TMAX 400 vs Delta 400

[138S]

I take the same chips and tape them to the spotmeter.

OK, this is the straight way to do things

 

[DREW WILEY]

Around and around we go! Quite a few good points, but quite a bit of predictable nonsense too. For example, "grainy vs smooth" films. It's all relative to how the film is specifically developed and the degree of magnification. A 16x20 print made from an allegedly grainy film in 8x10 format might look completely "smooth", whereas a finer-grained piece of med format film enlarged to the same size might be conspicuously grainy, or maybe not. There are all kinds of variables. A painter in front of a bare canvas is not likely to work with a single brush and single pigment. Let's be grateful for choices.

 

[Bill Burk]

Haa. Drew when I talk of relative graininess of Tri-X vs TMAX-400 I am literally thinking of what Panatomic-X in 35mm looks like when enlarged to 11x14. Equal or beat that and I am happy. I have to double check, but I think 4x5 TMAX-400 has the edge over 4x5 Tri-X here. If I am wrong I will let you know.

 

[Bill Burk]

p.s. Remember when you helped @Jarin Blaschke with “The Lighthouse”?

It’s discussions like these that make a real creative difference in projects we may have brewing...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi Bill. I have a schizophrenic attitude toward TMY. I love its combinations of speed, great linearity, high acutance, and almost grainless look for large format work, i.e., modest magnification. But snapshooting 35mm, I generally want a bit of grain and rusticity showing, so use TMY for the opposite reason. With 6x7 or 6x9, I sometimes choose it when handshooting is necessary, like in a windy mountain storm where tripod use would be not be practical, but generally defer to a tripod and finer grain if possible, using TMX100, ACROS, and previously, Efke 25. I choose Tri-X only for projects when I specifically want its own special look, which happens rarely; I don't ordinarily bring it along. But it sure is nice to have so many flavors of ice cream to choose from, including Pan F in 35mm and 120 (very short scale with "wire sharpness), and FP4 and HP5 in LF, and gosh knows how many films of the past. My favorite 8X10 film of all time was Bergger 200; but it was too grainy in my opinion for even 4x5 use. It's a dream to print from - longer scale than even TMax products, reminiscent of good ole Super XX, but not quite that grainy.

 

[Russ - SVP]

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.

I tried both emulsions when they came out. I immediately went with the Delta offerings. The T-Max negs always looked flat to me. I'm sure that development has a lot to do with the end results. However, I recently gave T-Max 400 another chance, and was quite pleased with the results. The attached snaps show sample images from each one. Straight scans from the neg's. No post processing.

Delta 100

Delta 400

T-Max 400

Delta 400

 

[ericdan]

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.

I generally agree with this. If a certain film looks too contrasts just reduce developing time and vice versa if it’s too “flat”. Unfortunately this didn’t work for me with Delta3200. Recommenced times are 9 mins in Microphen 1:1. I kept on extending the dev time to get some contrast and it just didn’t work. That is a really flat film. I ended up developing for 20 mins exposed at EI3200 and still had flat images but a lot of grain from the long dev time. I wouldn’t be surprised if Delta400 behaves the same.
That being said a lot of people like the tonality of Ilford films. Matter of taste.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The problem is that you're skating largely on the toe. It does have a fairly long toe. I shoot Delta 3200 at 800 and develop it in PMK pyro. Very nice gradation; full contrast - no problem, reasonable dev times. There is no such thing as an "Ilford tonality", generically. They make a variety of black and white films which differ significantly from one another. Otherwise, what's the point of even offering a selection? No manufacturer is that dumb. Nor is there a "Kodak look".

 

[Lachlan Young]

People get themselves in a mess with Delta 3200 because the shadow gradient is punchy - for example, developed to G-bar of about 0.6-0.62, it has a shadow gradient more like regular Tri-X developed to about a CI of 0.7, yet with a highlight gradient softer than Tri-X developed to 0.6. In other words it's designed so you can underexpose it a stop relative to design ISO without the denser highlights that usually come with pushing etc - especially in stage or night conditions where you don't want opened shadows but need to keep highlights looking nice. The problem you can end up with is that to get a softer shadow, you may end up reducing highlight contrast far more than you expected. Once you understand how to work with this, it gets considerably easier to utilise!

