Agreed. I’d also include the remarkable TMY-2, but I’m veering off topic again.
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.
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.
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.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.
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 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.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.
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'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?
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?
Ah thanks, I hadn't realised that.Because many of us are LF shooters and Delta 400 is not available.
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.
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.
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....
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 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?