.

What matters most to me is the ability to meter a scene and then by altering development create a negative having the range of tones desired, all else is secondary. I would like to stick with D-23 but would be interested in other developers that can be home made as well.

Thanks in advance

It compares very well. Reciprocity is a little bit better with TMY but I like the tonal relationship of the Delta films better, the Delta films are not as red sensitive as the tmx films, so you get a more natural look. When I lived in Houston it was easier to buy Kodak than Ilford (unless I special ordered it) but now that I am in Mexico it is the same thing to order one or the other. I am just waiting for Ilford to make Delta 400 in 8x10 and I will switch in a NY minute. HINT, HINT ILFORD

David A. Goldfarb · Nov 15, 2005

They are four completely different films. Personally, I prefer TMX to Delta 100, but I prefer Delta 400 to TMY. Unfortunately, Delta 400 isn't available in sheet sizes, or I would use more of it.

Your best bet would be to buy a roll of each in 120 and see how they look. Delta 400 in Perceptol at EI 200 is a really nice thing.

steve simmons · Nov 15, 2005

IMHO Delta is more user friendly than the T-Max films (not so sensitive to changes in dev time/agitation/ temp, etc.). In large format grain is less of a concern to me than tonal range so after some initial testing (where I obtained my conclusions above) I stayed with more traditional film in sheets.

steve simmons

Surly · Nov 15, 2005

Terrence - be very careful telling people you use d-23. The last time I did that all I heard was how I was a fool for mixing my own chemistry and how d-23 is useless etc. etc. ..... Seriously though- I am not a T-max or Delta user normally, but I have a big list of developers for film and paper. I would be happy to send you some recipies you could use for testing. I have been meaning to try some new films and I would love to hear your results.

BradS · Nov 15, 2005

Surly said:
Terrence - be very careful telling people you use d-23. The last time I did that all I heard was how I was a fool for mixing my own chemistry and how d-23 is useless etc. etc...

Surely, you jest! That must have been at that "other " photo related place on the web. There are many here who mix their own and quite a few too who like d-23. I would happily mix my own D-23 if it would help me tame TMX.

Jim Noel · Nov 15, 2005

If you have been successful in producing the type of negative and print you like with the T-Max films, I have no doubt that with a little bit of testing you will be able to achieve them with Ilford Delta. Will they be different - quite probably. But it sounds to me like you know what you're doing and with patience can get excellent results with almost any products.
As the silver phot industry contracts and producers of materials change, all of us who are dedicated to film will need to change. But we can do it.
I love D-23 also, even though it is not my only developer.

Surly · Nov 15, 2005

Although I was being a bit facetious, I have had people on online forums look down thier noses to the idea of mixing your own chemistry, D-23, and using Kodak products!
I have found APUG to generally be a great place however. I dont want to hijack Terrance's thread....
Again Terrance, feel free to contact me if you are looking for some recipies. I have many old books with formulas not found in Steve Anchell's book. Like Jim Noel said above you sound like your on the right track anyhow. Good Luck!

fwp · Nov 15, 2005

Terrance Hounsell said:
I have been using TMX and TMY in all formats (but primarily 4x5) for many years and I love them both. I get absolutely wonderful negatives using D-23 and I have developed (no pun intended) a system that gets me from N-2 to N+3 without reverting to the two bath method.

If Kodak stopped making T-Max films how would Ilford's Delta compare?

Surprisingly there isn't much on the web on this subject and so I am interested in hearing from anyone who has extensive experience with both.

What matters most to me is the ability to meter a scene and then by altering development create a negative having the range of tones desired, all else is secondary. I would like to stick with D-23 but would be interested in other developers that can be home made as well.

Thanks in advance

In the spring of 2004 after years of happily developing Tmax-100 with Tmax I decided to give Delta-100 a try. I did my film testing with my Jobo and DDX. I developed the film at 75F diluted at 1:9. The Delta-100 rate at 80 and the Tmax-100 rated at 125.

Ater a couple of test negatives I went out on a photo trip and when I composed a scene I shot both Tmax and Delta. The only change I made was in exposure to compensate for the difference in film speed. After provessing the film I made prints of the different scenes with both negatives. After the paper dried I couldn't tell which print was made with which film.

In the end I stuck with Tmax for a number of reasons. The first was the difference in film speed. After all 2/3 of a stop is 2/3 of a stop The second is the Tmax has stiffer base. this makes it easier for me to load in my film holders, processing reels and enlarger. The third is that Tmax has a better reciprocity curve then Delta.

