What do I do w/ Ilford Delta 100?

[Paul Howell]

I like the tones, seems to a bit less contrastrey than Tmax 100, I've shot a couple of rolls in the dark ages, maybe 80s when it was released, just never took time to find the right film developer combo, I think you can push tamx to 400 while Ilford data sheet Delta 100 should not be pushed past 200. Tmax has very high resolution, I don't see a posted resolution for Delta.

KODAK PROFESSIONAL Film Resolving Power* Diffuse rms Granularity† T-MAX 100 63 lines/mm (TOC 1.6:1) 8 200 lines/mm (TOC 1000:1)

 

[RalphLambrecht]

In my life I've shot exactly one roll of this, but after printing one of those negs yesterday, I'm wondering why I didn't keep shooting it? It looks like a very sharp film. Any ideas on what ISO to shoot it at, or what it likes for a developer? I have several, but would like to use the D76 before it goes off, unless that's a poor choice. This 1 roll cost $11+ to buy and have delivered, which is pretty scary. I must say though, the box is very attractive!

Ishoot t at ISO64 an develop in D76 1+1@20 ℃;excellent film!

 

[Lachlan Young]

I like the tones, seems to a bit less contrastrey than Tmax 100, I've shot a couple of rolls in the dark ages, maybe 80s when it was released, just never took time to find the right film developer combo, I think you can push tamx to 400 while Ilford data sheet Delta 100 should not be pushed past 200. Tmax has very high resolution, I don't see a posted resolution for Delta.

KODAK PROFESSIONAL Film Resolving Power* Diffuse rms Granularity† T-MAX 100 63 lines/mm (TOC 1.6:1) 8 200 lines/mm (TOC 1000:1)

In many developers, TMX-100 and Delta 100 have very, very similar characteristic curves - if you expose them relative to their slight differences in shadow speed in some of those developers. The nominal 'push' densities are not that different - it's just what EI Kodak and Ilford decide to recommend for a given CI/ G-Bar that differs. TMX may have slightly more resolution and slightly lower visual granularity than Delta 100, but Delta 100 seems a little sharper and a hair faster in shadow speed with less variance in curve shape between certain developers - but at a cost of slightly higher visual granularity - the information capacity outcomes for both films are likely very close to identical.

 

[Jon Buffington]

Love Delta 100 (and 400 as well).

Leica M5, lowly 90/4 elmar, deep yellow/orange filter, d100, d76 1:1

 

[removed account4]

In my life I've shot exactly one roll of this, but after printing one of those negs yesterday, I'm wondering why I didn't keep shooting it? It looks like a very sharp film. Any ideas on what ISO to shoot it at, or what it likes for a developer? I have several

It’s great film and I’m sure it will love any developer it takes a bath in

This also allows them to sell repackaged Kentmere as Ultrafine Xtreme and simultaneously claim that "no ILFORD film has ever been rebranded.

.
not really.
i'm not a branding expert either but know that rebranding was one of the things that caused ilford’s bankruptcy
I miss the days when you could buy a100 sheet box of “made in England “ film from photo warehouse for $35 when Kodak was $70 and ilford was like $60. Paper too…

 

[foc]

“made in England “ film from photo warehouse for $35 when Kodak was $70 and ilford was like $60. Paper too…

I wonder was that part of the reason for the bankruptcy ( I am sure it was more complicated) selling rebranded for nearly half price. Not enough profit margin.

I like the idea that they now sell their high-quality branded film at a branded price. They then sell a rebranded/rejigged film emulsion at a lower price. Supermarkets do it all the time with their own brand, the basic and the deluxe version.

For example, imagine I am Joe Bloggs and I want to buy some B&W film. Ilford HP5+ is € X.OO and Kentmere 400 is € Y.OO. Both have Harman technology on the box. I have heard of Ilford before but who is this Kentmere. Well they must be good as they seem to be made by the same company as Ilford.

One brand reinforces the other and the lower price product looks very competitive.

