The Future of Colour and B&W Film with Ilford...

[brian steinberger]

The nice lady from Harman who gave so much of her time for a podcast in June mentioned that darkroom printing was on the rise.

Curious if you can post a link? I’d be interested in listening.

 

[Prest_400]

I rarely listen to podcasts but had been flying over the weekend and then they are great, so went through both episodes.

K200 episode:

Ep. 357 A Panoply of Pans

Happy New Film Day everyone! It’s a real treat as always to be joined this week by Harman Technology/ Ilford Photo’s finest Michelle Parr to talk about YET ANOTHER new film they’r…

sunny16podcast.com

Phoenix II episode: https://sunny16podcast.com/2025/07/16/ep-362-guess-whos-back/

Tip: The mobile version prompts to use an app, in a computer I could listen over the web and download the files for offline listening.

The nice lady from Harman who gave so much of her time for a podcast in June mentioned that darkroom printing was on the rise.

However, I would agree with those who say that the majority of people using B&W film have it scanned the majority of the time....or scan themselves. The biggest barrier to darkroom printing right now is space. Who in Gen Z and the Millennials has the space for an enlarger etc? And of course there are fewer communal darkrooms around.

Indeed. I liked the podcasts and good to hear from a spokesperson. Kentmere is intended as an amateur film but got to good uses, the bad rap about low contrast etc.

I am active at a photo club with darkrooms and do notice that printing isn't that much popular. Price of materials and time appear to be the reasons.

But with 120 I far prefer Delta 400 if I need a fast film, because the grain is so much finer.

I found references to a 2004-2007? Delta 400 reformulation through old forum threads and developer time modifications.
I found XTOL/XT3 (1+1) to just work great with most BW films and standardised on it, specially with the T grain type films.
Ilford's marketing is not so "Fine grain heavy" where TMX, TMY, Portra and Ektar boxes claimed the fine grain characteristics for a loong period. There is however a vague statement that D400 grain is on the level of FP4.
Sometimes printing aside of HP5 negs in medium format it didn't appear to me as that fine grain, but never stratched large prints either.
For digital, grain aliasing makes it much more visible.

Some increment a là TMY2 could be a byproduct of Color R&D? However then, is it much much desirable? I haven't shot TMY for the same reasons as Ian, pricing and availability.

 

[Milpool]

If Ilford could update any of their films it's their Delta series particularly Delta 400. It's a joke. Tabular crystal emulsion but it's way grainier than HP5 which is a particular favorite of mine. What's the point?

I always found Delta 100 pretty good. Yes, it’s grainier than TMX but otherwise very similar. I find the graininess of Delta 100 about the same as Pan F. Delta 400 was never my cup of tea. TMY-2 is without peer. It was more of a contest in the TMY days. At one time Harman seriously considered a Delta 25. Too slow to be useful to me but some people might like that.

 

[Chuck1]

Delta 25 would be nice

 

[Lachlan Young]

Who in Gen Z and the Millennials has the space for an enlarger etc?

Most of those I know IRL who are strongly committed to darkroom printing (B&W & colour) practices are roughly my age (Millenial) or younger - while limitations on access to means of print production is one aspect that causes problems (but are more surmountable than people assume), the other is places that show work sometimes insist on sticking their oar in & controlling the production of it (i.e. 'send us the file & we print it') rather than offering funds for the artist to produce the work themselves. One interesting aspect that has become increasingly popular (especially for colour darkroom work) is making a master print, then scanning/ reproing that - if done well, it can deliver very good quality indeed (up there with a high end scan of the camera neg).

I found references to a 2004-2007? Delta 400 reformulation

2002

For digital, grain aliasing makes it much more visible.

Some of this really has to do with the inherent MTF differences between digital sensors (and poor sharpening habits on scans from inadequately sharp scanners) and directly exposed optical prints - a higher than 100% contrast response at low frequencies and a fall-off at higher frequencies will deliver seemingly sharper and cleaner prints than a scan which (even with the best scans) tends to overdo the contrast response at higher frequencies and not deliver 100+% contrast transfer at lower frequencies (hence more visible granularity and less of the low frequency edge sharpness that a good direct optical print can deliver).

 

[pentaxuser]

Curious if you can post a link? I’d be interested in listening.

I assume her comments are based on actual evidence but we'll never know unless we can see exactly what she says

pentaxuser

 

[skahde]

Scanning by comparison is quick

You don't have a single picture after scanning, you only have data. You just changed the medium and have all the work stil lying ahead of you. It's a contact-sheet at best. Quick in comparison to making a contact-sheet?

 

[thinkbrown]

You don't have a single picture after scanning, you only have data. You just changed the medium and have all the work stil lying ahead of you. It's a contact-sheet at best. Quick in comparison to making a contact-sheet?

