Delta vs. Tri-x

[BrianPhotog]

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 give me all the shadow detail I want.

I do something similar...TriX at EI250 in dil H for 13m (20C). The grain is a little more noticeable then a faster bath (like 6m in B) but I love the additional accuance and especially the detail you can pull out of the shadow areas.

 

[navilluspm]

Comparing Grapes to Grapenuts

Comparing Grapes to Grapenuts

I know that this is probably NOT this speed you are looking for, but I recently discovered that Ilford Panf (I use rebranded Arista 50) with Contax glass, souped in Rodinal works absolute magic! (Which is why I horded 700 feet of the stuff in my freezer)


How would others compare Neopan to Tri-X and Delta in terms of contrast? Does it soup well in Rodinal?

 

[hofrench@mac.co]

There is another issue here with the original question. Using his MF camera, Totifoto was pushing Delta to 1600. Each to his own, but Delta isn't really made to be pushed like that. HP-5 (and Tri-X) both respond much better to push processing.

 

[Ronald M]

Funny how one can find the new tri x flat and dull and I find it contrasty and bright compared to the old, in fact I disliked the old so badly I never used it. kodak even states the new is more like Plus x.

I use Leicas and D76

 

[x-ray]

I never liked Plus-x and found it to be muddy and a little grainy. 10 photogs will get 10 different results with the same film and developer.

Acros and Neopan 400 look much alike. My processing in 1:31 Ilford HC with moderate agitiation yields open highlights and full shadows. I rate Neopan at 400 and Acros at 80. I use both in 35 and 120 and get prints that generally print on a 2 with my Ilford Multigrade diffueion head. Some of the best negs I've ever had.

 

[vincentbenoit]

To use Tr-X I have to rate it at 250 and find it flat and dull with more grain than before.

Hmm... Have you tried Xtol with the new Tri-X? Box speed and 1+2 dilution work well for me.

Vincent

 

[iml]

1 + 1 Xtol and Tri-X at any speed from 200 to 6400 works for me.

Ian

 

[vincentbenoit]

1 + 1 Xtol and Tri-X at any speed from 200 to 6400 works for me.

Have you tried 1+2 vs 1+1? At 400 iso I've found 1+2 to be better: more shadow detail and higher sharpness, although slightly lower contrast. For pushing I use 1+2 as well, maybe I should try 1+1...

 

[iml]

I've never tried more dilute than 1+1. Will give 1+2 a go some time.

Ian

 

[Roger Vadim]

i would give neopan 400 a try! it is a bit on the contrasty side, but i tame it with ATM49 (Calbe 49), which gives boxspeed (although i rate it at 320 and underdevelop slightly. very fine grain for a 400!
calbe49 is basicly a finegrain dev. and helps a lot. works well with acros as well - especially in 120: no grain at all...
i recently do shoot a lot of tri-x, but because you can be so sloppy with it, for the unmetered RF's: just sunny 16 and shoot. very robust, but as i say, i am very sloppy with tri-x.

 

[totifoto]

Thanx everyboy for you´re answers and pointers.

I think my scanner might be giving me some extra grain, I scanned some again with a diffrent method and some came out fine.

Acros and Neopan look great, wanna give them a try, cant buy them here in Iceland so I´ll have to order online.

I´m also gonna do some tests with diffrent devolepers.

maybe it is because I have been shootong medium format for so long using Delta 100 and 400 in ID-11 with great resault that I´m kinda lost in the 35mm. But ZI in on my shopping list so I´m gonna keep on trying diffrent things with 35mm films and developers.

Thanx again everyone, this webside is a great help 😉

 

[charjohncarter]

totifoto, you might try some t-grain films. Both Ilford and Kodak make them, maybe Fuji too. They scan easier and digitally are very smooth. I know everybody has there own 'favorite' developer, but you might be chasing the 'illusive butterfly' by fooling around with all those dilutions, agitations, temperatures, and types.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

When i am in the UK i use TX-400 and Delta 400 in both 35mm and 120 formats. Everything is hand processed by me, in PMK Pyro and the results from the Delta 400 seem to have less apparent grain than the TX-400 but both make good 16 x 20" prints.

I found the Fuji Neopan 400 to be less flexible in PMK Pyro and doesn't push so well.
Fuji Acros produced prints from 120 which were so fine in grain structure it was hard to focus the image on the baseboard! - i found these prints too smooth and plasticy for my tastes. So i work with 400 speed in all formats.

Here in Bangkok i have to work with what i can get; which is usually TX-400 and Neopan 400. The film is processed locally by a lab that uses HC 110 and i find the results from TX-400 consistent and the scans i make are smooth with good grain structure. Conversely the negs processed in PMK Pyro although they make for smoother grain wet prints, when scanned showed an increased grain structure.