Who else would love to see Delta 400 in 4x5 sheets?

[John Wiegerink]

This one puzzles me! I just can't understand Ilford not offering Delta 400 in sheet film. They do Delta 100, but not Delta 400. I love Delta 100 in 35mm and 120, but if I had my choice in 4x5 size I'd pick Delta 400 every time. I guess some things just weren't meant to be.

 

[kb244]

Question is, how would delta 400 look in 4x5 overall at that size? Would it appear the same as delta 100 on 35mm... or would it just be different?

 

[jeffreyg]

While I use HP5 for 4x5, I would like to see Delta 400 in 4x5. I think it was once available in 4x5 and as I recall I used it until it was discontinued in that size.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Ian Grant]

It was once made in sheet film sizes but was withdrawn due to low sales and also it's affect on the market for HP5. Sales of 400 ISO LF films have always been much lower than 100 ISO films, most LF work is tripod based and rarely moving subjects so fast films are less important

I like Delta 100 & 400 in 120 however I've found that 5x4 HP5 developed in Pyrocat HD is outstanding and I wouldn't switch now. I do shoot LF hand-held and sometimes moving subjects I'm glad we still have LF HP5. It's unlikely that Kodak will continue to make both Tri-X and Tmax 400 as LF sheet films for much longer.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

It's unlikely that Kodak will continue to make both Tri-X and Delta 400 as LF sheet films for much longer.

???

 

[Ian Grant]

Freudian slip Matt I meant Tmax 400

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am happy with HP5+ at ISO 400, but I wish there was Tri-X 400 in 4"x5". The grain of the HP5+ is fine enough for me, so I would not use a tabular grain sheet film.

 

[kb244]

Freudian slip Matt I meant Tmax 400

Ian

When I still had my crown graphic 4x5 (how I miss it...) I preferred Tri-X Pro 320.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I read somewhere that the introduction of Delta 400 in sheets could hurt the sale of HP5 sheet film.

 

[Ian Grant]

I read somewhere that the introduction of Delta 400 in sheets could hurt the sale of HP5 sheet film.

Simon Galley stated that was the case here on APUG, but we heard the same on an Ilford factory tour a few years before.

Ian

 

[John Wiegerink]

Not me. Delta 100 is a wonderful film but in 400 speed I would say TMY-2 is far superior to Delta 400.

Better, maybe............,but far superior is a very big stretch. I think Delta 400 looks great in 120. So it would probably make me happy in 4x5 also. I really like TMY2 also, but I'm just not going to pay the difference when Delta 100, HP5+ and FP4+ are so good and cheaper to boot. Still, I think Delta 400 would be very nice in 4x5 - 8x10 sizes.

 

[John Wiegerink]

You're right far superior was a poor choice of words, though I would still call TMY-2 superior and essentially peerless in its speed category. It has extremely long straight lined sensitometry, and grain about as fine as Delta 100.

If I were choosing an Ilford 400 speed film in 4x5 I'd be happy with HP5. I don't think Delta 400 is different enough.

Yes, HP5+ is just plain excellent in 4x5 and not toooooo shabby in 120 either. I do prefer FP4+ in 120 a little more, but I'm starting to use more Delta 100 in 120 too! I have said this before and I'll say it again........TMY2 is the best 400 speed film available to date. I just don't use it very often anymore.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

You're right far superior was a poor choice of words, though I would still call TMY-2 superior and essentially peerless in its speed category. It has extremely long straight lined sensitometry, and grain about as fine as Delta 100.

If I were choosing an Ilford 400 speed film in 4x5 I'd be happy with HP5. I don't think Delta 400 is different enough.

Well, it does have way more red sensitivity than HP5+...

 

[Craig]

I'd like to see Ilford do Delta 400 in sheets, maybe as part of the ULF program as a once a year thing. Although thinking about it, it would be a different support for sheets over rolls, so probably quite a lot of work to. For 400 speed I will stick to HP5 in the meantime.

 

[Harry Stevens]

I would like some Kentmere 400 in 120.

 

[Harry Stevens]

Sorry double post.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Sorry double post.

Try Ultrafine Xtreme 400 in 120 if you want Kentmere 400 in 120.

 

[hired goon]

I don't know what it is for me, but while I love delta 100 in sheets, and rollfilm, I'm not a fan of delta 400 in any form. I much prefer hp5 as a faster film. I don't find delta 400 to simply be a faster version of delta 100, although I originally assumed this. It's different. Somehow. Duller. Negatives are thinner. It could be me. Please tell me I'm wrong, and I will try it again. I didn't like it. Believe me, I want to love it.

Now, if a vote could be cast for an expanded line extension of their films, I would much prefer panf 50 in sheet film. I'd also like to see it on their ULF offerings. I'd buy a heck of a lot more slower film for my older cameras. Some of the stuff that they offer in that program for older cameras only appears as HP5, and really makes little sense at that speed, but I buy it because unless I can slit it myself from something else, there's no other alternative.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I don't know what it is for me, but while I love delta 100 in sheets, and rollfilm, I'm not a fan of delta 400 in any form. I much prefer hp5 as a faster film. I don't find delta 400 to simply be a faster version of delta 100, although I originally assumed this. It's different. Somehow. Duller. Negatives are thinner. It could be me. Please tell me I'm wrong, and I will try it again. I didn't like it. Believe me, I want to love it.

Now, if a vote could be cast for an expanded line extension of their films, I would much prefer panf 50 in sheet film. I'd also like to see it on their ULF offerings. I'd buy a heck of a lot more slower film for my older cameras. Some of the stuff that they offer in that program for older cameras only appears as HP5, and really makes little sense at that speed, but I buy it because unless I can slit it myself from something else, there's no other alternative.

Delta 100 & HP5+ have closer curve shapes to each other - and FP4+ & Delta 400 have a similar relationship.

You'll have a hard time with Pan-F in anything approaching contrasty light - it's got a contrasty curve designed in (short toe & quite a short straight line section), & there's only so much you can do about it. Try Ortho+ in dilute PQ Universal if you want to wipe speed off fast - an EI of 25 is what Ilford say it has in that combination... If you're sensible (& that means a Y2 filter when appropriate) it'll do most things pan films will.

 

[hired goon]

Delta 100 & HP5+ have closer curve shapes to each other - and FP4+ & Delta 400 have a similar relationship.

You'll have a hard time with Pan-F in anything approaching contrasty light - it's got a contrasty curve designed in (short toe & quite a short straight line section), & there's only so much you can do about it. Try Ortho+ in dilute PQ Universal if you want to wipe speed off fast - an EI of 25 is what Ilford say it has in that combination... If you're sensible (& that means a Y2 filter when appropriate) it'll do most things pan films will.

Thank you! This could be why I get along so well with HP5 and D100 so well, and not so much D400 nor FP4. Thanks for the tips, I'm gonna investigate all this further. I mostly use DD-X and perceptol right now. I agree, the contrast of PanF50 is something I had to initially learn how to adjust to in certain situations, but the creaminess is wonderfully smooth and lush to my eyes, so I kept experimenting. I think it may also have much to do with the older, lower contrast, uncoated lenses I tend to favor, with the panF punching that up a bit. All my more modern, contrasty lenses are for 4x5, so I've been unable to use panF in that setting. Therefore, I don't know how the contrast would look with something multicoated.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Thank you! This could be why I get along so well with HP5 and D100 so well, and not so much D400 nor FP4. Thanks for the tips, I'm gonna investigate all this further. I mostly use DD-X and perceptol right now. I agree, the contrast of PanF50 is something I had to initially learn how to adjust to in certain situations, but the creaminess is wonderfully smooth and lush to my eyes, so I kept experimenting. I think it may also have much to do with the older, lower contrast, uncoated lenses I tend to favor, with the panF punching that up a bit. All my more modern, contrasty lenses are for 4x5, so I've been unable to use panF in that setting. Therefore, I don't know how the contrast would look with something multicoated.

Ortho+ is quite fun to use - you can bump the contrast up or down quite drastically by altering developers, times etc & if you use a 906 (or similar Kodak - I think a #1 or #2 - not the very common #1A) safelight, you can dev by inspection. Don't be afraid to experiment with it! And if we're talking about uncoated glass, LF glass is (in general) going to be contrastier than 135 stuff owing to the simpler designs with far fewer air/glass interfaces.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My first choice is Kodak Tri-X 400 [135 & 120], then Ilford HP5+ [4"x5"], followed Ilford FP4+[4"x5"]. I also have a stash of Tri-X 320 and Plus X in 120 film. I am not interested in the tabular films except for Delta 3200.

 

[hired goon]

Now that we are into 2018, and the ULF program will shortly be upon us, is there a formal way to request a new offering? Every year I buy their 50' rolls of 616 film (70mm x 50' - catalog number 1174810) for my ikonta D. It only comes in HP5+, and I'd much rather see it in a slower emulsion. I'd prefer Panf 50, but would take delta 100 as well. I'd buy more of it if I could get this. Can either of these be added to the 2018 list? Certainly others would go for this too, no?

 

[jim10219]

I prefer TMY to Delta 400, personally. They're similar enough that I could go either way though. As long as they make one or the other, I'm happy. But my go to 400 speed B&W sheet film is Rollei IR 400. It's actually a really nice 400 speed film, that serves double duty because it can also be used as infrared film with an appropriate filter. The only down side is the thinner film base (and prewashing the anti-halation layer).

Still, I wish they had a decent 800 or faster speed film in 4x5. When you're shooting in high winds, like on the beach or on the mountain side, it sure would be nice to shoot with a high speed shutter to freeze the action, especially when your aperture is so small. I admit it wouldn't be that necessary for most occasions. But with grain not really being an issue in large format (usually), it sure would be nice to have that option available.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I prefer TMY to Delta 400, personally. They're similar enough that I could go either way though. As long as they make one or the other, I'm happy. But my go to 400 speed B&W sheet film is Rollei IR 400. It's actually a really nice 400 speed film, that serves double duty because it can also be used as infrared film with an appropriate filter. The only down side is the thinner film base (and prewashing the anti-halation layer).

Still, I wish they had a decent 800 or faster speed film in 4x5. When you're shooting in high winds, like on the beach or on the mountain side, it sure would be nice to shoot with a high speed shutter to freeze the action, especially when your aperture is so small. I admit it wouldn't be that necessary for most occasions. But with grain not really being an issue in large format (usually), it sure would be nice to have that option available.

HP5+ is a really decent film rated at 800. Might be worth a try. I have run it at 800 in 120, but haven't done it with 4X5 yet. JohnW