 

[DREW WILEY]

TMZ is analogous in that respect, with a tweaked curve at least : marketed as 3200, but their own Tech Sheet says it's really 1000. I'd far rather use TMY at 800 and just sacrifice a stop. Delta 3200 is much more forgiving in exp than TMY - nice when suddenly pulling my Texas Leica out from under a raincoat on a rainy day and getting a fast shot. But with the steep toe of TMY, it's wise to meter every single shot.

 

[Bormental]

Ahhhrrr.. The OP never posted back the results from his rainy walk with the Delta...

When I got back to shooting film after a 20 year break, I'd spent some time researching B&W films online and concluded that T-Max films are the state of the art, and HP5+ is the artsy choice. And that's what I started with. Have to admit, I was a bit disappointed with the results from both films (developed in Xtol by a local lab or in DD-X by myself). HP5+ looked grey and flat (sure you can increase contrast, but then it gets grainy) and T-Max 400 looked "digital", yes I instantly understood what people meant when they say it. Smooth and devoid of any specific "look", exactly like a de-saturated DSLR color photo. Sure, I could morph it into anything I wanted in Photoshop after scanning, but I was ALREADY doing that with my digital B&W.

And then I tried Delta films. Both 100 and 400 versions blew me away. It's hard to describe the feeling, but they do have their own characteristic look, which is always seen through my (sometimes heavy) post-processing. When I go through my film photos, I usually instantly recognize Delta scans vs others. I think that TMY is a technically superior film, but digital capture exists for those who want perfection. I expect a B&W film to deliver something special, a defect if you will. Delta makes me fantasize by looking around and seeing the world through "Delta lens". TMY does not.

I eventually "re-discovered" HP5+ too, BTW. Turns out, I was using the wrong developer for it (DD-X). HP5+ delivers its own very unique look when developed in ID-11 (or D76), and I am now in love with that film too.

All of this is subjective, of course.

 

[radiant]

I think this test is interesting:

https://carmencitafilmlab.com/kodak-400tx-vs-400-t-max/

-2 exposure doesn't seem to affect the image in any harmless ways. Actually it is hard to even see any differences.

 

[Andrew Kleinfeld]

I disliked both when they came out. Flat to the point of muddiness even with a little boost in development. But recently I tried them again in Rodinal, and they both look great.

 

[pentaxuser]

I disliked both when they came out. Flat to the point of muddiness even with a little boost in development. But recently I tried them again in Rodinal, and they both look great.

So the muddiness is still there for you in both films except for Rodinal which eliminates this muddiness? What was/were your original developers?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[warden]

Ahhhrrr.. The OP never posted back the results from his rainy walk with the Delta...

Maybe your post will spur him on. In the meantime it would be great to see some of the images that you made when you were comparing the films If you have them available to share.

 

[Bormental]

Maybe your post will spur him on. In the meantime it would be great to see some of the images that you made when you were comparing the films If you have them available to share.

Happy to!
Sorry for the slight variation in sepia tint.

HP5+ in DD-X (hate this look)

HP5+ in ID-11 (love this look)

Delta-400 in ID-11

Delta-400 in DD-X

Delta-400 in DD-X (1:9 dilution)

Delta-100 in DD-X

T-Max 400 in Xtol ("digital" look)

T-Max 400 in Xtol ("digital" look)

 

[radiant]

HP5+ in ID-11 (love this look)

Wow! I need to try this. How did you expose & develop this?

ps. Thanks for posting examples, there is too little photos around here I think!

 

[Bormental]

No prob. That one was "by the book": Leica M6-TTL meter (no recomposing, center-weighted) and developed according to HP5+ data sheet: 7 minutes 30 seconds in ID-11 at 68F/20C in a Paterson tank. Ilford-recommended agitation: 4 full inversions in the beginning, plus 4 more every minute. Drained the developer 10 seconds before time ran out, 15 seconds Ilfostop, followed by 4:30 of rapid fixer, also Ilford's.

 

[radiant]

No prob. That one was "by the book": Leica M6-TTL meter (no recomposing, center-weighted) and developed according to HP5+ data sheet: 7 minutes 30 seconds in ID-11 at 68F/20C in a Paterson tank. Ilford-recommended agitation: 4 full inversions in the beginning, plus 4 more every minute. Drained the developer 10 seconds before time ran out, 15 seconds Ilfostop, followed by 4:30 of rapid fixer, also Ilford's.

I amazed, there is no sign of that HP5 @ 400 flat look. I was 100% sure this was pushed to 800 or something to get more punch.

 

[pentaxuser]

So is there an ID11 look that is unique to that developer and cannot be found in DDX? I prefer the ID 11 look as well in the shot of the policeman compared to the water and cranes but I wonder if DDX might have also given the same look I like of the policeman?

pentaxuser

 

[markbau]

I amazed, there is no sign of that HP5 @ 400 flat look. I was 100% sure this was pushed to 800 or something to get more punch.

What do you actually mean by "HP5@400 flat look"? The neg was obviously well exposed and printed competently. Maybe you need to look at how you are developing HP5 before making silly comments about HP5 having a "flat look".

 

[miha]

@markbau: Most probably scanned, not printed.

 

[warden]

Happy to!
Sorry for the slight variation in sepia tint.

No apologies necessary, I appreciate the time you spent sharing these!

HP5+ in DD-X (hate this look)
I don't like it either actually, but I think it's more the lighting than the film/developer combination. Due to conditions you have an image histogram crowded to the bright end with little punch. I do like the clever poses, nicely seen.

HP5+ in ID-11 (love this look)
(Police officer)
Now we're talkin'! I like the skin tones and overall tonality too, but again I think it's 95% you, and 5% film/developer. The illumination is soft and flattering and you nailed the exposure. There is a natural balance of light and dark tones here too that make the image work. I think any of the films you used would have worked well with this image.


Delta-100 in DD-X
(The old Ford pickup)
Another image that would look good with any of the films you're testing in my opinion.


T-Max 400 in Xtol ("digital" look)
I get what you're saying here. Sometimes T-Max films make it look like you're shooting a format larger than you are because of the smoothness and sharp appearance of the film, especially if you have a lot of clear sky, smooth/glossy surfaces, contrasty edges, etc. Some see "digital" while I see larger format. It is what it is.

For reference all of the litter images in my gallery were made with T-Max400 and Xtol. On the brightest days I developed 1+1 to protect the hi-lights and on less bright days I developed straight. I tested against Tri-X and either could have worked but T-Max won out once I made the prints.

One thing I'd suggest (I know we're getting off topic a bit) is to test your film choices with a consistent subject matter if you can. If you're about to make a series of indoor dog pics test your film candidates on your dog indoors, not bridges under a bright sky. One less variable. But if you're looking for an "everything, all the time" film choice, well good luck - I couldn't choose. ;-)

Thanks for sharing!

 

[GarageBoy]

I think people are wrongly attributing different characteristics to the film and developer (and time/temp)
I hate when I read film reviews on blogs that goes - "I shot tri x at 1600 (in daylight) - and it's a wonderfully punchy film)" - then, they recommend for or against based on it being pushed
Also, isn't the "flatness" of tmy-2 a feature ? (That nice linear curve) Need more contrast, up a grade of paper?

 

[Bormental]

I agree 100% with those who said that light matters and using a single photo is not how we should form our opinions on films or film+developer combinations. However, HP5+ in DD-X did not work for me across several weeks of varying lighting conditions and 3 rolls of film. The photo above (woman and cranes) was taken on a bright sunny day. Here's a couple of other HP5+ in DD-X photos taken at different times, under overcast or evening light:

Evening, not quite "golden hour" but cloudy and interesting overall, but not visible in this photo:

Heavy overcast day, extremely flat light:

Something is off, in my opinion, because all 3 photos taken under different light look so similar. I need to re-evaluate how I develop HP5+ in DD-X. I will start deviating from Ilford's recommendations, because I know what this film is capable of and I much prefer liquid developers as opposed to powder like ID-11.

Speaking of another interesting film with unusual look. It's crazy bad and awesome at the same time! Take a look at Fomapan 100 and 400 developed in DD-X from the yesterday's rolls. I think these two Fomas look very similar and I did not touch contrast in post, I swear! Development time was taken from the Massive Dev Chart.

Foma 100

Foma 400, I find this look to be the same as 100, just a bit grainier:

Foma 100 again: