TMAX 400 vs Delta 400

[braxus]

I'll start off to mention Im mostly a Kodak user, as Ilfords films often left me flat. But when I saw pictures taken on Delta 400, I was surprised how well they looked. Am I correct Delta 400 has a contrastier look then TMAX 400? Also Delta 400 has more grain, 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?

Developer will be ID11, and done at the lab.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don;t know about Delta, never shot it. But Tmax scans well on my Epson V600 flatbed apparently due to the T grain.

 

[mshchem]

I've used Tmax 400 120 roll film since it came out. The Ilford offerings are outstanding films. Everything that Ilford sells is amazing, especially when printed on their paper. I use Ilford sheet film in Delta 100, outstanding results. Ilford fills every niche in black and white photography.

Kodak just makes the Tmax films and Tri-X.

Try some Ilford FP-4 Plus it's a beautiful film. Like the late Plus-X and very reasonable price.

 

[braxus]

I've used FP4+ and it didn't stand out on me like Plus X did. They don't look the same to me. I also love Panatomic X while Pan F looked totally different. I also prefer Tri X over HP5+. The fact Delta 400 peaked my interest is different for me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just the opposite. TMY has a longer straight line and can be developed to a higher contrast than Delta; likewise when comparing the 100 speed products. Sharpness is a more complicated subject because it depends on your developer; but TMY does have exceptionally good grain structure and edge acutance for its speed rating.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I've found T-Max 400 very reliable and consistent in terms of response to expose. It also works well in a variety of developers, whereas as I suspect developer selection is more critical for Delta 400.

 

[Ian Grant]

I used Tmax 100 & 400 from when hey were released here in the UK until around 2007. great films. However I had issues finding Tmax films while living abroad so switch to Delta 100 & 400 and have no regrets.

It's a case of fine tuning development and exposure whatever films you shoot if you want the best results. Delta 400 isn't available as sheet film so I use Hp5 instead of Delta 100 when working hand held and it's a superb film.

Ian

 

[markbau]

I'll start off to mention Im mostly a Kodak user, as Ilfords films often left me flat..

What do you mean by "Ilford films often left me flat"?

If the negs you produced were "flat" that is because of your developing, it is not because of Ilford film. All Ilford films I've worked with for the last 40 years can be developed to a high or low contrast index. It's all about how you develop the film. I have an increasingly low tolerance level for people that post nonsense about films or papers that they actually know nothing about. They expose and develop one film, or print one neg on one paper and don't do a very good job of it and announce to the world that the film or paper is no good.

If you are getting poor results from Ilford film the problem is with YOU and YOUR technique. Ilford film and paper is as good as it gets.

 

[dynachrome]

I found Plus-X to be snappier in bright light than FP-4(+). In less contrasty light I found it easier to get a good image with the FP-4(+).

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

If you're going to shoot tab films they should be pretty grainless. TMY4 is the superior film, and is a real technical marvel in many ways. That being said I shoot all Ilford for B&W. Kodak gets my money for their color films.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...TMY4 is the superior film, and is a real technical marvel in many ways...

What do you know that you're not telling us? If Eastman Kodak is about to release a new version of 400TMAX with that designation, skipping completely over TMY-3, it must be a real technical marvel. That would also provide some comfort to those who worry Kodak film might go extinct.

 

[Bill Burk]

I used Tmax 100 & 400 from when hey were released here in the UK until around 2007. great films. However I had issues finding Tmax films while living abroad so switch to Delta 100 & 400 and have no regrets.

It's a case of fine tuning development and exposure whatever films you shoot if you want the best results. Delta 400 isn't available as sheet film so I use Hp5 instead of Delta 100 when working hand held and it's a superb film.

Ian

Interesting, that makes TMAX-400 the obvious choice for 4x5 when high speed and clear definition are among the goals.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Interesting, that makes TMAX-400 the obvious choice for 4x5 when high speed and clear definition are among the goals.

i shoot mostly TMY-2 when shooting 4x5. It’s startlingly sharp and grain free at that size. The only time I’d shoot a lower speed is if I just had too much light. More often than not, by the time you factor in bellows and getting enough exposure for the shadows, you’re down in EI 125-160 territory, which is about right for studio work as you won’t have to have gobs of strobe to light it up, and also lets you have reasonable shutter speeds if shooting outside during the day.

I do have a box of fp4+ I’ve been meaning to get around to, but have been reserving it for really bright outdoors work.

 

[GLS]

I prefer TMY-2 to Delta 400 myself.

Delta 400 is still a good film, but I prefer the tonality and finer grain of TMY-2. It also seems to push better, although I don't do much of that.

 

[Ian Grant]

Interesting, that makes TMAX-400 the obvious choice for 4x5 when high speed and clear definition are among the goals.

One might initially assume so, however with no Kodak sheet film available I had no choice all I could get was HP5 and I've found the resulting prints (& scans) superb, and I really like the image quality I'm achieving in terms of sharpness, tonality etc. Of course with LF grain is unnoticeable anyway.

There is one good reason I wouldn't switch to Tmax 400 and that's because when I shot Tmax 100 (all formats) and Tmax 400 35mm &120 I had to shoot at half box speed to achieve the tonal range I require, so I'd lose a stop with 5x4 Tmax 400 @ EI200 compared to HP5 which I shoot mostly shoot at box speed =- 400 ISO. Shooting LF hand held I need to have as much speed as practical to achieve sharpness etc comparable to images made using a tripod, I'm often shooting where tripods are banned.

I process all my films in Pyrocat HD these days and Pyrocat & HP5 is a superb combination.

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ian,

I've found TMY-2 fine at '400' speed. It doesn't seem as sensitive in that area as TMX.

Tom

 

[Bill Burk]

Ian, you make a good point that available light handheld photography benefits from a traditional film.

Availability overrules other preferences. I am sure I could find a way to enjoy the benefits of either film.

 

[braxus]

What do you mean by "Ilford films often left me flat"?

If the negs you produced were "flat" that is because of your developing, it is not because of Ilford film. All Ilford films I've worked with for the last 40 years can be developed to a high or low contrast index. It's all about how you develop the film. I have an increasingly low tolerance level for people that post nonsense about films or papers that they actually know nothing about. They expose and develop one film, or print one neg on one paper and don't do a very good job of it and announce to the world that the film or paper is no good.

If you are getting poor results from Ilford film the problem is with YOU and YOUR technique. Ilford film and paper is as good as it gets.

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.

 

[MattKing]

I have a feeling that while braxus used "flat" to mean "uninspired", markbau took "flat" to mean the more commonly encountered meaning of "low in contrast".
Perhaps a difference between Australian and Canadian jargon?
Best of wishes to both of you in the New Year.

 

[braxus]

Thanks Matt. I certainly didn't expect the harsh post previous for mentioning my opinion.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Matt. I certainly didn't expect the harsh post previous for mentioning my opinion.

I don't think it was harsh. I think it reflected a misunderstanding of your meaning.
I see a lot of people (almost invariably new to using film) who talk about films like TMAX 400 or Delta 400 and refer to one film or another as lacking contrast. I think markbau misunderstood and thought you were amongst that group, and was just reacting to what he perceived as another example of what is fast becoming a common internet myth.

 

[braxus]

Well Im at the total mercy of the labs I've sent my films too, because I haven't developed my own film since 1993. I have no intentions of starting that up either. So this is where I get my opinions from. I've been watching a lot of YouTube videos showing samples, so this too is where I've seen my recent info from. My TV is 4K, so it shows the quality better. Yes it seems there was some misunderstandings. I dont' consider myself a hack, because I've been shooting film since 1978, and never stopped shooting film. I have a dedicated upright freezer just for my film stash.

 

[MattKing]

I've been watching a lot of YouTube videos showing samples, so this too is where I've seen my recent info from.

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm loath to take anything at face value about film characteristics from what appears on the internet - there are just so many undisclosed variables, and almost no-one shows you the negatives (or slides) themselves.
A case in point - I've recently been receiving email notifications about posts to two different photo blogs that deal with a lot of film related issues, and which feature contributions from lots of different people. Lots of "5 frames with..." and the like.
So much of what I see there appears to me to be way too contrasty, and have way too many dark, detail free shadows. The photographers shown quite regularly comment on those characteristics as being what they seek.
While those characteristics are fine if that is the result of an artistic choice, I consider them to usually be a disappointment.
It is very common to see photographers describing those characteristics as being inherent in the particular film they are using. I think that reflects a misunderstanding of the materials and the process.
From your posts, I know you use a good lab, and I'm sure you know how to appropriately instruct them with respect to the contrast you desire. I think markbau misunderstood from your use of the word "flat" that you did not know how to so instruct them.

 

[braxus]

Matt. You may know the lab I use. Its literally "The Lab" in Vancouver. As for variables, I use the internet as a starting point for info. Then I go on forums like this to confirm or deny what I have found out. Then lastly I make a decision and try out the films myself.

 

[Bill Burk]

braxus,

I didn't know you didn't develop your own.

A quick look at Massive Dev Chart tells me the developing time for Delta 400 is longer than the developing time for TMAX 400 in D-76 1:1 (14 minutes vs 10.25 minutes). So if your lab treats different films to the same developing time, you may have gotten lower contrast negatives from Delta 400 for a good reason.

If that's the scenario, I'd go with the path of least resistance and choose a film they can develop right.