TMAX Vs Delta... Whats the difference?

NathanBell · Mar 6, 2008

Newbie question here...
I have used both TMAX (100 & the old 400) and also Delta 400 35mm roll film, and dont really see much of a difference.
I have been develloping both with the same chemicals (TMAX Dev, Ilford Rapid Fixer and Kodak Hypo and rinse aid) and apart from slight dev time differences, they both appear about the same to my (untrained) eyes...

What is the difference between the 2?
Is 1 better than another for certain conditions?
Why would you choose 1 over the other? (excluding cost)

I'm trying to decide which film to commit to using long term as I think using different types may slow my learning down untill I fully understand each different film.

PhotoJim · Mar 6, 2008

Very short and slightly over-general:

Delta films are slightly grainier.
Delta films have slightly better tonality.
Delta films are slightly more forgiving of processing errors.

There are more similarities than differences, but the films are not identical.

Stick with one. Get to know it well. Try the other in earnest once you have mastered the first.

IloveTLRs · Mar 6, 2008

My personal view of Ilford is that it's very contrasty and has an "old" look to it (ISO 100.)
TMAX (done in TMAX developer) is very silky and smooth (100 & 400.)

Just my ¥2

Mahler_one · Mar 6, 2008

Interesting question raised by Nathan, and one that has been discussed in various forums for as long as there has been film.....Do the various qualities ascribed to the films in question translate into any easily noticed differences in the prints made from each? Same scene, same negative density achieved via correct development, "correct" exposures and development during printing....you get the drift...a given film in one's hands might be easier to use in whatever "system" one is using, but one wonders if the prints would look any different...simply asking...

Ed

jp80874 · Mar 6, 2008

If you continue not to see a difference as your work improves, consider the stance of the companies producing the film and related products. This subject has also been hashed before, but many of us feel that Kodak has forsaken film photography with one or two exceptions. Ilford has come back from bankruptcy and shown every sign of support to film photography that will continue to make them profitable. They won't stay in business if they don't make a profit. Both companies made good film related products. Kodak has dropped many of them to go digital. Ilford has added many new ones including buying Kentmere an excellent photo paper provider. It is your decision. I have made mine.

John Powers

NathanBell · Mar 6, 2008

Thanks guys!
Basically, I wanst sure which one to learn on first...
I think I'll go with Ilford simply because I can bulk buy in lots of 50 from B&H, where I dont think you have that option with TMAX...
Also your right John, I prefer to give my support to those who consistantly support us.
I'll learn and understand Ilford films, and then try the TMAX again and see the differences...
Thanks for your feedback!

cotdt · Mar 6, 2008

the films have slightly different red sensitivities. i've read that as men grow older, they become less sensitive for red. so i would say TMAX is for old people and DELTA is for the younger boys.

NathanBell · Mar 6, 2008

Delta it is!

Mahler_one · Mar 6, 2008

Well, I can still see Red....and I venture to say that I might be the oldest on this thread :}......

Stay well.

ed

Photo Engineer · Mar 6, 2008

They are like two good orchestras playing different arrangements of the same piece of music. Same but different and both good.

PE

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Mar 6, 2008

Tabular for TMAX and Epitaxial for Delta, did I get it right?

23mjm · Mar 6, 2008

TASTE GREAT-----------------------------------------------------------------LESS FILLING

Graham.b · Mar 6, 2008

I have to go go with Kodak, i have had many a better result, as pointed a very smooth finish, and on Kentmere K,
great finish, IMHO any way.

Graham

cotdt · Mar 6, 2008

mhv said:
Tabular for TMAX and Epitaxial for Delta, did I get it right?

i thought both were tabular?

David A. Goldfarb · Mar 7, 2008

Spectral sensitivity is definitely different. Delta looks more like a traditional B&W film, and TMax looks more like B&W video in this regard.

Personally, I prefer Delta 400 to TMax 400, but I like TMax 100 (because it's so sharp) better than Delta 100 (because the tonality is kind of bottom heavy to my eye), that is when I'm not using Tri-X or Efke 100 or FP-4+, which are my main films of late. If Delta 400 were available in sheet sizes, I'd use a lot more of it.

Uhner · Mar 7, 2008

Tmax have better reciprocity characteristics than Delta films. Even so, the only film of the bunch that I have used to any extent is Delta 100.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Mar 7, 2008

cotdt said:
i thought both were tabular?

Best thread I could find on the subject:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Actually, if I understand correctly, you could have epitaxy on either a cubic or a tabular grain.

TMAX Vs Delta... Whats the difference?

NathanBell

PhotoJim

IloveTLRs

Mahler_one

jp80874

NathanBell

cotdt

NathanBell

Mahler_one

Photo Engineer

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

23mjm

Graham.b

cotdt

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Uhner

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

TMAX Vs Delta... Whats the difference?

Membership Council

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency