? re. delta 100 vs. agfa apx 100

Brad, be aware that D100 and D400 seem to behave very differently in Rodinal. The 400 with normal (1:25 to 1:50) dilutions looks, let's just say, unconventional. Stand development with 1:100+ tames it, but Rodinal and D400 wasn't the match made in Heaven.
 
Makes sense - so maybe I need all three, here's my thinking:

D100 @ 100 with Rodinal 1:50 for high acutance
D400 @ 400 or 800 with DDX 1:4 for speed
D3200 @1600 with Perceptol at stock for better grain

Does that make some sense? This plan is only coming out of reading and I know that I'll have to make the final decisions based on what I like or don't like but does that seem like a decent starting approach?
 
Just to put another option out there, I have a question for Rich or anyone with Fuji Acros experience. I just joined the Acros group over at Flickr, and noticed that you have a few posted also. Can you compare the merits of Fuji Acros and Delta 100? I don't have a lot of experience with either film, but my favorite feature of Acros is that it scans easily.
 
How do the Deltas work with pyro (PMK) or diafine?

I've heard that APX+pyro isn't such a good idea (emulsion hardener?)
 
bmicklea said:
D100 @ 100 with Rodinal 1:50 for high acutance
D400 @ 400 or 800 with DDX 1:4 for speed
D3200 @1600 with Perceptol at stock for better grain

Does that make some sense?
Click to expand...

Well, it kinda makes sense. First, you mentioned earlier using Perceptol with D3200. This is not a good idea. The point of D3200 is to shoot it at high speeds - 1600+. You can achieve 1250 or so with a speed-increasing developer. But Perceptol is a speed-decreasing one. Which means you're down at, say, 1000 or 800. That means that shooting it at 3200 will have fine grain, but it'll have no shadow detail at all.

Also, Rodinal is an acutance developer, but it's not a "high acutance" one. Just fyi. You want acutance, go pyro, FX-2, or something like that. _That_ is acutance. However, your logic overall in that regard is sound - using an acutance developer with a fine grain film is the way to go. Low grain lets you go for sharpness.

allan
 
jja said:
Just to put another option out there, I have a question for Rich or anyone with Fuji Acros experience. I just joined the Acros group over at Flickr, and noticed that you have a few posted also. Can you compare the merits of Fuji Acros and Delta 100? I don't have a lot of experience with either film, but my favorite feature of Acros is that it scans easily.
Click to expand...

In some phone conversations with Allan lately I was expressing to him that although the adage of "find one film and developer and stick to it" certainly has merits I've been on a tear recently (last few years) of many kinds of films and developers as I've found some great deals on expired 100' foot rolls of everything from Delta 100, HP5+, FP4+, Tmax 100, Neopan 400, Tri-X, APX400 and even some old Eastman Plus-x movie stock film that is looking great. And I've been developing in Rodinal, D-76, HC-110, Xtol, Microdol-X, Perceptol, DiXactol, Exactol Lux and Diafine. Know what I'm finding out? It can ALL look great. The subject, lighting and my scanning and post-processing skills I'm finding are MUCH more important than the film or developer I use.

That all said I am finding some combinations I prefer over others, though in all honesty only slightly and not based on any real empirical evidence per se. (Part of my problem is I'm lazy and hate taking notes and such.) For example other than with APX25 and sometimes Tri-X I'm not all that fond of HC-110. Why? Cannot really tell you with certainty. I feel that perhaps the negs seem a bit more mushy and not all that "clean" and sharp as I'd like. But then I've seen AMAZING results from others with HC-110 with Tri-X and other films. I also do not like HP5+ in Rodinal or D-76 that much. Again, cannot tell you exactly, and sometimes I fear my emotions and feeling about some combinations might be I simply had lighting or subjects that were not all that great and so I may have been wrongly influenced by that and not being thrilled with any particular images on those rolls rather than true dissatisfaction with the film or developer or combo. I imagine I'll migrate to only a couple films and developers some day but I'm having fun now as is and like I said seem to get very good, if not great results from almost any combo.

Ok, but you asked what is the difference between Acros and Delta 100? In standard lighting and such I'd say not a whole heck of a lot. Either compared to say APX100 or Plus-X is a much stronger difference. For night shots though Acros has MUCH better reciprocity characteristics for longer exposure vs. Delta 100 so for night it's always Acros.

Lastly, I just scanned a new image from a roll of Delta 100 developed in Rodinal. A hand-held shot just after dusk a couple nights ago taken with a newly acquired Olympus XA (only $20 from a swap meet!):

http://shootingonthefly.blogspot.com/2007/02/polk-and-pine-streets-san-francisco.html

(click on the image to see full size and with better tonality and clarity)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice shot Rich. To answer your earlier question, it's a path connecting Yorkshire Dr. and Romany Rd. in Oakland.

I like Fuji Acros a lot as well, but if I had to choose only one 100 iso film, it would be Delta 100.
 
Wow, so many combinatiions. Like you, I think I'd like to standardize to a couple of films, but then I'm tempted to try something new. And like you, I like almost everything I try. So far I've liked Acros in Rodinal and HC-110. In HC-110, my Acros shots look a little creamier, but it just may be the light. I haven't experimented with Delta 100 much, and this thread is convincing me to give it an honest go, particularly in Rodinal.

Here are two shots I posted to the Acros group in Flickr. The first is in HC-110, the second i Rodinal.

386256085_600c4fcc40_o.jpg


395822611_239fbdfac1_o.jpg
 
kaiyen said:
Well, it kinda makes sense. First, you mentioned earlier using Perceptol with D3200. This is not a good idea. The point of D3200 is to shoot it at high speeds - 1600+. You can achieve 1250 or so with a speed-increasing developer. But Perceptol is a speed-decreasing one. Which means you're down at, say, 1000 or 800. That means that shooting it at 3200 will have fine grain, but it'll have no shadow detail at all.

Also, Rodinal is an acutance developer, but it's not a "high acutance" one. Just fyi. You want acutance, go pyro, FX-2, or something like that. _That_ is acutance. However, your logic overall in that regard is sound - using an acutance developer with a fine grain film is the way to go. Low grain lets you go for sharpness.

allan
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification Allan, I guess I'll do D3200 in DDX then - that seems to be the standard developer for Delta films. Or are there any other suggestions?
 
DDX or Microphen, it's powder equivalent, are the usual recommendations. I can't think of another really great developer for D3200. Rodinal produces interesting results, with tighter but stronger grain. But interesting nonetheless.

allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom