Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
This is one of the few mono films I have yet to try,- I usually load HP5+ or TriX. Out of curiousity, I have a couple of rolls to try this weekend, weather permitting!. I'm running low on 'soup' so what's the best stuff to get for it?......your thoughts on it's characteristics, latitude, sharpness etc. in comparison to the afore mentioned favourites?
Cheers, Dave.
Cheers, Dave.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Dave,
It's much sharper and finer-grained than either HP5 or Tri-X, but I don't like the tonality as well for most subjects. It develops beautifully in FX-39 but the trouble with FX-39 is its tendency to 'die' suddenly while still looking perfectly clean and healthy -- DON'T use old FX-39 even if it looks OK.
Both latitude and developer repertoire for the current generation are much greater than with the original, though proportionately, it responds worse to over-exposure and over-development than cubic-crystal films: sharpness and grain deteriorate faster. It's surprisingly good for under-exposure but probably still not as good as cubc-crystal. It's a good deal better behaved than Kodak's TMY when it comes to latitude, developer repertoire and variations in development time.
Cheers,
Roger
It's much sharper and finer-grained than either HP5 or Tri-X, but I don't like the tonality as well for most subjects. It develops beautifully in FX-39 but the trouble with FX-39 is its tendency to 'die' suddenly while still looking perfectly clean and healthy -- DON'T use old FX-39 even if it looks OK.
Both latitude and developer repertoire for the current generation are much greater than with the original, though proportionately, it responds worse to over-exposure and over-development than cubic-crystal films: sharpness and grain deteriorate faster. It's surprisingly good for under-exposure but probably still not as good as cubc-crystal. It's a good deal better behaved than Kodak's TMY when it comes to latitude, developer repertoire and variations in development time.
Cheers,
Roger
wintoid
Back to film
I'm not a fan of Delta 400 but I got my best results from it with DDX.
pipal
Established
Nothing can beat the Delta 400 in DD-X if done properly. You can even push it to EI3200 with very good results and at EI1600 the results are better than most 1600 ISO films. So If you need some fast films with starting point at EI400, Delta 400 and DD-X is the way to go.
It is quite fine-grained, but the grain is pronounced and very nice. Tip for developing: gentle agitation is the key.
It is quite fine-grained, but the grain is pronounced and very nice. Tip for developing: gentle agitation is the key.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Thanks, Roger,....BTW Malta was great, everything you guys said it would be!-I'll be back in the spring. I'm still sorting the Velvia trannies, but as I've shot only negative stock for a few years, I made the classic mistake of over exposing a lot of them! (no fool like an old one!) and in hindsight , this was not the ideal film,-much too saturated and garish for my taste!
Cheers, Dave.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Dave,
Pipal's advice is worth trying, and as he says, the grain is crisp and clear. When Ilford introduced the current generation of Delta 400, they were going to send it out as a new ISO 400 film without saying whether it was Delta 400-2 or HP6. It's that good. Unfortunately the stratagem was blown by Marketing who revealed what the film was.
Glad Malta worked -- and yes, it's hard to believe there's that much light around, isn't it? Point fully taken about garishness: the most saturated film I care to use in Malta is Sensia 100.
Cheers,
Roger
David Goldfarb
Well-known
I've processed it in a few different developers for different purposes, and my favorite, if you don't need lots of speed, is to rate it at EI 200 in Perceptol.
retro
Well-known
I liked the results from rating at 200 with Xtol. Better
tonality (over shooting @ 400) and very sharp.
D76 1:1 also worked well for me.
tonality (over shooting @ 400) and very sharp.
D76 1:1 also worked well for me.
PATB
Established
For those who use DD-X
For those who use DD-X
Do you expose Delta 400 at 500 (as recommended contrast when using DD-X in the Delta 400 fact sheet)?
For those who use DD-X
Do you expose Delta 400 at 500 (as recommended contrast when using DD-X in the Delta 400 fact sheet)?
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
The old D400 was an OK film, nice epxosed as 300 and developed in DDX
The new D400 is way better, in DDX it can be exposed as 400 and will give very nice results. I used the Ilford's published time (but exposed as 400)
I have not tried the new one in Rodinal, but the old one xposed as 200 was very interesting (to say the least)
The new D400 is way better, in DDX it can be exposed as 400 and will give very nice results. I used the Ilford's published time (but exposed as 400)
I have not tried the new one in Rodinal, but the old one xposed as 200 was very interesting (to say the least)
Turtle
Veteran
I am presently rating it at 320 in Xtol 1+2. The grain is amazingly fine and 1+2 gives a bit more bite than 1+1. Marginal, but it seems to matter (to my eyes).
The film is remarkably tolerant for a modern film and I have had consistently balanced negs from it. I just developed 35 x 120 rolls from India and not one frame has serious exposure and development issues despite very variable lighting. what I am trying to say is that it is reasonably forgiving. Grain and detail are exceptional. You are looking at as good as or better than Fp4+ with two stops more speed. It does have a modern look to it but nothing like Acros or Tmax in this regard. I shot a lot of very different subjects on those 35 rolls and will decide what to make of its tonality under various conditions when I have printed them. Note than even under a loupe, HP5+ looks sharper at moderate magnifications, owing to the crunchier more visble grain. Under a 10x loupe though the Delta 400 is miles ahead of HP5+ and TriX in terms of fine grain and detail. Grain and resolution aside, I guess you will have to see whether the tonality works for you or not. I dont know yet either. I suspect I am going to continue to prefer the oldies unless I want lots of detail and a large print.