So I get quality and good price. What is not to like?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Rule of thumb for these films I use is if it's T-Grain (Delta or TMax) use a general purpose developer, like D76 or XTol. If it's traditional grained, it may be worth trying Pyro or other specialized developers. If it's sheet film of any kind, back to D76 or XTol.

 

[removed account4]

I wonder was that part of the reason for the bankruptcy ( I am sure it was more complicated) selling rebranded for nearly half price. Not enough profit margin.

https://www.largeformatphotography....hp?11217-Forte-Efke-J-C-Freestyle-100-200-400
lots of buying cheep and selling volumes cheeper going on. from what I heard people who know much more than me
suggest it was a factor maybe not a huge factor but im sure a re-seller selling film for half or less than half of what they sold it for isn't very good for business...

 

[MattKing]

A huge proportion of the retail cost of film comes from factors other than the manufacturing cost of the master rolls.
For that reason, I'd suggest that a bankruptcy couldn't be attributed to something as simple as too many sales for re-branding.
The bankruptcy happened at a time where the film photography world was in disarray, due to plunging volumes.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Barry Thornton was fond of diluted perceptol for films. Not sure how well it works with Delta 100.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I’d love for them to get rid of that stupid, pointless Harman strip at the bottom.
Ilfords packaging was perfection before that.

I don’t care about Harman or what they are (I know exactly what they are).
The brand I care about is Ilford.
Why do they feel the need to push two brands?
Are they planning on doing something with the Harman brand?
Seems schizophrenic.

And oh yeah. Delta is great in XTOL 1:1, Rodinal 50 and D76.
I really have a hard time telling them apart.
Just amazing film. Quite different from its competitor TMX too.

Which Tmax? How is it different?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

@jimjm I never tried large format, and keep forgetting to ask: why do you guys ever bother with slow films? I mean their primary advantage is small grain, but do you really care about grain at 8x10? Thanks!

The reason for wanting slow films with large/ultra-large format is that you sometimes want to use those giant old fast-aperture portrait lenses that don't have a built-in shutter and are too big for use with anything other than a Packard shutter or a lens cap. When the fastest reliable exposure control is 1/30th of a second, and the next fastest is 1 second plus, you NEED slow films or you end up with negatives whose highlights are completely blown out and shadows are blocked up. Or so dense that they're not even good for salt or albumen printing.

 

[Helge]

Which Tmax? How is it different?

Well, if I have to put words on it, Delta has a bit more tooth. Is a tad more traditional in it’s looks.
TMX (as opposed to TMY is all velvety in developers that play to its strengths. Not only in lack of grain and MTF curve, but also tonally (I know they are connected. But I’m talking impressions here).

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

The reason for wanting slow films with large/ultra-large format is that you sometimes want to use those giant old fast-aperture portrait lenses that don't have a built-in shutter and are too big for use with anything other than a Packard shutter or a lens cap. When the fastest reliable exposure control is 1/30th of a second, and the next fastest is 1 second plus, you NEED slow films or you end up with negatives whose highlights are completely blown out and shadows are blocked up. Or so dense that they're not even good for salt or albumen printing.

Contrast also.

 

[MatthewDunn]

Rule of thumb for these films I use is ... If it's sheet film of any kind, back to D76 or XTol.

Why is that the rule? I'm not at all disagreeing, but just wondering what the motivation for the rule is, as I "anecdotally" would have thought that not to be the case (I would have probably guessed sheet film = some pyro variant). As I begin my journey into LF, just trying to learn more.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Why is that the rule? I'm not at all disagreeing, but just wondering what the motivation for the rule is, as I "anecdotally" would have thought that not to be the case (I would have probably guessed sheet film = some pyro variant). As I begin my journey into LF, just trying to learn more.

