Delta vs. Tri-x

totifoto

totifoto

Well-known
Local time
9:17 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
506
I´ve been shooting Delta 400 for a long time on medium format and just started shooting it on 35mm (zorki 4 and Contax rts). I love how fine the grain is on the medium format, even at iso 1600. But I dont like the Delta on 35mm, it is to grainie and the contrast is no good. I develope in ID-11. I know I wont get the same quality on a 35mm film as the 120 but I would like to get less grain and more contrast. My contax has a fantastic CZ lens and I have been getting great photos from it on slides and color negatives, but onthe Delta 400 it´s no good.
I was thinking if anyone here is shootong the Tri-x 400. Is it as grainie as the Delta? Does it give more contrast? Any pointers would be great.

Thanx.
 
Tri-X has a distinct grain and really is not known for its grainless-ness. Perhaps try a different developer, maybe DDX and try over exposing the film a little, say 320ASA instead of the advertised 400ASA.
Cheers Andrew.
 
they are different types of film, with Delta having even-sized tabular grains (akin to t-max) and Tri-X having uneven grains (akin to HP5+). Both have benefits and issues.

To answer your question, you'll get a broader exposure range but more apparent grain with Tri-X. I think contrast wouls depend on development, but ID-11 does do better with traditional films (Tri-X/HP5+) then with modern films (Delta/TMax).

If you want contrastier negs, try Delta in TMax or DD-X developers.
 
Never Satisfied said:
Tri-X has a distinct grain and really is not known for its grainless-ness. Perhaps try a different developer, maybe DDX and try over exposing the film a little, say 320ASA instead of the advertised 400ASA.
Cheers Andrew.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I normally shoot Tri-X at 250 and HP5+ at 320 with normal development in HC-110.

Contrasty enough.

but certainly not grainless :)

Also, generally speaking, if you want less apparent grain it's best to go for low contrast in development. Higher contrast (and higher accuance) make the grains more visible.
 
Excuse my ignorance, I have a question: is it really a different formulation of the Delta 400 between medium format and 35 mm? I believed that the film was the same only different size, please comment.

Best regards
 
Different films have nicer or less pleasing characteristics depending on the level of enlargement. I'm sure that is what totifoto is referring to.
Many people have commented that FP4 is very nice when enlarged only a little, but rather harsh when blown up more. It is my favorite film overall, partly because of that harshness from a small negative as well as its sharpness and just perceptible grittiness when minimally enlarged.
As far as I know, the only difference in any type of film from one format to another is the size and thickness of the base. Maybe that isn't true?
 
You need to start experimenting with developers until you find one you like with Delta 400, perhaps Perceptol? Or use Delta 100 or Acros and see what you think (but of course lose 2 stops). From what you describe as wanting vs. what you do not like in Delta 400 I do not think Tri-X will be your answer. Maybe Neopan 400?
 
The latest incarnation of Delta400 is poor in most all old developer formulations. So bad I will not use it. To think I held my breath waiting for this new version is laughable.

You will like it in Ilford DDX or Kodak Xtol, neither of which I will use. Either combination is superb.

I switched to tri x for high speed film. The new stuff is really much better than the old and works well in my homemade D76.
 
The developer that Ilford seem to recommend for Delta films is DDX. If you prefer powdered developers then Microphen should also be pretty much equivalent, but I haven't tried that yet as I'm still on my first bottle of DDX. Delta can look ok, watch out for accurate exposures (more so than with HP5. Tri-X etc) and I would suggest you also try the 100 speed.
 
I found Delta to be very picky about exposure, and was never very happy with the results I got from it, scans especially seemed coarse-grained and muddy. I ended up preferring Tri-X in either DD-X or Xtol, at ISO 200 and above, and Acros at 100.

Ian
 
try delta 400 in microphen it is a big improvment much smother grain and you can enlarge more with nicer detail look in my gallery all night pics are with that combo except stockholm tullys that pic is d400/800 with d76 1+1.
 
I've found that 400 Delta is the most grainless of the 35mm b+w films I've used, I tested it against HP5 and Tri -x last year. I will say however that choice of developer makes a HUGE difference especially in 35mm because the enalrgements are proportionately greater. The right dev and exposure combination for you will halve the apparent grain. If you haven't triedit already try a 1+1 or 1+3 dilution of ID11 stock solution. You could also experiment with slightly less agitation through development as well, but a higher dilution of the chemicals you already have is a good starting point.

Good Luck!
 