Oh, highlights seem very well controlled. maybe it has a slight shoulder unlike some modern films. very welcome if you ask me.
The film is remarkably tolerant for a modern film and I have had consistently balanced negs from it. I just developed 35 x 120 rolls from India and not one frame has serious exposure and development issues despite very variable lighting. what I am trying to say is that it is reasonably forgiving. Grain and detail are exceptional. You are looking at as good as or better than Fp4+ with two stops more speed. It does have a modern look to it but nothing like Acros or Tmax in this regard. I shot a lot of very different subjects on those 35 rolls and will decide what to make of its tonality under various conditions when I have printed them. Note than even under a loupe, HP5+ looks sharper at moderate magnifications, owing to the crunchier more visble grain. Under a 10x loupe though the Delta 400 is miles ahead of HP5+ and TriX in terms of fine grain and detail. Grain and resolution aside, I guess you will have to see whether the tonality works for you or not. I dont know yet either. I suspect I am going to continue to prefer the oldies unless I want lots of detail and a large print.
Oh, highlights seem very well controlled. maybe it has a slight shoulder unlike some modern films. very welcome if you ask me.
srichmond
Established
I pushed roll of Delta 400 to 1600 in D76 at the weekend. Not sure if I'm too fussed with the results. Shots were dull, and the grain wasn't that attractive. Last two photos on my Flickr stream are examples (as of Nov, 4th).
Last edited:
mr_phillip
Well-known
I recently finished my first bottle of the newly relaunched version of FX-39, and it seems to keep much better than the old one did. It also appears to change colour quite visibly as it ages (going from clear to a sort of piss-yellow), which I certainly don't recall the old one doing. I do wish they'd ship it in half-litre bottles though, just to be on the safe side.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ah, there's good news. Thanks for the update. I'm not convinced that the previous version used Dimezone-S (cleverer Phenidone, resisting hydrolysis), even if it was specified. I'll see if I can get them to send me some, because it's a truly superb developer as long as it lasts.
Cheers,
Roger
Turtle
Veteran
Pretty insane levels of acutance. I experiments with mixing it with Xtol for use on faster traditional emulsions and it worked wonderfully with results smack between the two devs. Problem was when I tried to order some more FX-39, they would not ship it overseas which ruined my plans. I will try to revisit the Xtol + FX-39 combo if I can find a way of getting some back to Kabul. It would be wonderful if Paterson produced a 'FX-39 light' for faster emulsions because sometimes I dont want Xtol smoothness, quite the extreme acutance of FX-39 with traditional films, but I do want the speed of FX-39 or Xtol.
When pushing Delta 400 I would recommend substantially reducing agitation. Although I have not tried it with D400, I did accidentally expose a roll of D100 at 320. Thinking it was likely lost, I popped it in with some HP5+ I was pushing to 800 in DDX 1:6.5 and I got very printable negs with only a slight shadow detail deficit. Negs are a little flat and in hindsight I could actually have given another 10-14% more time. They will be just printable with care. I cannot believe how well this worked. The time was extended beyond a normal push time (for 1:6.5) by about 25% and I reduced agitation to 2 inversions ever 2 mins (I also know I had some thin shadows and hot highlights on the HP5+). Really nurses up shadow detail. The HP5+ was wonderful too.
PS although I am not terribly technically aware, it would appear that despite a slight shoulder, D400 might have a short toe as when shadow detail drops out it does so quite quickly. I may in future rate it at 250 in contrasty conditions and reduce development over 320 times.
Last edited:
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Thanks for all the good info, and insight into this film. It has hardly stopped raining here for over a week! - so the Delta 400 is still untried. I did however venture out for some developer, but since the demise of 'real' camera stores in this neck of the woods, all that was available off the shelf was good 'ole ID11, ( my staple diet, for the last few years! ) so for now, that's what I'll try, when I eventually get back out shooting!. Meanwhile the lure of fireside, books, - a pipefull of my favourite mixture, and of course rff!, is too strong!..........oh!....retirement can be tough!!
Cheers, Dave.
Cheers, Dave.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Thanks for all the good info, and insight into this film. It has hardly stopped raining here for over a week! - so the Delta 400 is still untried. I did however venture out for some developer, but since the demise of 'real' camera stores in this neck of the woods, all that was available off the shelf was good 'ole ID11, ( my staple diet, for the last few years! ) so for now, that's what I'll try, when I eventually get back out shooting!. Meanwhile the lure of fireside, books, - a pipefull of my favourite mixture, and of course rff!, is too strong!..........oh!....retirement can be tough!!
Cheers, Dave.
Bring us pictures, not weather reports! (That's what one of my photography instructors would tell his class.)
mh2000
Well-known
looks great at 400 or pushed to 800 in either ID11 or Xtol (I didn't like it in Rodinal the few times I tried it though)... that said, after Ilford's last price increase I went back to Tmax... and just got 5 rolls of TMY-II (loaded in my Franka Rolfix and Moskva-5!)