All opinions will vary to some extent and it's definitely true that lots of LF folks use Pyro. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so, as the pyro developers are fantastic. In my experience however I don't see the advantage over XTol or D76. You're already in a world of grainless images with fine detail. I'm guessing the largest most photographers go is 16x20 or 20x24, and for sheet film this is not really pushing the envelope. When it comes to a particular response re contrast then it's really don't to the individual photographer to choose a developer that suits. However when it comes to reducing grain or increasing contrast you have various stocks that will go farther than developers can. You can go from HP5 to FP4 or Delta 100, similarly if you need the speed but still want to minimize grain there is TMax 400.

On the other hand if you have a Hasselblad and you want to make a 20x20' print, you can take your negative a lot farther by using a pyro staining or otherwise high acutance developer or technique. It's in those circumstances where IMHO you see the big difference. Despite saying that, if you have times that work for you for 120 let's say FP4+, the sheet film times are probably not far off, so I can see just sticking with them even if it's not strictly necessary from an image quality perspective. At the end of the day we all find our own preferences. Many people, I suspect, simply enjoy trying something different. Nothing wrong with that!

 

[MatthewDunn]

All opinions will vary to some extent and it's definitely true that lots of LF folks use Pyro. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so, as the pyro developers are fantastic. In my experience however I don't see the advantage over XTol or D76. You're already in a world of grainless images with fine detail. I'm guessing the largest most photographers go is 16x20 or 20x24, and for sheet film this is not really pushing the envelope. When it comes to a particular response re contrast then it's really don't to the individual photographer to choose a developer that suits. However when it comes to reducing grain or increasing contrast you have various stocks that will go farther than developers can. You can go from HP5 to FP4 or Delta 100, similarly if you need the speed but still want to minimize grain there is TMax 400.

On the other hand if you have a Hasselblad and you want to make a 20x20' print, you can take your negative a lot farther by using a pyro staining or otherwise high acutance developer or technique. It's in those circumstances where IMHO you see the big difference. Despite saying that, if you have times that work for you for 120 let's say FP4+, the sheet film times are probably not far off, so I can see just sticking with them even if it's not strictly necessary from an image quality perspective. At the end of the day we all find our own preferences. Many people, I suspect, simply enjoy trying something different. Nothing wrong with that!

Awesome answer. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@MatthewDunn There are no benefits to staining or many claimed 'high acutance' developers than cannot be achieved or bettered via the application of pretty basic process controls and conventional developers in the D-76/ Xtol/ Perceptol direction. Many modern emulsions actually benefit from a degree of solvency to maximise real MTF sharpness.

 

[Craig]

Some of the best tones I have ever achieved are from Delta 100 in Xtol. It's a great combination. Use it at box speed and follow Ilford's recommended development time.

 

[Geoff Bartlett]

Not my favourite film as I find it "too perfect", if that makes sense. But when I have used it, ID-11 and box speed as others say.

"Too perfect" is sort of my conclusion, and also too close to FP4+. But, I am still trying to find my perfectly imperfect film. Perhaps I need to look at the printing more.

I don't understand the anger at the Harman sub-branding..

Yep, seems most of the responses are an argument about branding strategies that I don't understand or see as relevant.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

I have Delta 100 only used with Rodinal 1+50 and ID-11 1+3. I like Rodinal more, but in general I do like FP4+ more.

 

[Geoff Bartlett]

I have Delta 100 only used with Rodinal 1+50 and ID-11 1+3. I like Rodinal more, but in general I do like FP4+ more.

Is there any difference to the negative with more dilute developer and longer develop times?

 

[Mark Minard]

In my life I've shot exactly one roll of this, but after printing one of those negs yesterday, I'm wondering why I didn't keep shooting it? It looks like a very sharp film.

This is the film that for me made the demise of Plus-X a little easier to bear.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The Delta films in D-76 1:1 are a great combination. I use both D100 and D400, and expose them at 64ASA and 250 ASA, respectively.

+1

 

[relistan]

Is there any difference to the negative with more dilute developer and longer develop times?

With a solvent developer like D-76 there definitely is. You get less sulfite with more dilution, so less solvent effect, so different grain. Grainier and sharper. Because Delta 100 has such fine grain this trade off is often a nice result. That said, I like it in XTOL stock.