Delta 400 -- why second fiddle to HP+/Tri-X?

P

PATB

Established
Local time
3:52 PM
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
139
View My Gallery
As a beginner, I mainly use Tri-X or HP5+ because there seems to be much data about them.

However, given the number of experienced BW photographers on this board and others on the Internet, I am surprised that Delta 400 is not as popular. I recently tried a couple of rolls and found them easy to scan and wet print. I haven't used enough to make me switch from Tri-X, but I am wondering if the lack of popularity of Delta 400 is due to its relatively high price.

So RFFers, if Delta 400 is priced the same as Tri-X/HP5, would you use it as your main goto film instead of Tri-X/HP5?
 
I think it is just a matter of personal taste. In the ten years before I became infatuated with Neopan 400, I used nothing but Delta 400 in all formats from 35mm to 8x10. I found that it was more tolerant of processing variation than the TMax films and had a finer grain than Tri-X/HP5+. I thought of it as TMax, without the hassle (and the incredibly long fix times). I currently have several hundred feet of both in a basement chest freezer. Good stuff.

Ben Marks
 
I quite like Delta 400, but it isn't available in sheet sizes anymore, and I like using the same films across formats. Which B&W film you prefer really is a matter of personal taste. They're all capable of excellent results.
 
I like Delta 400 too - I used a lot of it when I restarted B&W photography a few years ago. I like its grain structure and tonality, but it doesn't seem to have the gritty "punch" that I can get with something like Tri-X (though whether that's what I want depends on my mood).

I pretty much treat Tri-X as my ISO 400 staple really because it's what I used all those years ago when I first started, and I still like it a lot in its modern formulation. However, I've recently got to like Agfa APX-400, which is sadly not made any more, but I have 50 rolls in the freezer (And APX-100 - a beautiful film).

I probably won't be buying my next batch of ISO 400 film until November, for winter shooting in the UK - I may well get some Delta 400.
 
Tri-X is a very old traditional film and many of us have long term good memories attached to it (and HP5+). I agree that Delta (or TMax) are "better" in most ways... but it isn't old and as distinctive as Tri-X... so it's just hard to feel as strongly romantic about it.
 
Historical accident. When Delta 400 was introduced the speed was overestimated (a danger of using recently coated film) and the film was significantly more sensitive to overexposure and overdevelopment than HP5.

The second generation was vastly improved and indeed Ilford considered sending it out without saying whether it was 400 Delta or HP6.

After that, it's which tonality you prefer.

Cheers,

R.
 
I've never particularly liked D400. For me, it lacks the 'bite' of the grainier iso 400 films like Tri-X and HP5, and it doesn't achieve the smooth tones of iso 100/125 films. It's also quite unforgiving of exposure errors IMHO.
 
I always thought the opposite. I used lots of Delta too... before they raised their prices to higher than TMY (which *I* like better).

>>It's also quite unforgiving of exposure errors IMHO.
 
For almost 18 months, I shot hardly anything but Delta 400. I like it best souped in Tmax Developer. The highlights go on forever - sometimes beyond what the scanner can easily capture - but the shadows drop off fairly quickly and skin tones seem to lack a bit of contrast. I think its interesting spectral sensitivity is part of the issue. It's a fine film, though. Pushes to 800 well, but with normal development it behaves best when given very full exposure. Most T-grain films are like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom