Thoughts on Ilford Delta 100

[Milpool]

I have to say I loved old Agfa 25, and have long preferred traditional grain films, but my recent use of Delta 100 and Tmax100 certainly showed that those films provide more than ample detail in 35mm.

Agreed. I’d also include the remarkable TMY-2, but I’m veering off topic again.

 

[Ardpatrick]

Delta 100 is currently $2.50 more per roll than Tmax 100 in 120 format at B&H (although you can only buy Kodak 120 film in batches of 5). Reason enough for me to shoot Tmax.
One of the reasons I shot Ilford in the past was because it was cheaper than Kodak. I never thought I'd see Kodak film cheaper than Ilford.

Ilford is significantly cheaper than Kodak in Europe.

 

[Ardpatrick]

Of course you can push Delta 100 in development, but you will always see a loss of deep shadow detail in your results: no amount of extra time in the developer will compensate for the loss of exposure in the darkest shadows. If you need a 400 speed film, then use a 400 speed film. While there are differences in how Delta 100 and HP5+ render tonality in an image (I find there's more crisp separation of values in the high end with Delta 100, whereas HP5+ leans toward softer high value detail), when working with large format negatives, there's no good reason to opt to push a slower film in order to gain 2 stops of speed, rather than just using a faster film. You're just making it harder to work with your negs if you are underexposing and overdeveloping, which is what "pushing" is.

Thanks for talking sense to me. I hate struggling with thin shadow detail in the darkroom, and I always follow the dictum of exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights. You're right - pushing Delta 100 isn't for me.

Thinking about it again, I suppose the beauty of sheet film is that I can have Delta 100 (rated at 80) in one side of a dark slide, and HP5 (rated at 250) on the other side of the same dark slide, if the mood takes me. Covers all options!

The mindset of my original query on 'pushing' Delta 100 is a roll film mindset.

 

[Ardpatrick]

There's nothing wrong with the D-76 class of developers (that's what ID-11 is) when used wisely. And since we're talking about 4x5 format film, how a developer affects grain is (almost) irrelevant, unless you are making 8x10 foot prints. Your choice of developer is going to have more of an effect on acutance, tonality and contrast, but really won't matter much in terms of grain characteristics. For large format work, select a developer that is going to "play nice" with the film you've chosen, and give the "look" you're after. (And the look of an image is very much determined by the photographer's personal tastes, and is therefore subjective)

My personal favorites for most films are: one of the Ascorbic acid formulas (Xtol, TX-3, Mytol, etc.), PMK/Pyrocat HD, and Barry Thornton 2-Bath. The ascorbic acid developers give a bit of a boost in film speed and optimize shadow detail without murdering the brightest high values, and they deliver smooth grain. The Pyro recipes like Pyrocat HD give you superior acutance (edge definition that enhances the impression of sharpness and emphasizes texture, if that's something you desire) and preserve the delicate high values better than most other developers, which can be a huge asset when working with a range of brightness values that come close to exceeding the film's ability. Pyro developers, however, involve a certain amount of loss of film speed, so it's often necessary to give up to a stop more exposure to get optimal results. The Thornton 2-Bath developer delivers remarkably good negatives for such a simple recipe: excellent sharpness, great shadow information, well-preserved high values and brilliant tonal separation throughout the tonal scale. On top of that, it gives very smooth grain characteristics. It's only downside is that it requires up to a full stop more exposure, so you will have to halve your film speed to get optimal results.

Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, here are two images made for the purpose of comparing two developers from opposite ends of the scale, in terms of their delivery of acutance: D-23, VS Pyrocat HD

Tmax 100 developed in D-23
Tmax 100 developed in Pyrocat HD

(For those who may not know how Flickr works, click twice on the image to see it at full size, where you can examine the small details) Acutance characteristics are best observed in the grasses in the lower right corner.

A comparison of two very dissimilar developers like D-23 and Pyrocat HD illustrates some things about their abilities - acutance, tonality and - to a degree - grain qualities. There are instances in which choosing a "soft working" developer like D-23 would be a better choice than something like Pyrocat HD, and to be honest, I think the D-23 negative in this case gives a better impression of the foggy conditions than the Pyrocat negative does, which seems overly sharp and emphasizes texture too much for my liking.

Finally, let me show you an example of Delta 100 (8x10 size) developed in the Thornton 2-Bath recipe: August 1, 2024.

Your technical choices shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all decision: choose the right process to emphasize your intended message.

Thanks for this very well written and knowledgeable post. I enjoyed the linked images greatly, and I can see the differences you describe.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Don't look to HP5 if you want a similar look as D100. Kodak TMY400 will give you similar contrast (yet with better shadow detail), along with the same fine grain as D100 despite its much higher speed. Of course the price will be higher too, alas.

With Kodak TMY400 you can really trust the full box speed of 400 with most developers, since the straight line section of the curve goes quite a ways down there into the shadows. No need to cut the rated speed like with D100 in order to obtain better shadow values. Therefore, for all practical purposes except moderate and low contrast scenes, TMY is three full stops faster than D100.

 

[Ardpatrick]

Don't look to HP5 if you want a similar look as D100. Kodak TMY400 will give you similar contrast (yet with better shadow detail), along with the same fine grain as D100 despite its much higher speed. Of course the price will be higher too, alas.