Good job selectively quoting me to completely miss the point. Getting ready for a darkroom session and cleaning up after I'm done takes a nontrivial amount of time. If I need a digital copy of a photo from a negative I can have it scanned and edited in under 15 minutes. I wouldn't even have my trays ready to go in my darkroom that quickly.

 

[flavio81]

If Ilford could update any of their films it's their Delta series particularly Delta 400. It's a joke. Tabular crystal emulsion but it's way grainier than HP5 which is a particular favorite of mine.

Delta 400 is finer grained than HP5 when used at 400. It is also sharper.

If you're getting "grainier" results then you're doing something wrong.

Delta 400 is excellent film, Delta 100 even better, IMO perhaps the best tabular grain film, even better than Acros 100. Acros is finer grained but its spectral sensitivity is not nice.

 

[flavio81]

If I follow Ilford's recommendation and use DD-X it's even worse. Like so many other films I have done systematic testing in the years past,

Your claim in bold ("systematic") is very hard to believe, if the outcome is "delta 400 is grainier than hp5".

 

[flavio81]

I always found Delta 100 pretty good. Yes, it’s grainier than TMX but otherwise very similar. I find the graininess of Delta 100 about the same as Pan F. Delta 400 was never my cup of tea. TMY-2 is without peer. It was more of a contest in the TMY days. At one time Harman seriously considered a Delta 25. Too slow to be useful to me but some people might like that.

I have a circa 24x36 cm print of a Delta 100 35mm negative I made using my trusty Nikkor-EL 50/2.8 lens, the result was stunningly good regarding sharpness and grain.

I agree exactly with your assessment: Delta 100 grainier than TMX and (imo) TMX grainier than Acros 100, but I prefer Delta.

And I also agree that TMax 400 is probably the best 400 speed film available. Particularly for the sharpness at that speed!! Kodak did something really right with it.

Delta 25? Why not sir... As long as spectral sensitivity is good and contrast does not jump up dramatically. Otherwise we would just use Adox HR film then.

 

[dcy]

I have a little darkroom setup in my basement and I'm right on the border of millennial/Gen Z. The bigger limiting factor is time. It takes a lot of time to get setup, start making test strips, and make a print. Scanning by comparison is quick and doesn't have the same setup/cleanup cost associated with it.

I am on the border of Gen Z/millennial. For me the limiting factor today is also time. I have a decent amount of space. I don't have a basement, but I have a large bathroom. I built myself a small table that holds the enlarger permanently, so that really helps with setup. But it still takes me a long time to do test strips and figure out the settings to get a good print. I think a lot of it is down to my lack of experience, and I'm confident that will improve.

However, the biggest barrier for me to get started was just the idea of buying a giant expensive machine, used, from some random seller on eBay / Craigslist / Facebook, without knowing if the darn thing is even going to work or if if I'll even enjoy the hobby. If I lived in a larger city, perhaps I'd be able to find a communal darkroom to learn the ropes. With anyone with less space, or stronger financial constraints than me, I can easily imagine that just acquiring the equipment could be an insurmountable barrier.

Even for me, right now ---- Part of me would like to buy a modest medium format camera and give it a try, but my enlarger cannot accept anything larger than 35 mm. That makes the entire medium format unviable to me. The idea of trying to find a new, more expensive enlarger feels like too high a barrier.

 

[dcy]

If I follow Ilford's recommendation and use DD-X it's even worse. Like so many other films I have done systematic testing in the years past, it's just an inferior product that doesn't live up to what it is being promoted as.

The target audience of Delta films is professionals, and the most dedicated hobbyists. These are the people who aren't going to be fooled by hype and can recognize an inferior product with ease. If Delta is popular, it is not inferior. It might, however, be a specialist product that will only shine in the hands of someone with the skill to know what to do with it.

I feel like I'm seeing someone complaining that they tried driving a Porsche and it's all hype because they can get a better 0-60 on their Toyota Camry with an automatic transmission --- this could very well be true... if they don't know how to drive manual.

 

[dcy]

I always found Delta 100 pretty good. Yes, it’s grainier than TMX but otherwise very similar. I find the graininess of Delta 100 about the same as Pan F. Delta 400 was never my cup of tea. TMY-2 is without peer. It was more of a contest in the TMY days. At one time Harman seriously considered a Delta 25. Too slow to be useful to me but some people might like that.

I purchased a couple of rolls of TMX and TMY-2 to try out. I'd be interested to know what makes TMY-2 so special in your eyes.

 

[ic-racer]

There is a real need for a 6400 B&W film with reasonable grain. Especially these days when tripods are frowned upon in most public places.

 

[Todd Niccole]

The target audience of Delta films is professionals, and the most dedicated hobbyists. These are the people who aren't going to be fooled by hype and can recognize an inferior product with ease. If Delta is popular, it is not inferior. It might, however, be a specialist product that will only shine in the hands of someone with the skill to know what to do with it.

I feel like I'm seeing someone complaining that they tried driving a Porsche and it's all hype because they can get a better 0-60 on their Toyota Camry with an automatic transmission --- this could very well be true... if they don't know how to drive manual.

It's not that hard. I just start with Ilford's directions and then play around those parameters with a degree of consistency.

 

[MattKing]

I purchased a couple of rolls of TMX and TMY-2 to try out. I'd be interested to know what makes TMY-2 so special in your eyes.

They are quite different, even if they share a lot of technology.
TMY-2 happens to be my all time favorite. It responds really really well to the demands I make of it. I've got four darkroom prints in the Group show that our Darkroom Group currently has hanging in the Reach Gallery in Abbotsford, BC - two on 11"x14" paper, and two on 9.5"x12" paper, and while each print comes from a different format negative shot on a distinctly different camera, they were all shot on TMY-2 - mostly 120, but 35mm too.
It scans very well too - this being a negative scan that matches fairly favorably one of the prints from 120 that are in the show:

Net Loft Floats #10

• MattKing
• Nov 18, 2024
• 2

A detail from some of the nets and floats on display at the Net Loft building at the Brittania...

Note, however, that I comment on how well the film responds to my demands. While I think that some of those demands may be similar to what you might demand of a film - particularly the relatively low grain for a 400 ISO emulsion - it is hard to determine from a distance whether or not you would appreciate the characteristics of the film to the same extent as I do.

 

[dcy]

Delta 400 is excellent film, Delta 100 even better, IMO perhaps the best tabular grain film, even better than Acros 100. Acros is finer grained but its spectral sensitivity is not nice.

I'm curious what you mean by "better". Aside from smaller grain, is there anything else that, in your view, makes Delta 100 better than 400?

This is just idle curiosity on my part. I haven't shot (nor plan to shoot) Delta films because they are expensive here, especially in relation to my use case.

 

[dcy]

It's not that hard. I just start with Ilford's directions and then play around those parameters with a degree of consistency.

I dunno man...

"[Car Forum]

A: Porsche is an inferior product that doesn't live up to what it is being promoted as. I consistently get a better 0-60 in my Toyota Camry.

B: A Porsche definitely has a better 0-60 than a Camry. Perhaps you don't know how to drive manual?

A: It's not that hard. I read the instructions and I'm following them exactly."

 

[MattKing]

Moderator hat on:
There is no need to go any further with this digression. If you wish to start a separate thread on strengths and weaknesses of any particular film, and how well it behaves for any particular user, and any possible reasons for that - go for it.
And yes, I know, I'm personally guilty of digression as well, so mea culpa.

 

[Milpool]

I purchased a couple of rolls of TMX and TMY-2 to try out. I'd be interested to know what makes TMY-2 so special in your eyes.

It’s the state of the art. When Kodak reformulated TMY around 2007/8 it was another step forward in image structure for a general purpose B&W film. Only medium speed TMX or Acros (at least the original Acros) outperform it - barely.

TMX is great too (as is Delta 100). It’s hard to go wrong with any of these.

There are lots of good films. I doubt Harman needs to add to its lineup or make improvements to the existing films.

The problem for me is the skyrocketing price of Ilford paper, which is why I’ve become increasingly sour on Harman.

 

[skahde]

Good job selectively quoting me to completely miss the point. Getting ready for a darkroom session and cleaning up after I'm done takes a nontrivial amount of time. If I need a digital copy of a photo from a negative I can have it scanned and edited in under 15 minutes. I wouldn't even have my trays ready to go in my darkroom that quickly.

Sorry to say, you are still adjusting scenarios to advocate your own approach. I know, because I did the same. Darkroom-setup takes time, say five minutes to pour the solutions and additional five to pour them back and clean the tray? And if you decide to put the preparation of solutions into the equation, preparing and maintaining a digital workplace takes time too. Ask me about calibration and buggy software, failing updates, MS not being able to deliver a working color-management in Windows 11 for several years, aso. And you usually do not scan "a negative". If you didn't scan the others from the same occasion you don'T know for sure which one to pick unless you only exposed one: One usually needs a worksheet which with scanning means scanning them all. Scanning only one - again - may reflect your personal approach but nothing which is generally applicable.

 

[koraks]

you are still adjusting scenarios to advocate your own approach

It's anyone's prerogative to reflect on scenarios as they apply to them as a basis for highlighting their preferences. You do the same, after all:

Darkroom-setup takes time, say five minutes to pour the solutions and additional five to pour them back and clean the tray?

Assuming a permanent darkroom setup with easy to reach utensils. Many people have multi-functional spaces (say, a bathroom) that needs more time to convert into a working darkroom, and to convert back to its original function.

preparing and maintaining a digital workplace takes time too.

Maybe; perhaps I'm just lucky, but in my personal case, the computer comes on 2 seconds after I touch the keyboard. The accumulated time of managing software updates and overall systems admin is negligible compared to the upkeep of my analog darkroom, which involves mixing chemistry and whatnot. Moreover, the digital work discounts across many different activities, while the darkroom upkeep is photo-specific.

If you didn't scan the others from the same occasion you don'T know for sure which one to pick unless you only exposed one:

There's no reason why someone who is competent at scanning could not be competent at judging correct exposure of a negative. However, I do agree that in the case of multiple frames of the same subject/scene (which personally I rarely make, so for me it's a moot point, but I understand some people like shooting spares), it can be helpful to have some kind of overview or contact sheet. For me, personally, the digital overview is quicker and easier to make and overall more useful/flexible in long-term use than a sheet of paper that I need to find in a physical folder somewhere.

Scanning only one - again - may reflect your personal approach but nothing which is generally applicable.

Then again, the added 'cost' of scanning several is, depending on the scanning method, often relatively small. On the other hand, having a 'digital contact sheet' at hand can be very useful in determining which negatives to print in the darkroom, how to print them etc. At least, that's how it works for me. The digital archive I keep of my film negatives is overall, for me, a time-saver and I experience it as a valuable, enjoyable asset.

So it's evident that you, too, frame scenarios in a way that 'automatically' leads to the choice of your preference. Perhaps we could cut to the chase and just discuss that preference and why we feel it's such a nice way to work. I think that's what the thread about. I also think that nobody in this thread is going to convince someone else that their way of working is inappropriate or inefficient and that they better switch modes. At best, we may be able to inspire one another. In my experience, that tends to happen when the interaction is constructive and congenial. Generally speaking, when interactions are adversarial and unpleasant, they result in people digging into their positions and possibly missing out on stuff that they'd actually like.

 

[Agulliver]

I assume her comments are based on actual evidence but we'll never know unless we can see exactly what she says

pentaxuser

@Prest_400 posted a link above.

The only reason I say "Sunny 16 podcast 16 June 2025" is because there are myriad podcasting apps that people might have installed on various devices so knowing the name and date of the podcast is probably the best way to find it.....rather than me or anyone else posting 15 different links. If you don't have a podcasting app on your mobile device you can probably play it without but again, it's hosted on multiple sites. I fully agree that podcasts are great for flights and even commutes.

Whether we'll see Delta 25 or Delta 6400 seems unlikely. Personally I would use the latter in 120 if such a thing were ever to appear. But for many years, pre-dating the Phoenix project, R&D on B&W film at Harman seems to have been ensuring that the films all remain in production through changes in chemical availability and regulations, in such ways that end users never even notice. The Phoenix/CN R&D is where they are concentrating most of their research resources and out of that may well come improvements to the B&W products or even new ones - Kentmere 200 is one such example.

Anyway, the future as planned appears very much to be continuing all the B&W products with something new occasionally coming along but no radical updates....while R&D into a "normal" C41 CN film continues apace. Best of both worlds as far as I can tell. The ultimate outcome should be all our favourite Ilford and Kentmere films, sheets, papers, chemicals remain with the addition of a Harman C41 film that eventually offers sufficient quality to be an everyday film with a different colour palette than Kodak's films.

 

[Agulliver]

I'm Gen X and even I currently have no space for a darkroom. I have all the gear - in storage at my mother's house. That may well change in about 12 months when I *should* be in a position to buy a much bigger home than the one spousal unit, felines and I currently inhabit. But currently there's nowhere to physically even store my enlarger.

The local university has started offering film and darkroom as part of their photography courses again, which means lots of students buying used cameras from the camera shop in town and lots of young people around shooting film....but the uni keeps the darkrooms to themselves and won't hire them out to the public, even locals....so that's a non-starter. There was talk of a local arts space opening one up, my wife even supported the idea as she works for them, but nothing came of it. The cost of set up was the problem, and health & safety regs of letting people use chemicals....it was pointed out that the average drain cleaner or hair dye is more dangerous but sadly most organisations these days have a jobsworth who won't let you do things because there's an exclamation mark on the packaging....

But for me and my wife, the next house we buy....a priority is at least one room/space that can be easily used for hobbies. And that will include an area that can either be set up permanently as a darkroom (highly unlikely) or an area that can be quickly converted....ready with blackout windows etc. I know Americans often talk of basements....we Brits generally do not even know what these mysterious areas are.