Maybe a quick EI test wil help.
keep the same development routine you have for 120 but make a test roll and expose a certain image +1,+1/2,0,-1/2,-1 for a few frames with a blank frame in between
After development you maybe able to see differences in the frames thus determining at whihc EI you should expose... 200, 320, 400, 600, 800
 
I've never really bonded with Delta 400, but by far the best results I've had with it have been in DD-X (XTOL would likely be good too, but I didn't try that).

However, the best way to get low grain shots in 35mm is simply to use a slower film. As has been mentioned already, Fuji Acros 100 is very fine-grained. It also works well in every developer I've tried it in, from Rodinal to XTOL. The best combos for low-grain and high contrast have, in my experience, been Acros in DD-X or XTOL (although I personally like it best at 80ASA in Rodinal 1+50 - a fraction more grain but with a beautiful tonality).
 
totifoto said:
I was thinking if anyone here is shootong the Tri-x 400. Is it as grainie as the Delta? Does it give more contrast? Any pointers would be great.

Thanx.
Click to expand...

Tri-X souped in Rodinal is pretty contrasty, grainy but contrasty. Acros shot at 100 is very contrasty, it all depends on what kind of light your shots were taken in.

If you are looking for a 400 speed film that is pushable and pullable to extremes, a kinda multi purpose film...Tri-X is the ticket.

good luck,
Todd
 
I love 135 400 Delta in Xtol 1:1. I shot this for five years and developed in a Jobo rotary processor. Also in Patrick Gainer's home-brew Vitamin C/Lye/Borax developer. I never could make TMAX 400/100 behave -- my problem was not grain in this case, but repeatability and contrast control . I always thought of the TMAX films as rewarding processing consistency and punishing a loose approach to development controls. I really like Tri-X too - grainier than 400 Delta, in general. The only developer that ever gave me a grain "problem" was Rodinal, and that was never a surprise as high grain and high accutance is a feature of that formula.

That said, tolerance/taste for grain is intensely personal, as is film choice for that matter.
 
Would go with T-Max 400 over Tri-X if you are looking for less grain. Of all the B&W 400 speed films, Tri-X is my least favorite.
 
This is the best I could do with TriX (35mm): http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=67137&ppuser=8685

I exposed it at 250EI, HC-110h, 11:15 min/sec, 68 degrees. But one of the problems that I found was that a lot of the grain (during digital conversion) was really enhanced by the scanner. So now I use a different method that (somewhat) reduces aliasing. This method also gives me all the shadow detail I want.
 
Last edited:
Ronald M said:
The latest incarnation of Delta400 is poor in most all old developer formulations. So bad I will not use it. To think I held my breath waiting for this new version is laughable.

You will like it in Ilford DDX or Kodak Xtol, neither of which I will use. Either combination is superb.

I switched to tri x for high speed film. The new stuff is really much better than the old and works well in my homemade D76.
Click to expand...

I find exactly the opposite. I was one of the trade trial testers for both Kodak and Ilford when they were developing the Delta 100 and 400 and the Tmax 100 and 400.

I shot the original Tri-X for many years and estimate i shot well over 10,000 rolls. I had the film down to a science and got the finest results of any film I've ever used. When Tmax was being developed by Kodak I tested hand coated emulsions with various fromulations and evaluated them and wrote reports for further refinemement. I also did the same for Ilford with the deltas. The difference was I loved the deltas so much I switched from agfa 100 and Tri-x to Delta 100 and 400. I guess I've shot past that 10,000 roll mark again on the delta films and still really love them. My preference in developers is Ilford HC 1:32 or 1:47 or HC 110 in the same dilutions.

I was in New Orleand on a shoot about the time tne new Tri-X came out. I ran out of Delta 400 so I went to a local supplier and found they didn't have delta 400. I bought some Tr-X thinking it was the same as the old. Was I ever wrong!!! I shot a few rolls at 400 and when I got back in the darkroom was shocked at how thin and flat the Tri-X was. It printed but wasn't anything like the old version. I tested another batch to find exactly the same results. To use Tr-X I have to rate it at 250 and find it flat and dull with more grain than before. I could bump up the development but it would iuncrease grain.

I stuck with Delta for the past six years and have give up on Tri-X. Recently I revisited Fujis films to find them spectacular. I have switched 80% of my 100 over to Acros in Ilford HC and most of my 400 to Neopan 400 in HC. I'm getting perfect negs with a smooth metalic tonality unlike I've had in any other film. My results are beautiful even from 35mm in 20 inch prints.

Great results start with perfect exposures and correct development. Each person must work out their own development procedure. Test a few rolls and adjust development times and then if you don't get what you want try another developer. You won't get the feel of a film in one roll so shoot a half dozen or more and learn the film before making a decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom