Their website says Ilfotec DD.Is it Ilfotec they use? Somewhere I got the info they used ID11, or am I mistaken? Maybe Im thinking of ABC lab maybe?
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.
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.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.
Nope, digital is cleaner.Does anyone feel that Tmax and Delta are too clean reminding you of digital? That Tri-X or something else is more filmlike?
Does anyone feel that Tmax and Delta are too clean reminding you of digital? That Tri-X or something else is more filmlike?
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
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.
I don't develop films myself, because I cant make a darkroom here, so I send all my films to a lab to do.
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.
Am I correct Delta 400 has a contrastier look then TMAX 400?
with TMAX 400 being smoother -cleaner in look?
TMAX 400 seems brighter as well. Delta 400 pictures have a darker rendition then TMAX 400
Even though TMAX 400 is said to be the sharpest film for its speed, because of the contrast on Delta, Delta looks sharper?
How are you finding these two films comparing?
Also would Delta 400 look a lot more like Tri-X, other then grain size?
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?