In the end they're both good films that give good predictable results.

markbb · Nov 16, 2005

Like many others, once I've found a film and development method I like and can consistantly repeat, I tend to stick with it. There's nothing more annoying than shooting an un-repeatable scene only to get disapointing results due to a novel film, developer etc.

In the light of this, I would suggest you ask yourself: how much longer will Tmax film be available in sheets compared to an Ilford film?

mmmichel · Nov 16, 2005

I agree with mark, and it's for this reason that I'll soon be switching from TMX. That said, I think that the biggest advantage of TMX above just about any other film is its incredible reciprocity characteristics, and this goes beyond the simple inconvenience of having to correct for reciprocity failures. For night exposures (or any exposure longer than a couple of minutes), TMX winds up being faster than any other film.

Terrance Hounsell · Nov 17, 2005

BradS said:
I would happily mix my own D-23 if it would help me tame TMX.

I'll let you in on a little secret:

D-23 is the answer to controlling TMX.

TMX is capable of good shadow detail and D-23 keeps the highlights from blowing out.

There are more surprising benefits but I'll let you discover those for yourself.

D-23 is probably the easiest developer around to mix.

Please try it I promise you it will be worth the effort.

cheers, Terrance

Konical · Nov 17, 2005

"For night exposures (or any exposure longer than a couple of minutes), TMX winds up being faster than any other film."
__________________

Good Afternoon,

My favorite film for long exposures is also TMX; it's really terrific. However, my extremely limited experience with Fuji Acros is that it may actually have reciprocity characteristics which are somewhat superior to those of TMX. TMX will still be my choice though, since Acros is available only in Quickloads, and Quickloads are much too expensive for any slight advantage they may have.

Konical

Zathras · Nov 17, 2005

Terrance Hounsell said:
I'll let you in on a little secret:

D-23 is the answer to controlling TMX.

TMX is capable of good shadow detail and D-23 keeps the highlights from blowing out.

There are more surprising benefits but I'll let you discover those for yourself.

D-23 is probably the easiest developer around to mix.

Please try it I promise you it will be worth the effort.

cheers, Terrance

Do you dilute the developer or do you use it straight?

Thank You,

Mike Sullivan

BradS · Nov 17, 2005

Terrance Hounsell said:
I'll let you in on a little secret:

D-23 is the answer to controlling TMX.

TMX is capable of good shadow detail and D-23 keeps the highlights from blowing out.

There are more surprising benefits but I'll let you discover those for yourself.

D-23 is probably the easiest developer around to mix.

Please try it I promise you it will be worth the effort.

cheers, Terrance

Thanks for the hint. Now I'll simply must try it. As I have said elsewhere, I have an on-going love/hate relationship with Tmax. When it is good, it is really good. Problem for me is, nailing the good so that it can be coaxed out of the film with some regularity. That D-23 is the secret actually makes alot of sense. THANKS!

Keith Tapscott. · Nov 17, 2005

Terrance Hounsell said:
I have been using TMX and TMY in all formats (but primarily 4x5) for many years and I love them both. I get absolutely wonderful negatives using D-23 and I have developed (no pun intended) a system that gets me from N-2 to N+3 without reverting to the two bath method.

If Kodak stopped making T-Max films how would Ilford's Delta compare?

Surprisingly there isn't much on the web on this subject and so I am interested in hearing from anyone who has extensive experience with both.

What matters most to me is the ability to meter a scene and then by altering development create a negative having the range of tones desired, all else is secondary. I would like to stick with D-23 but would be interested in other developers that can be home made as well.

Thanks in advance

It all comes down to personal preference really Terrance, try both T-Max & Delta and see which you prefer.

KenR · Nov 17, 2005

tmax base

I've thought that I was the only one who preferred tmax over other brands because of the heavier base, but "fwp" also mentioned it in his post. The tmax negatives handle much more easily than negatives from other manufacturers that I have tried (Ilford and Fuju) with no real differences between the image qualities. Therefore I have stayed with the tmax films.

Terrance Hounsell · Nov 18, 2005

Zathras said:
Do you dilute the developer or do you use it straight?
Thank You,Mike Sullivan

I use D-23
1+3 for minus development
1+2 for normal
and
1+1 for plus development

T-Max versus Delta

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency