Delta 400 price vs Tmax 400

[Ccoppola82]

I am about using up my stashes of hp5+ and Tri x and was considering trying a t-grain film for fun and thinking the straighter curve might be beneficial in the VERY grey gloomy skies we get for the winter here. I’m a bit partial to Ilford products, so Delta 400 was my first choice. When I looked at B&H I noticed that the Delta 400 is almost $2 per roll more expensive! Is it that much better than T-max 400??

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

It's a bit cheaper over here, but I shoot both a lot, with a mild preference for the Tmax400. I think Delta has a bit more grain, which I do like, so horses for courses. OTOH Tmax can be pushed to 800 without extra developing so gives a stop of flexibility when shooting. I doubt I would shoot Delta at all if it was that much more expensive than Tmax.

 

[Ted Striker]

I am about using up my stashes of hp5+ and Tri x and was considering trying a t-grain film for fun and thinking the straighter curve might be beneficial in the VERY grey gloomy skies we get for the winter here. I’m a bit partial to Ilford products, so Delta 400 was my first choice. When I looked at B&H I noticed that the Delta 400 is almost $2 per roll more expensive! Is it that much better than T-max 400??

That's a crazy price difference. I strongly prefer Ilford films but would not hesitate to use TMAX 400 in 35mm size (no kodak paper issues).

Hard to see how Ilford competes with a nearly 40% higher price!

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Yep in Aus Delta is consistently a couple of dollars more than Tmax. I’ve never really understood why...

 

[Erik van Straten]

The 400Tmax (400-2TMY) is simply the best B+W film available today. I will never pay one cent more for Delta.


Erik.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Very strange. And yet in 120 Ilford and Kodak are the same price more or less.

 

[css9450]

When I looked at B&H I noticed that the Delta 400 is almost $2 per roll more expensive! Is it that much better than T-max 400??

Prices seem to vary widely. B&H charges the same for T-Max vs. Tri-X, whereas my local shop charges a $3 premium for T-Max with Delta 400 splitting the difference between the two. This is in 35mm size.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't understand.
OP is looking at BH and two dollars makes difference.
Then why not use film in bulks? Or is it about 120 film?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/sear...107|400+fct_brand_name|kodak&N=0&Ntt=bw film&

Delta in bulks price is less outrageous.
Ten rolls won't makes difference on two dollars difference. If you like Delta.

I don't like Delta at all, lifeless emulsion. TMAX smells like digital too 🙂

 

[Erik van Straten]

TMAX smells like digital too

Maybe it smells digital -I never smell film- but it doesn't look digital at all. Photography is about looking, isn't it?


Erik.

 

[Rob-F]

TMAX always looks flat to me in the middle tones. And when I try to boost the contrast with longer development, I get blocked highlights. I don't seem to have these problems with the Delta films, so I stopped buying TMAX a long time ago. I suppose they could have modified its response curve by now, but I haven't gone back to try it again.

 

[Erik van Straten]

TMAX always looks flat to me in the middle tones. And when I try to boost the contrast with longer development, I get blocked highlights. I don't seem to have these problems with the Delta films, so I stopped buying TMAX a long time ago. I suppose they could have modified its response curve by now, but I haven't gone back to try it again.

It makes a difference if you only scan the negatives or if you make wet prints (silver/gelatine) directly from them.

The 400-2TMY is perfectly allright for split grade printing, anyway the best thing to do with B+W negatives. Also my older Tmax400 negatives are perfectly allright for split grade printing.

Delta films are grainy and not very sharp.

Of course the developing procedure for the films is very important.

Erik.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Very strange. And yet in 120 Ilford and Kodak are the same price more or less.

& in 4x5 & 5x7 Ilford is at least 1/2 the price of TMY2

 

[jawarden]

Is it that much better than T-max 400??

It is no better. Try the TMax and see if it works for you. They're both great films and with patience and a little homework you can work with either, so you might as well get the less expensive product.

 

[robert blu]

Strange things about pricing! Where I live prices are for 35mm 36 exposure : delta 400 = 6.90 EUR; T max 400 = 6,81 EUR , not a big difference!

For my hybrid workflow they are both good, I love them both.

If as I hope in a few weeks I'll have a darkroom available it can be different.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

It makes a difference if you only scan the negatives or if you make wet prints (silver/gelatine) directly from them.

The 400-2TMY is perfectly allright for split grade printing, anyway the best thing to do with B+W negatives. Also my older Tmax400 negatives are perfectly allright for split grade printing.

Delta films are grainy and not very sharp.

Of course the developing procedure for the films is very important.

Erik.

I prefer Tri-X or HP5+ to either Delta 400 or Tmax 400 (partly because it is what I am used to, perhaps) so I rarely use either of the latter. But I've found Delta 100, which I have shot more of to be respectably sharp, and fine grained. As you say, development regime is indeed important. For me, that almost invariably means ID-11 1 + 3 @ 20C for 21 minutes or so. 1 + 3 is Ilford's own instruction for maximum sharpness.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[Erik van Straten]

I prefer Tri-X or HP5+ to either Delta 400 or Tmax 400 (partly because it is what I am used to, perhaps) so I rarely use either of the latter.

Maybe 20 years ago or so the TriX has been changed from two layers - a sharp contrasty one and a soft one - into a single layer. Since then I didn't like it anymore. The effect became too graphical, it was not painterly anymore. I like painterly B+W films.

The older TriX from the seventies was wonderful. I still have all my negatives that I've made since 1970. Around 1985 TriX changed and was less sharp, but the tonality was still superb. At the end of the nineties it changed again. I wrote that above. Since then I use the Tmax400. It has a very fine grain and a better tonality than the single layer TriX.

In the seventies the TriX in Europe was made in France. I am sure that the changes after that were caused by the change of the location were the film was made, England or the US.

The choice for film by the users is of course highly subjective.

Erik.


TriX from 1973:

400-2TMY from 2018:

 

[Rob-F]

Delta films are grainy and not very sharp.

Of course the developing procedure for the films is very important.

Erik.

Funny, Shots I've done with Delta 100 have been fine grain and sharp enough to rival my Hasselblad pictures. Maybe it's my developing procedure.

 

[kiemchacsu]

it's REALLY funny for te price of tmy-2 100ft roll;
if one can make 19 roll 36 exp from that (which I do), it cost more than you buy a rolled manufacture. ($6.83 vs $5.79)
may be it's the way they encourage you to buy pre-rolled film

I don't understand.
OP is looking at BH and two dollars makes difference.
Then why not use film in bulks? Or is it about 120 film?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/sear...107|400+fct_brand_name|kodak&N=0&Ntt=bw film&

Delta in bulks price is less outrageous.
Ten rolls won't makes difference on two dollars difference. If you like Delta.

I don't like Delta at all, lifeless emulsion. TMAX smells like digital too 🙂

 

[Erik van Straten]

Funny, Shots I've done with Delta 100 have been fine grain and sharp enough to rival my Hasselblad pictures. Maybe it's my developing procedure.

Very good possible, in fact I was talking about the Delta 400, an error ... I'm sorry.


Erik.

 

[Mooshoepork]

Yep in Aus Delta is consistently a couple of dollars more than Tmax. I’ve never really understood why...

Probably because Kodak sells tmax to dealers cheaper than CR Kennedy sells Delta.

Not that hard to figure out