Delta 100 vs FP4 and Delta 400 vs HP5

Thanks to all for the further replies.

@x-ray: Is there a particular reason you calle them 'alford' films?

@Laviolette: Thanks for the comparison pics. Am I right in thinking that the colour swatches show that Delta 400 is a bit lens sensitive to Blue than HP5, and that the HP5 is a little more Green sensitive than Delta 400?

I apologise if I've got that wrong, but I'm not quite 'seeing in mono' yet.
 
Re: X-ray's comment that Tri-X has changed, it appears to be so. Maybe less silver ? Something is surly different. I normally rate mine at ISO 200. I've been using some HP5 over the past few years and like it. I don't think I'll be buying more Tri-X. The stuff I used years back was better or, I liked it more. A stop faster too?

I'm curious about Fuji's production on Neopan Acros. I use a lot of this film. It looks like Fuji may be on the way to cutting more of their film production? So, I've begun testing FP4. I used FP4 sheet film years back and liked it.

My old assistant liked Delta 400 and got me to try some. It was okay but, I stuck with Tri-X. Maybe it's time to try it again..

The film producers are in a state of change it seems. Some old ones dropping production, and some new ones coming to market.
 
seany65 said:
Thanks to all for the further replies.

@x-ray: Is there a particular reason you calle them 'alford' films?

@Laviolette: Thanks for the comparison pics. Am I right in thinking that the colour swatches show that Delta 400 is a bit lens sensitive to Blue than HP5, and that the HP5 is a little more Green sensitive than Delta 400?

I apologise if I've got that wrong, but I'm not quite 'seeing in mono' yet.
Click to expand...

They are very similar, but the Delta 400 blue seems to be a bit lighter? That would mean that it is more sensitive.

I have never tested Tmax 400 that way, but I have always felt that it renders skies a bit darker, like when adding a light yellow filter. I haven't see Delta 400 do that to the best of my knowledge, but of course I could be wrong.
 
Laviolette said:
I have never tested Tmax 400 that way, but I have always felt that it renders skies a bit darker, like when adding a light yellow filter.
Click to expand...

I agree with that finding. Tmax 400 has seems to give well represented tone for blue skies.
This old one is TMY400 exposed at 100 and developed in tmaxdev 1:4 for 6mins@20c. No filter used.
Even with the "extra" exposure the sky is still nicely toned.
Ghosts of Summer by Adnan, on Flickr
 
@Laviolette: From what I can tell of your comparison swatch photos, the Delta pic looks a little lighter overall. I noticed this when I compared them by flicking between the pics when I had them in seperate tabs. I've also been scrolling up and down between them and doing it that way the delta blue still looks darker to me?

Although I've just noticed that the shades seem to be a little darker the further up my screen the image is scrolled. My monitor isn't perfect so that could be throwing me a little.
 
Generally speaking does pushing film increase grain? Say FP4 to 200?
When developing a pushed film, does diluting the developer increase or reduce grain? D76 1:1 as compared to stock?
 
Pushing does increase grain. From 125-200 ISO you probably won't see much increase but will see a gain in contrast. If you really want to push it without increasing contrast dramatically use Acufine. Unlike pushing in D76,HC110 etc. Acufine actually increases shadow density.

I've read quite a bit regarding dilute developers. My practical experience says there's no difference. This is based on processing thousands of rolls over many decades. But, I've read every papers discussing the polar nature of the silver and the fluid quality of the gelatin. The net concensus was there's polar migration of the silver crystals when wet and the longer wet the more clumping of grain. There are solvents in many developers , sodium Sulfite, like D76,D23, Acufine etc which dissolves the silver and reduces apparent grain. There is a downside to this, silver ions being polar, tend to migrate to the highest density areas, highlights, and deposit themselves on the highlight areas. This results in blocking highlights. Developers like HC110 are not high Sulfite developers and do not promote that etching and migration of silver ions. D76, D23,Acufine and many others contain the Sulfite as a anti oxidant and solvent that reduces grain.
 
x-ray said:
I've posted several times regarding Delta films. I did trade trial testing for Ilford on their Delta 100 and 400 pre release of the film to the public. My duties were to test both films during actual commercial photo shoots along side my normal film, Agfa 100 and Tri-X 400. I determined correct ISO, used a variety of developers to find the optimum developer and times and compared them to my normally used oil, I wet printed and did visual evaluations and submitted the final results, both negs and prints along with a report to Alford. In those reports were recommendations ad to improvements I'd like to see.

Alford incorporated these changes and eventually introduced an excellent film that I then switched to from my old standards. Eventually the product was updated again and further improved. I suspect Ilford is constantly tweaking their products.

I did exactly the same thing for Kodak in the development of TMax 100 and 400.

Basically If you don't process your own film and have no say in how the lab does, don't worry about curves and such. Try each of the films you're considering and shoot identical images and exposures side by side then send the file to the lab. Compare those results side by side and determine which soots your needs the best. You're at the mercy of your lab an have to find what works best per their practices.

In the past few years I drifted from Ilford Delta 100 and 400 to Neopan 400 and Acros 100. I tried both of the Fuji films and fell in love with the look, especially the 400. Unfortunately Neopan 400 is gone but I purchased several hundred rolls in 135 and 120 and filled a large freezer. I still have a few hundred rolls but the day will come that I have to replace it so I'm revisiting other films. I'm out of 120 Acros now and it's still in production but I'm revisiting other films to determine if I like something else better now.

My feeling about the Delta film vs HP5 and FP4. I generally use HC110 B and Rodinal but will use PMK pyro on occasion, Mic-X and Acufine where needed. It's rare that I use these other developers.

I have a hard time taming contrast with FP4 when using HC110. I've had good success with PMK but don't like the look of FP4 as much as I do Delta 100. I find Delta 100 in HC110 has a beautiful tonality that looks more like large format. My results with Delta yields a much easier printing negative with full shadows and open highlights. If I wanted a contrasted more stark look I'd go to FP4.

I'm a huge fan of HP5 and Delta 400. Both work very well in HC110 and both produce beautiful full negs with excellent shadows and open highlights. I've found Delta to be a bit finer grain and pulls very well when needed. I've shot under extremely bad and contrasty light and rated my delta 400 at 100 and pulled the process two stops. The resulting negatives were amazing and printed with beautiful smooth open tonality. I'm not sure if HP5 would pull this well but HP5 will push extremely well in Acufine. Grain builds quickly but tonality and detail are excellent.

I see people claiming HP5 is close to old TX400. It may be the closest thing we have but it's a log way off IMO. Old TX was unique, HP5 is a really excellent film that I use for documentary work when I need that extra mood (girt not grain) in my images. Delta 400 is just too perfect.

If I were doing landscapes or commercial work with film again Delta 100 and 400 along with TMax 100 and 400 would be the ones I'd look at. I'd have to re evaluate them for the subjects I'm shooting and make a decision form there. If I had to make a choice right now than I'd pick Delta 100 and 400.

Like I said, get a roll of each and two bodies and shoot identical exposures of the same subject at the same time and send them to the lab. See what work.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this great write up x-ray. Since Neopan Acros 100 is going to be gone, I've thought about FP4+, Delta 100, and maybe Fomopan 100. I also like HC-110(h) which I love for TMax100, and Acros 100. So, I appreciate the help.
 
I hate to be a spoil sport here, but the way to find out the differences is to shoot a couple of rolls yourself, have them processed, and look at the results. Actual experience trumps internet advice every time.
 
ptpdprinter said:
I hate to be a spoil sport here, but the way to find out the differences is to shoot a couple of rolls yourself, have them processed, and look at the results. Actual experience trumps internet advice every time.
Click to expand...

I always do that but x-ray always has thoughtful incite. So to cut the time down I read him.
 
While personal testing is always important I have also found x-ray's advice useful and it often provides a good starting point for my own testing. No reason to re-invent the wheel each time.
 
Pioneer said:
While personal testing is always important I have also found x-ray's advice useful and it often provides a good starting point for my own testing. No reason to re-invent the wheel each time.
Click to expand...
I agree that x-ray's advice was thoughtful and helpful, but no substitute for actual experience on such a fundamental question as which film to use. There are just some things you need to do for yourself, and trying different films to find the one that is right for you is cheap and easy.
 
FP4 contrast

FP4 contrast

I too have had a hard time taming the contrast of FP4 with HC110 (my standard developer). After many attempts, I found that a 1:75 dilution (from US syrup) for 7 minutes at 68 degrees with 30 seconds of initial agitation and then 3 gentle inversions every minute works best for me. But as the saying goes "your mileage may vary" and you have to do your own testing.
 
KenR said:
I too have had a hard time taming the contrast of FP4 with HC110 (my standard developer). After many attempts, I found that a 1:75 dilution (from US syrup) for 7 minutes at 68 degrees with 30 seconds of initial agitation and then 3 gentle inversions every minute works best for me. But as the saying goes "your mileage may vary" and you have to do your own testing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, I was considering FP4 but after reading yours and similar post I've decided, as I don't like contrasty images, that it will be the last one I test. That is if Delta 100 doesn't work out.
 
I cannot comment on Delta 100 vs FP-4 as I have never used Delta 100. FP-4 is a beautiful film, and a versatile one. It works well in most developers. I've gotten great results in D-76 1+1, Tmax Developer, Rodinal 1+50, and PMK.


I have used both Delta 400 and HP-5 extensively. HP-5 is gorgeous in PMK, but i have never really liked it in any other developer. Delta 400 would be my recommendation for most people. It has gorgeous tonality in Tmax Developer and gives full box speed, something HP-5 doesn't in any developer I have tried. Delta 400 also has very fine grain and high sharpness.


2016-04-10-0004.jpg



2016-03-15-0003.jpg



2016-04-09-0002.jpg



These were all shot on 35mm Delta 400, developed in Kodak Tmax Developer
 
Hmm Delta 400 in Tmax: I’m no expert, but that is one of the best combinations in photography in my book.

Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I cannot comment on Delta 100 vs FP-4 as I have never used Delta 100. FP-4 is a beautiful film, and a versatile one. It works well in most developers. I've gotten great results in D-76 1+1, Tmax Developer, Rodinal 1+50, and PMK.


I have used both Delta 400 and HP-5 extensively. HP-5 is gorgeous in PMK, but i have never really liked it in any other developer. Delta 400 would be my recommendation for most people. It has gorgeous tonality in Tmax Developer and gives full box speed, something HP-5 doesn't in any developer I have tried. Delta 400 also has very fine grain and high sharpness.


2016-04-10-0004.jpg



2016-03-15-0003.jpg



2016-04-09-0002.jpg



These were all shot on 35mm Delta 400, developed in Kodak Tmax Developer
Click to expand...
 
No film is inherently more contrasty or less contrasty.

Given a correct exposure, the contrast depends entirely on development time. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on this point by some...

Rolfe
 
rolfe said:
No film is inherently more contrasty or less contrasty.

Given a correct exposure, the contrast depends entirely on development time. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on this point by some...

Rolfe
Click to expand...




That's true, but the tonal rendering is different, depending on the film's design (the shape of its tone curve). Different developers also change the tonal rendering.
 
rolfe said:
No film is inherently more contrasty or less contrasty.

Given a correct exposure, the contrast depends entirely on development time. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on this point by some...

Rolfe
Click to expand...

It is true. But I have had great problems achieving the contrast and tones I want with some films. Arista EDU ultra 400 gave me fits for 5 years before I got it almost where I wanted. While Neopan Acros 100 I hit a home run the first time I used it (now it is gone).

By the way, living in this very deceivingly perfect state, we do have most days with sunshine. And one of my Arista EDU ultra 400 fixes along with development, dilutions, agitation was to use an orange filter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom