TMAX 400 vs Delta 400

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi braxus,

If you don't wet print, AND you don't develop your film, there's just no way you can get the most out of any film...
It's that simple...
No matter what your labs do or tell you, you just can't know anything for sure, and you just can't calibrate your materials for a constant output...
That's why everybody's telling you more or less the same...
Now: you can do in your best possible way what you're doing, and that's digitally photographing negatives with your scanner after you're not sure how they were developed... So your only possible road is adjusting digitally for a digital final print, and even if those can be greatly or poorly done, you just can't use a film's best design character because films are made for wet printing...
Without developing youself -at least- you're playing a different game while you talk about and want the real game...
Anyway, don't get me wrong: with the game you're playing, you can express yourself too...

 

[Bill Burk]

There’s a couple places I go to get film these days. The photo instructors at the local schools recommend Tri-X to their students, so while my favorite store doesn’t always have TMAX-400 for me, I can always get something that will work for me. I could pick up some Delta-400 sometime to see what it can do. I see Delta-400 has a bit of extended red sensitivity, compared to TMAX-400 which drops sharply at near infrared.

Kodak says TMAX-400 is the world’s sharpest. So you could look for that difference.

Yes the differences in film are worth exploring. I prefer TMAX-400 but will shoot anything I can get my hands on.

I don’t usually shoot Plus-X but your sample reminds me of a warehouse I shot on that film and I love the look it gives wood. For a long time I avoided Plus-X because sometimes I don’t like grain. One vacation I stopped in a camera store that only had Plus-X in 120 and I got some beautiful shots (so fell back in love with it just when it became discontinued).

Most often, I find myself wishing I had used a finer-grained film for any particular shot that I can’t enlarge (and see more detail in the enlargement).

Here is one favorite shot where I wished I had shot on at most a 400 film, but it’s 3200... Jordan Peak lookout (near Camp Nelson where I used to live. I actually was on fire lookout duty the day I took this shot).

 

[Bill Burk]

I hear a few comments that “you have to develop yourself to have control”. While I think it’s important, I have to admit I was no better than the average lab (just followed the data sheet times), until I got a sensitometer and a densitometer and started testing and graphing.

I had control, but was not in control. Now I can figure out how to expose and develop any film to get the best from it. I wouldn’t send old expired film to a lab but I regularly use it and I treat each film according to its needs. Labs should be able to handle any fresh film. If I were to use a lab I would check their work by sneaking in a test strip without telling them.

For a gritty contrasty look I would shoot 400 film at 250 and lie to the lab. I would tell them to push it one stop (I would say I shot it at 800).

 

[Tom Kershaw]

If you really don't want to process your own film, I'd be tempted to suggest ILFORD XP2 SUPER for 135 and 120. This gets rid of the very important variable of control with black & white processing.

 

[braxus]

I see what you guys are saying. That said I have not been unhappy with the results I've been getting at the lab, using films I know I like. So to me I don't see any reason to stop using them, other then maybe cost. But $7 developing per roll is not that much of an expense (compared to prints anyway). I am going to replace my flatbed scanner later this year (so I can do 8x10), and it has a better DMAX then the 2001 scanner I have now. Plus maybe I get try to get my Minolta 35mm scanner working again, as it crapped out last time I used it (computer wouldn't recognize scanner as being on).

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If you really don't want to process your own film, I'd be tempted to suggest ILFORD XP2 SUPER for 135 and 120. This gets rid of the very important variable of control with black & white processing.

Yes! This one's a real solution!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Yes! This one's a real solution!

Well, real solutions don't always seem popular on this forum... XP2 Super gives good quality scans and is very convenient, although I tend to prefer a real silver negative and have used comparitvely little of the chromagenic mono film.

 

[pentaxuser]

Braxus you seem to have come to the same conclusion that came across to me in your opening post, namely you are satisfied with your lab and its processing of either Tri-X or TMax and that D400 just doesn't do it for you which is fine. So if I were you I'd stick with your original position.

pentaxuser

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I like the Kodak films so I'm sympathetic to that view. ILFORD make excellent products as well.

 

[Anon Ymous]

If you really don't want to process your own film, I'd be tempted to suggest ILFORD XP2 SUPER for 135 and 120. This gets rid of the very important variable of control with black & white processing.

I second that and even extend the idea to any C41 film. You get the original colour image and convert to BW at will. This also negates the need for yellow, orange, red etc filters, these can be emulated in software. This may sound heretic, but if you don't want to process your own film, then there's not much to gain by using BW films and having someone else develop them.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

This may sound heretic, but if you don't want to process your own film, then there's not much to gain by using BW films and having someone else develop them.

There are archival benefits assuming processing is done correctly.

