TMAX 400 vs Delta 400

Juan Valdenebro

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,286
Location
South America
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,318
Format
4x5 Format
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).
 

Attachments

  • 8DE88438-BAD9-42F1-8330-75F25A28F59B.jpeg
    282.8 KB · Views: 200

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,318
Format
4x5 Format
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).
 
OP
OP

braxus

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
1,789
Location
Fraser Valley B.C. Canada
Format
Hybrid
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).
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,981
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
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
 

Anon Ymous

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
3,661
Location
Greece
Format
35mm
Tom Kershaw said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
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

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
1,440
Location
Sweden
Format
Med. Format RF
braxus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,266
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,099
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,028
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format

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

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,099
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Andrew O'Neill said:
Hi Matt, are those old hydrants out at the North 40?
Click to expand...
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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,028
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
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!
Click to expand...

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

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
Ian Grant said:
I'm often shooting where tripods are banned.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,286
Location
South America
Format
Multi Format
Tom Kershaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,945
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
138S said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

138S said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.

138S said:
TX is long toe, so its roll-off in the shadows has that nature, D400 is more like TMY in that concern.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
801
Location
Doraville
Format
Medium Format

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

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,981
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
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
 
OP
OP

braxus

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
1,789
Location
Fraser Valley B.C. Canada
Format
Hybrid

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.

pentaxuser said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…