Trying ILFORD DELTA 400 again

[miha]

I don’t think I’ve used Delta 400 since the 2001 update, which is kind of embarrassing, so I’m really looking forward to trying it again. I’ve read it’s not too picky with developers, so I’ll start with Foma Excel or Jobo Alpa, which is an Agfa Atomal clone, and maybe pick up some ID-11 too. I plan to wet print everything. For me, trying a new film or coming back to an old one is always exciting and gives me that extra motivation to get out and shoot. Anyone still using Delta 400 regularly ?

One roll already loaded ...

 

[jeffreyg]

I have been using it (120) as my main film with ID11 for many years.

 

[GregY]

For years I've used FP4+ in roll and sheet film. I was never happy with highlight separation with HP5. Always used Tri-X & TMY2. Since the USA election in Nov, I have stopped buying Kodak films and added Delta 100 & 400. Fine results in my normal developer Pyrocat HD, both in subdued light and in bright conditions.

 

[oxcanary]

I use it in the winter for FP4 like response with extra speed - both 35mm and 120.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Used it a few times in 120, developed in Barry Thornton's two bath developer. I'd probably use that combo more if Delta 400 was available in 4x5.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I do. In 120. I remember the days when I used it in 4x5. Always in XTol 1+1. Lovely film and I appreciated its extended red sensitivity. Usually I develop it in XTol 1+1, D-23 1+1, or more recently, PC-512 1+50.

 

[retina_restoration]

I’ve used Delta 400 a lot in the past five years. I switched to D400 when the Tmax films (120) exceeded $10 per roll here in the States. (Now it’s the opposite and unfortunately Delta 400 is typically $11 and up)

Delta 400 has some excellent attributes: crisp tonal separation throughout the scale, records shadow information very well, and tolerates moderate overexposure without blocking up the highlights. It works well in most developers, though I dislike how it responds to Rodinal (coarse, clumpy grain. See: example).

35mm sample images here and here, and here.

There’s a very good review of its characteristics here, and the reviewer’s assessment is in line with my own experience.
For those who don’t like how HP5+ renders soft/flat tones in the high values (including me), Delta 400 is the perfect alternative. It gives a much more crisp, finely detailed image that is distinctly different from HP5+.

 

[miha]

@retina_restoration Thanks for sharing these, you’ve really nailed how to get the most out of this film’s "character".

 

[retina_restoration]

@retina_restoration Thanks for sharing these, you’ve really nailed how to get the most out of this film’s "character".

You're welcome, and thank you. I find it by far one of the better films to work with, especially in 35mm where grain characteristics and tonality matter more than larger formats. (Though I use D-400 a lot in 120 format as well, and find it superb).

My only suggestion (and it may not apply to you) is avoid Rodinal and its kin. I find it far too hard on grain, and more importantly, some of the subtle tonal gradation D-400 is capable of may be lost.

 

[John Wiegerink]

You're welcome, and thank you. I find it by far one of the better films to work with, especially in 35mm where grain characteristics and tonality matter more than larger formats. (Though I use D-400 a lot in 120 format as well, and find it superb).

My only suggestion (and it may not apply to you) is avoid Rodinal and its kin. I find it far too hard on grain, and more importantly, some of the subtle tonal gradation D-400 is capable of may be lost.

Paul,
People always say that medium format can't touch 4X5 for quality, but your Medalist example is proof that it can come very, very close indeed. I love your rooty river shots and this one is one of the best of the bunch. Two thumbs up!

 

[Prest_400]

Using it, mostly in 120, as my "high tier" film. HP5 and K400 for general use.

My only suggestion (and it may not apply to you) is avoid Rodinal and its kin. I find it far too hard on grain, and more importantly, some of the subtle tonal gradation D-400 is capable of may be lost.

I've only used it in HC110 and XTOL/XT3. Standardised on the latter at 1+1.
Interestingly Ilford shows in their datasheet that at gbar 0.62 (bold value), D400 hits EI500. I just rate it at box speed.
And, oh wow, it is very grainy in your Rodinal example. After getting some so-so results of TMX in HC110 a few years back, I switched to XTOL equivalents for the tabular grain type films.

 

[aconbere]

I do. In 120. I remember the days when I used it in 4x5. Always in XTol 1+1. Lovely film and I appreciated its extended red sensitivity. Usually I develop it in XTol 1+1, D-23 1+1, or more recently, PC-512 1+50.

[SIDE QUEST] Do you have a dev time to add to the PC-512 times table? I processed a roll of Delta 400 for 8:25 yesterday and to my eye they came out just about perfect, but I’ve shot very little Delta 400! I came up with my time by looking at the proportional difference in dev times for HP5 in xtol 1:1 and PC-512 and then applying that to massive dev charts times for Delta 400. This gets pretty close to Graham’s reported times for rotary dev at 8:15.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

[SIDE QUEST] Do you have a dev time to add to the PC-512 times table? I processed a roll of Delta 400 for 8:25 yesterday and to my eye they came out just about perfect, but I’ve shot very little Delta 400! I came up with my time by looking at the proportional difference in dev times for HP5 in xtol 1:1 and PC-512 and then applying that to massive dev charts times for Delta 400. This gets pretty close to Graham’s reported times for rotary dev at 8:15.

I use 8 minutes at EI 250. Intermittent agitation, 5 sec each minute. 20C. Keep in mind, I like my negatives to have a DR of around 1.35-1.40.

 

[retina_restoration]

Paul,
People always say that medium format can't touch 4X5 for quality, but your Medalist example is proof that it can come very, very close indeed. I love your rooty river shots and this one is one of the best of the bunch. Two thumbs up!

Thanks.
I have a 13X19 inch print on the wall, made with Delta 400 film shot with the Medalist II and it comes very close to equivalent to prints from much larger formats. It helps that the Medalist Ektar lens (a Heliar design) is one of the best lenses for 6x9 you can get.

 

[retina_restoration]

Using it, mostly in 120, as my "high tier" film. HP5 and K400 for general use.


I've only used it in HC110 and XTOL/XT3. Standardised on the latter at 1+1.
Interestingly Ilford shows in their datasheet that at gbar 0.62 (bold value), D400 hits EI500. I just rate it at box speed.
And, oh wow, it is very grainy in your Rodinal example. After getting some so-so results of TMX in HC110 a few years back, I switched to XTOL equivalents for the tabular grain type films.

I find Xtol, XT-3, Mytol and FX-55 (all analogous ascorbate type developers) work beautifully with the Delta films.
And yes — I dislike how Rodinal was so brutal with the film in that photo. I was in a hurry and just wanted something convenient, so I grabbed the Rodinal, which I ended up regretting. (I rarely use it for anything other than sheet films, and even then I generally prefer something else)

 

[Paul Howell]

Paul,
People always say that medium format can't touch 4X5 for quality, but your Medalist example is proof that it can come very, very close indeed. I love your rooty river shots and this one is one of the best of the bunch. Two thumbs up!

With modern films, it is very easy to get a 16X20 with MF, in 6X7 and 6X9 really good. Even 6X4.5 can deliver the goods. Modern films have fine grain and with Delta 100 or Tmax 100 high resolution. I shoot 4X5 for the zone system and when I need to use camera movements, otherwise 6X9. I don't have a Medalist it has a great lens.

 

[jeffreyg]

As I mentioned it is my main film (120). Five years ago I had a couple of negatives enlarged to 5ft for an exhibition and they came out great especially having been scanned with an Epson 850. Very sharp and no issues with grain.

 

[John Wiegerink]

As I mentioned it is my main film (120). Five years ago I had a couple of negatives enlarged to 5ft for an exhibition and they came out great especially having been scanned with an Epson 850. Very sharp and no issues with grain.

How close did you have to get to the 5ft exhibition print before you noticed grain? 5ft is a good size print from 120 film and like you said, especially from an Epson 850. I'm always happy just to be able to get very nice 16X20 inch print from 6X6, 6X7 or 6X9 negatives.

 

[jeffreyg]

I viewed from a few feet away as most attending the exhibition did. The enlarged photographs were at the request and supervision of the curator/gallery owner. I had about thirty images including 16x20 and 11x14 silver prints, 4x5 and 7x7 platinum/palladium and a couple of digital prints. The selections were up to the curator an award winning photojournalist including a Pulitzer and one of the photographers featured in a HBO documentary “ENDANGERED. The exhibition was sponsored by grants from several organisations. One of the silver images was purchased by a highly regarded art critic. It was the first time I had such large pieces in an exhibition. In other exhibitions the largest pieces were 16x20s.

 

[abruzzi]

I'd consider using it if it was available in sheet film sizes. I use (and like) Delta 100 in sheets, but I've never seen D400 in sheet sizes, sadly. I'm sure Ilford has a reason, but instead I use other 400 speed films, or just deal with the longer exposure times that ISO100 forces.