 

[Anon Ymous]

There are archival benefits assuming processing is done correctly.

Yes, you have a point, although C41 films aren't that bad in this regard.

 

[removed account4]

nothing wrong with someone else processing one's film. HCB didn't process his own film and KARSH had someone in his laboratory do it for him
there is a very long history of people having a relationship with a lab.
braxus
just bracket your next roll of whatever film you are using so you have a better idea how to shoot it and get the negatives you like

 

[Prest_400]

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.

That's the perfect reason I withheld goin B&W because of not having darkroom access and now that I do, tend to use it much more. Another reason is that the labs I saw were quite expensive for B&W and DIY can be just cents. For me it's masses of film to develop that may seem a chore.
Another issue is chemical shelf life, but with some planning it should be fine.

I second that and even extend the idea to any C41 film. You get the original colour image and convert to BW at will. This also negates the need for yellow, orange, red etc filters, these can be emulated in software. This may sound heretic, but if you don't want to process your own film, then there's not much to gain by using BW films and having someone else develop them.

Ditto, unless the negs are to be printed in the darkroom. The usage of contrast filter is something that I find quite interesting and if one slaps a yellow in front of the lens, a stop is gone. So far, Tmax, Delta and Acros have darker skies than cubic grain films due to differences in spectral sensitization -- I guess that's another aspect that adds to the "digital look" opinions about the T-grain films.

I myself can't contribute to the core of the thread. HP5 is my staple [120], very well priced, flexible and classic film. Always been enticed by D400 and TMY, but it adds a round of testing and changes I don't want to go through. Delta 100 I quite liked, and as bonus it shared times with HP5 in HC110.

 

[Ian Grant]

I hear a few comments that “you have to develop yourself to have control”. While I think it’s important, I have to admit I was no better than the average lab (just followed the data sheet times), until I got a sensitometer and a densitometer and started testing and graphing.

I had control, but was not in control. Now I can figure out how to expose and develop any film to get the best from it. I wouldn’t send old expired film to a lab but I regularly use it and I treat each film according to its needs. Labs should be able to handle any fresh film. If I were to use a lab I would check their work by sneaking in a test strip without telling them.

For a gritty contrasty look I would shoot 400 film at 250 and lie to the lab. I would tell them to push it one stop (I would say I shot it at 800).

Well while it's true taht best control is to do your own processing there's also no reason why you can't match your exposures to get close to the same with a pro lab. Back in the late 1970's & early 80's we did the B&W film processing for a new Pro lab we were asked to process all films for a standard time and their clients had learnt to work to that, the lab did the B&W printing. I should add that while it was new lab the owner had worked for Durst UK, and managed a previous satellite lab for a larger reputable company.

However i processed and printed for one family for l over 40 years so I knew wow to adjust when needed, their photo albums go back tothe 1850's

Ian

 

[MattKing]

To me, the characteristics you are describing as being inherent in the film are much more likely to be coming from the printing and/or scanning plus post-processing.
Films do respond somewhat differently, but most of those differences are easily adjusted for.
The following two photos - of a 70+ year old decommissioned fire hydrant, in somewhat harsh light - are from the same TMY-2 negative and flatbed scan. The only differences arise from some quick post-processing adjustments.



I post them merely to show that the differences you are seeing on the internet merely reflect the preferences of the person who uploaded them.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

To me, the characteristics you are describing as being inherent in the film are much more likely to be coming from the printing and/or scanning plus post-processing.
Films do respond somewhat differently, but most of those differences are easily adjusted for.
The following two photos - of a 70+ year old decommissioned fire hydrant, in somewhat harsh light - are from the same TMY-2 negative and flatbed scan. The only differences arise from some quick post-processing adjustments.
View attachment 237285

View attachment 237286
I post them merely to show that the differences you are seeing on the internet merely reflect the preferences of the person who uploaded them.

Hi Matt, are those old hydrants out at the North 40?

 

[MattKing]

Hi Matt, are those old hydrants out at the North 40?

They are - but there is only a couple of them left.
I picked that example because of the light, because it was shot on TMY-2 and because it was closer to the portraits that braxus referenced than my usual pictures of trees!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

They are - but there is only a couple of them left.
I picked that example because of the light, because it was shot on TMY-2 and because it was closer to the portraits that braxus referenced than my usual pictures of trees!

So the big question is... when are we going? I've got some TMY-2 and Delta 400 to shoot!

 

[138S]

I'm often shooting where tripods are banned.

In that case a Monopod may be a good choice, it is very "stealth" and usually nobody compains. Once a guard asked me... I told him that tripods have 3 legs, and that I was using was not a tripod but a VR stabilizer... it worked

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Well, real solutions don't always seem popular on this forum... XP2 Super gives good quality scans and is very convenient, although I tend to prefer a real silver negative and have used comparitvely little of the chromagenic mono film.

Hello Tom,
My case is nearly the same, I tried XP2 around 2000, just once while being a student... It works incredibly well for what it was done... And really convenient for someone who doesn't want the film's grain wet printed, but a digital print from a slightly different file... Or necessary when you can't buy, while travelling, the real film you wet print...
I shold have written
Yes, this one's a real solution for someone who's stated his negatives can improve in his very own opinion, not mine, and who wants to avoid development... Of course any lab using simple C-41 decently, will be able to give the OP negatives that lack the risks of not knowing what was done, and who prefer not to work/enjoy the many delicate options real silver negatives and processing in person can give... In the other hand, many experts talk about digital printing is benefitted from digital capture... Or at least, why lose the best of silver negatives, a beautiful long lasting print? If we answer I prefer physical originals, what's natural is respecting those originals sooner or later, and wet printing them...
Again, it seems the OP (not myself) definitely wants what he's not doing... So in the meantime, with chromogenic film he couldn't "blame" silver processing at all, and have more time to focus on his visual narrative...
By the way, could HCB's negatives have been better for wet printing? Sure, his printers talk about it... But he knew where the real problem's at, so he overexposed a bit and a lot... It's also true with the image inside the straight line, a development has to be a real mess to make the negative unprintable... In the street we try to expose generously because we act quickly, so covering our backs a bit is the only way to avoid slight underexposure... Tripod and meter work are a lot easier.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

They really aren't a problem, unless you are doing something grossly stupid - and even then... And they still have good separation when you bring them in, unlike TX if it rolls off on to its shoulder. As much as I prefer TX tonality in many cases, if I have to pull in a really dense highlight when printing, TMY is much less tricky every time.

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...

Peak grain appears at the mid-point of the film's characteristic curve - it follows a bell-curve distribution. Where that is in relation to 'reality' is a question of exposure and process. The short toe & strong s-shape characteristic curve of TX is going to place the mid-tone point of an emulsion somewhere rather different from the longer toe & later shoulder of HP5+. All you are describing is where the apparent mid-tone point of each film lands relative to your exposure and processing choices.

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

Can you please stop getting this backwards? TX is short toe, TXP has a longer toe, as does HP5+. This is why on Tri-X shadows lose details faster when underexposed, but once off the toe have better separation than HP5+. Tmax 400 has a short toe and a very long straight line. Delta 400 has a shorter toe and a gradient that I'd tend to describe as more like TX 400 in the shadows, then moving more towards a softer gradient in the highlights.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Braxus you seem to have come to the same conclusion that came across to me in your opening post, namely you are satisfied with your lab and its processing of either Tri-X or TMax and that D400 just doesn't do it for you which is fine. So if I were you I'd stick with your original position.

pentaxuser

This. If your really don't want to develop your own film, the only variable is the film you choose to send to them since you have no control over how it is developed. If you found a film that they develop in a way that looks good to you, stick with that.

 

[pentaxuser]

I send my good wishes to those who still believe they will change Braxus' mind about the merits of D400 and the benefits of home developing.

pentaxuser

 

[braxus]

Braxus you seem to have come to the same conclusion that came across to me in your opening post, namely you are satisfied with your lab and its processing of either Tri-X or TMax and that D400 just doesn't do it for you which is fine. So if I were you I'd stick with your original position.
pentaxuser

Im not sure exactly where you got the idea I didn't like Delta 400. In fact I said it stood out to me, when other Ilford films did not. I am actually going to buy some rolls of Delta 400 and compare them to my other 400 staple- Tri-X. And I will get some TMAX 400 for good measure, since I have used this film before, just not the version 2.

I send my good wishes to those who still believe they will change Braxus' mind about the merits of D400 and the benefits of home developing.
pentaxuser

I would have to buy 4 to 5 containers to develop all the formats I'd be using, and to me that is just a lot of fooling around. One day I might consider doing 35mm and 120, but for now I will stick with my lab since Im happy with the results they give. I just need to fine tune some options, which choosing a new film to me would do. So far my old films of choice are:

Efke 25, Panatomic X, Plus X, and Tri-X. Since the first three are long gone, and I only have so many rolls of these to use, I was looking at other films. The new choices added are:

Fuji Acros 100, Adox CHS II 100 (for large formats especially), TMAX 400 (for large formats especially), and possibly Delta 400 (for smaller formats) and Bergger Pancro 400 (for large formats).

I have good faith that The Lab will do all these films to my satisfaction. All I need to do is working on getting my scanning solution worked out better.