TMAX 400 vs Delta 400

[braxus]

Bill,
They use dip and dunk for their films, so I'd assume they can control the times for each film to what is needed.

 

[MattKing]

I use The Lab for my E6 work.
The Lab runs a daily dip and dunk Black and White line using Ilfotec DD developer in a replenishment regime,
At ISO 400 and 24C, Ilford recommends 7:00 for Delta 400 and 8:30 for T-Max 400.
I don't know whether The Lab adjusts developing times to the film.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

They are both wonderful films. One thing that sets them apart is their spectral sensitivity response. Delta 400 extends further into the red than TMY-2.

 

[braxus]

Is it Ilfotec they use? Somewhere I got the info they used ID11, or am I mistaken? Maybe Im thinking of ABC lab maybe?

 

[MattKing]

Is it Ilfotec they use? Somewhere I got the info they used ID11, or am I mistaken? Maybe Im thinking of ABC lab maybe?

Their website says Ilfotec DD.
For a lab that uses Dip and Dunk and does daily runs, a developer designed for replenishment (like Ilfotec DD) makes the most sense.

 

[braxus]

Okay. Somewhere I got the wrong info, unless they switched and didn't update their website. That said it seems to work fine on the films I've sent them.

 

[braxus]

Here's my avatar shot on Tri-X dated early 2000s. Its this shot that I stuck with Tri-X for so many years after. Delta 400 has a similar darker look from pics I've seen, but I won't know for sure till I try it out myself.

 

[Bill Burk]

Happy new year...

Times on the massive dev chart don't make sense. They agree with what MattKing says Ilford recommends but why does DD stock need more time for TMAX-400 while on the other hand D-76 1:1 needs less time for TMAX-400? Without any aim contrasts given in that reference, I don't have any idea what contrast the development times are supposed to produce. Those gaps in the information available makes me want to test for myself.

Meanwhile, braxus, if you really felt Delta 400 left you feeling flat... I don't think you should blame the film.

 

[Ian Grant]

Braxus, is there any reason why you couldn't process your own B&W films, this would allow you far better control of your negatives. It's not difficult or expensive even with LF.

Here's my avatar shot on Tri-X dated early 2000s. Its this shot that I stuck with Tri-X for so many years after. Delta 400 has a similar darker look from pics I've seen, but I won't know for sure till I try it out myself.

I think your comments like flatter, and darker look to describe films is confusing. I've prints in exhibition sets made from Delta 100 & 400, Tmax 100 & 400, Agfa APX 100 (genuine Agfa), and some Fomapan 100 & 200, you'd be surprised looking at the final prints to learn which films were used for each shot. My point being all the films are excellent and small nuances mostly get lost in the printing (or scanning stage).

Ian

 

[markbau]

Wow Mark, it seems as if someone pissed in your cornflakes today? I like films with a little higher contrast and a bit punchy, but still produce good mid tones. I don't develop films myself, because I cant make a darkroom here, so I send all my films to a lab to do. They currently use ID11 for developer. A previous lab I sent to used Xtol. Im not saying I dislike Ilford films, its just they didn't wow me like shots I've seen on Kodaks films. That is what I meant by leaving me flat. Granted I've shot so much Kodak, that Im used to their look, and seeing Ilford's look would take some getting used to. The picture in my avatar was shot on 2003 Tri-X and really is a beautifully toned picture. I still have some FP4+ in 4x5, but I've been shooting a lot of Efke 25 lately. And as for going on the internet to spread misinformation, all I was doing was saying MY personal taste and opinion. It certainly isn't yours. I am allowed my own opinion on things. And I never said the films were no good, which isn't what I meant by saying it left me flat, but that I preferred Kodaks variants. And I certainly like to think I know what I like to look at, as I worked in a photolab for 19 years.

Sorry if you took offence, I just dislike blanket statements that can’t be backed up with scientific evidence. Saying Iford film leaves you flat is as informative as me saying Fords don’t go fast enough or that Budweiser beer isn’t wet enough.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Why not call The Lab and ask the developer what times and processes he uses for Delta vs. Tmax? I wouldn't trust their web page. Those things often don't get updated.

Also, it would be helpful if posters would show their work to reflect their statements. Saying, "well my shots have better tones, contrast, etc. with xyz over abc" means little to the rest of us readers without seeing samples. It's not like we're getting recommendations about which surgeon to use. Seeing the final results in photography is the whole point of what we do.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Does anyone feel that Tmax and Delta are too clean reminding you of digital? That Tri-X or something else is more filmlike?

 

[Anon Ymous]

Does anyone feel that Tmax and Delta are too clean reminding you of digital? That Tri-X or something else is more filmlike?

Nope, digital is cleaner.

 

[Ian Grant]

Does anyone feel that Tmax and Delta are too clean reminding you of digital? That Tri-X or something else is more filmlike?

How is that possible as they pre-date digital ? By too clean I guess you mean less grain but that's what some of us want..

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

Like you Ian, I have always assumed that when the word "clean" is used in the context of digital v film it means less grain but while everyone who uses it seems to be understood by everyone else, except maybe me, I don't think I have ever seen a common definition of what clean is.

I often wonder that in a test of picking out the Tmax prints from the Delta prints or even the HP5+ prints scattered randomly on a board of say 100 prints I'd have any chance of passing such a test by achieving a statistically significant score. I seriously doubt that I would pass such a test

pentaxuser

 

[braxus]

Well next time I place an order for film, I'll get some Delta 400 and see how I like it with my own results. I'm still getting some TMAX 400 regardless.

Funny thing is if all B&W films looked the same, we wouldn't have all the choices of film we do today.

 

[Ian Grant]

Like you Ian, I have always assumed that when the word "clean" is used in the context of digital v film it means less grain but while everyone who uses it seems to be understood by everyone else, except maybe me, I don't think I have ever seen a common definition of what clean is.

I often wonder that in a test of picking out the Tmax prints from the Delta prints or even the HP5+ prints scattered randomly on a board of say 100 prints I'd have any chance of passing such a test by achieving a statistically significant score. I seriously doubt that I would pass such a test

pentaxuser

I first hear dthe complaint that Tmax films were "too clean" from a frelance photojournalist friend around 1989/90, so long before pre any serious digital work. What my friend Paul wanted was that gritty look given by Tri-X typical of the hard hitting photo stories in the Sunday supplements and particularly the Sunday times, this added a graphic imact that helped with the then poorer quality of newsprint.

Tri-X and HP5 have both been improved slightly since then, particularly Tri-X so it's finer grained with a resulting more tonal look today. My friend Paul just didn't like the almost grain free 10x8 prints you get from 35mm Tmax 400, it's a personal choice.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Well next time I place an order for film, I'll get some Delta 400 and see how I like it with my own results. I'm still getting some TMAX 400 regardless.

Funny thing is if all B&W films looked the same, we wouldn't have all the choices of film we do today.

Braxus, I didn't say that all B&W films look the same rather that you wouldn't be able to see that my resulting prints. Some films have better red sensitivity than others, or have a longer straight line portion of the film curve before it shoulders off, it's about knowing your films from experience and/or testing. I prefer to do some simple Zone System tests to get the best effective EI and development time that suits my printing. I can adjust for minor difference at the printing stage.

Yes you'd see differences if you shot on a few different films of a subject under identical conditions and make comparison prints or scans, but then has each film EI/dev time been optimised. It's more important to make a film choice and stick with it and you can quickly get the best from it.

Ian

 

[braxus]

Here are some samples of B&W pics Ive taken in the past that I like. Maybe this will help give an idea of what I like.

Some of these scans aren't perfect. because I was using an old flatbed scanner for medium format shots.

 

[Ian Grant]

You like shallow DOF for some of your images so you need a 100 ISO film ideally and a 400 ISO film when the light's not so good or you want more depth.

As you are also shooting LF I think I'd stick to Tmax 100 and 400 just because Tmax 400 is available in LF - Delta 400 isn't. I wouldn't have switched from Tmax 100 & 400 if I'd been able toto find it and buy it easily while abroad (Turkey & SouthAmerica) they are superb films. I'm just as happy with Delta 100 &400 and particularly HP5 for 5x4 but I think you'd find it easier using the 400 ISO same film across formats.

Ian

 

[braxus]

I started using Acros 100 lately over TMAX 100, but alas getting Acros in LF isn't possibly lately. No one is selling old boxes of 4x5 in that stuff. I'd use it in 8x10 if they had it. But my favorite mid speed B&W is still Plus X.

 

[StepheKoontz]

I don't develop films myself, because I cant make a darkroom here, so I send all my films to a lab to do.

Sorry but that's not a good excuse to hand over most of the creative control in shooting B&W film. You don't need a darkroom to develop B&W film, a dark bag and a tank is all that's needed.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Here's my avatar shot on Tri-X dated early 2000s. Its this shot that I stuck with Tri-X for so many years after. Delta 400 has a similar darker look from pics I've seen, but I won't know for sure till I try it out myself.

I seriously don't understand this "darker" and "flat" adjectives you are using. Those are all adjustments done from the negative in printing/scanning. And this shot to me has no tonality, blocked up shadow detail, and the blown highlights give a weird mottling to the skin tones. But if that's what you are after with a film...

 

[braxus]

You're right I could do it, but choose not to. I have ruined rolls before when rolling on the reel, so I like the Dip and Dunk where the film isn't touched. Plus I still like to get prints made with scans at the same time, and want chemical prints with that. I don't shoot a ton of rolls per year, so doing it myself- meh. Its been so long since I did. I get the results I like often enough at The Lab.

As for darker- I guess I just like darker tones in my pictures like olive skin tone instead of just pasty white. Also I like it when there is some glow on skin tones, even when trying to show it in a scan it blows out somewhat. Some pics the contrast is either too much or washed out in my scans, because I just wasn't getting the result I wanted. So yeah some of my scans aren't perfect. If I could get my old Minolta scanner working again...

 

[138S]

Am I correct Delta 400 has a contrastier look then TMAX 400?

Sensitometric Contrast depends on development.

Spectral response may be slightly different so you may require an slightly different filtration to get the same "contrast look" for a certain subject.

with TMAX 400 being smoother -cleaner in look?

D400 has slightly more grain than TMY, but developer/dilution is also a factor, for MF and up you won't find much a difference, for 35mm is easier to see some difference.

TMAX 400 seems brighter as well. Delta 400 pictures have a darker rendition then TMAX 400

It all depends on exposure, filtration and printing, with both you may obtain similar results.

Even though TMAX 400 is said to be the sharpest film for its speed, because of the contrast on Delta, Delta looks sharper?

Both are excellent films, sharpness and "sharp look" is more about your skills, right illumination is first, then lens best aperture and shake abscence. If you shoot handheld then shake is always the important factor, you may use a monopod.

How are you finding these two films comparing?

I feel TMY has greater highlight latitude for the extreme overexposures, but reaching high densities in the extreme highlights that are difficult to print optically.

Also would Delta 400 look a lot more like Tri-X, other then grain size?

Not only grain size, grain structure. TX has a unique look with grain being most evident in the shadows, delivering a "dramatic" look. Instead HP5 delivers peak grain in the mids, a different classic aesthetics. Delta 400 is not about grain...

TX is long toe, so its roll-off in the shadows has that nature, D400 is more like TMY in that concern.

___________________________________

Do this, take a D400 roll and a TMY roll. With both make exposure bracketings and filter bracketings, compare.