Thanks Drew. I could probably afford TMY if I don't burn through too much of it - mix it up with Delta 100 as you say. HP5 is a different beast.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, I did sometimes use that same kind of strategy myself with 4x5 film. But when it comes to 8X10 film and its bigger heavier film holders, there are only so many one can put in their backpack at the same time. Plus I shoot color too, so there is that added factor.

 

[retina_restoration]

Don't look to HP5 if you want a similar look as D100. Kodak TMY400 will give you similar contrast (yet with better shadow detail), along with the same fine grain as D100 despite its much higher speed.

I agree. HP5+ and Delta 100 are about as different as you can get. HP5+ is fine for many applications, but compared to D100, I find its rendering of high values to be lackluster. If you like the look of Delta films, HP5+ isn't going to be a suitable faster equivalent.

 

[snusmumriken]

I'm wondering why no-one is suggesting Delta 400 as a suitable higher-speed partner for Delta 100? I have no experience with it myself. Is there something not to like about it?

 

[GregY]

I'm wondering why no-one is suggesting Delta 400 as a suitable higher-speed partner for Delta 100? I have no experience with it myself. Is there something not to like about it?

Because it's not available in sheet film formats..

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm wondering why no-one is suggesting Delta 400 as a suitable higher-speed partner for Delta 100? I have no experience with it myself. Is there something not to like about it?

Because many of us are LF shooters and Delta 400 is not available.

I shoot HP5 alongside Delta 100 or 400 (MF) and any differences are compensated for during printing. I really notice the difference in grain size between HP5 and Delta 400 in 120, I almost never shoot 35mm.

Ian

 

[snusmumriken]

Because many of us are LF shooters and Delta 400 is not available.

Ah thanks, I hadn't realised that.

 

[Craig]

When Delta was first introduced 400 was available in sheet sizes; but it didn't last too long before being discontinued. I have no idea why, but this was pre-digital so it wasn't due to slumping overall film sales.

 

[cliveh]

Delta films are tabular-grain black-and-white films and in my opinion do not represent true film integrity. Trying to put tabular grains in the right direction may succeed to some extent, but it is not a real film in the context of us purists.

 

[GregY]

Delta films are tabular-grain black-and-white films and in my opinion do not represent true film integrity. Trying to put tabular grains in the right direction may succeed to some extent, but it is not a real film in the context of us purists.

C, what other limitations do you place on yourselves? Do you only use graded papers? Do you contact print instead of enlarging? Xtol must be out of the question as a modern developer then. The question might be, "what level of purists are you?"

 

[DREW WILEY]

Delta 400 isn't just a speeded up version of D100. Its a whole different animal with a longer toe. I never liked it's potentially blaah shadow gradation. I'd rather skip right up to D3200, which at least has a distinct lovely character if one can tolerate or deliberately wants some conspicuous grain in 35mm enlargements. I mostly shot it in 120 instead, but always rated at 800 for pyro, which is far closer to its official Tech Sheet speed of around 1000 anyway.

All purists have bent noses and wear sweaty felt genuine Stetson cowboy hats. They do everything perfectly and go precisely by the book, have a success rate of 100% with 0% of the film, because all those mandatory secret clubhouse films and graded papers no longer exist. The imagination has its Zones too.

 

[retina_restoration]

Delta films are tabular-grain black-and-white films and in my opinion do not represent true film integrity. Trying to put tabular grains in the right direction may succeed to some extent, but it is not a real film in the context of us purists.

I can't imagine anyone keeping a straight face while declaring themselves a "purist" photographer.

 

[GregY]

I can't imagine anyone keeping a straight face while declaring themselves a "purist" photographer.

Do they trip digital photographers when they pass them on the street, or just turn their nose up at them.....?

After a lifetime of using Kodak films....(which admittedly are no longer the same as in the '60s)....i've just tested out Delta 100....& will be using it because its characteristics & country of origin..... boycotts...politics....etc.
I imagine in Prague 1989....Josef Koudelka used what he could get.....

 

[Milpool]

I don’t understand what “film integrity” is supposed to mean. I guess in the end everyone has their own philosophy (?) about these things.

 

[GregY]

I don’t understand what “film integrity” is supposed to mean. I guess in the end everyone has their own philosophy (?) about these things.

or "Trying to put tabular grains in the right direction may succeed to some extent"

I admit i need a translation....

 

[Milpool]

or "Trying to put tabular grains in the right direction may succeed to some extent"

I admit i need a translation....

I imagine he’s referring to the orientation of the tabular crystals. They lie basically flat, parallel to the film surface. Bob Shanebrook’s wonderful book includes some cross section photomicrographs.

 

[Steven Lee]

Delta films are tabular-grain black-and-white films and in my opinion do not represent true film integrity. Trying to put tabular grains in the right direction may succeed to some extent, but it is not a real film in the context of us purists.

Unless you're shooting on glass plates with a pinhole camera, you're a pampered high-tech baby who hasn't even started his quest for REAL photography.

 

[GregY]

I imagine he’s referring to the orientation of the tabular crystals. They lie basically flat, parallel to the film surface. Bob Shanebrook’s wonderful book includes some cross section photomicrographs.

& has no bearing at all on my practice of photography.

 

[Craig]

If you’re a purist, photography can only be a Daguerreotype.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Grain alignment is easy if you have a magnet and an iron-based instead of silver based film. Another mining fortune to be obtained in Greenland; it's closer to the magnetic pole anyway, and some of the ore will already be pre-aligned and ready to go.