Delta 100 vs TMX technical differences

[Pere Casals]

I'd like to learn what technical differences have Delta 100 vs TMX for LF.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061301938422338.pdf
http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/f4016_TMax_100.pdf


spectral response

TMX to me has a more orthopanchromatic look, while Delta looks more panchro to me.

These are the curves, Kodak one is more scientific...

I don't know if ergs vs spectrogram are a bit different information.

To me there it looks that TMX has practical relative lower red sensitivity...


162717

Do you think Delta 100 vs TMX spectral look can be mostly matched with blue or yellow filters ???



density curves

Kodak datasheet is much better, showing density build up until 3.0D.

Ilford datasheet only shows practical use range, this is until 2.0D

Is there a real difference?



sharpness

Do Delta 100 match TMX resolving power ?

Can this be detected given resolving power of LF lenses ?

Can it be detected in prints or scans


reciprocity failure

This is clear, TMX has less. It's the single real technical performance difference I found for LF?



grain

I figure it has no importance for LF, as both tabular. perhaps there is an slight difference in small formats...

[Rick A]

While I've shot both, I don't care for either. I do like the Delta more, but only for processing, fixes out "cleaner", no (or not as much) magenta dye to wash out. I'm all for "old school" grain in my photos, and think tabular grain films appear digital (IMO).
edit: I never scan my negatives. I print in the darkroom using a variety of methods.

[Sal Santamaura]

This thread is a transparent element in your campaign to convince LF photographers they should boycott Kodak sheet film. It just so happens that, in my opinion, 100 DELTA is, in most respects, a better choice than TMX. However, the best choice among these two is "none of the above."

Since TMX manufacturing was moved to Bldg. 38 and, some years later, TMY-2 was introduced to replace TMY, the best choice has been TMY-2. Especially when developed in XTOL, there's no more versatile sheet film than TMY-2.

Please don't rant about Kodak prices. If you are not interested in or capable of paying them, buy all the 100 DELTA you'd like. Making the choice of film a political crusade at this Web site is not appropriate.

[peter schrager]

I support kodak anyway I can. never liked tmax100 but love tmy2 as it is my go to film...have played with delta 100 a bit and I like it...
I use what I need to to get the results I want...
thank you Sal for speaking up! this is a photography site; let's keep it that way!!

[IanG]

I've shot a lot of both films and like them both. I switched to Delta 100 because of real difficulties finding Tmax 100 (or any other Kodak B&W film) while living and traveling abroad (Turkey and South america), Ilford and surprisingly Foma films were easy to find.

I get superb results with both films, some don't like Tmax and Delta films but I'm happy to use either, you'd see the differences more with smaller formats but only if you shot the films side by side, by the time you compare prints of differing subjects there's nothing in it, I'd say the same with Fomapan 100 & 200 which I also use.

Sal brings up the issue of political choices but reality is it's often the effects of exchange rates US/UK/EU/Japan that affect film pricing in different markets.

Ian

[Sal Santamaura]

...Making the choice of film a political crusade at this Web site is not appropriate.


...Sal brings up the issue of political choices but reality is it's often the effects of exchange rates US/UK/EU/Japan that affect film pricing in different markets...

My mention of a political crusade was not intended to reference national or partisan politics. Rather, it concerned this thread


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?137828-The-Film-Pricing-Thread

in which the prices of Kodak LF film, regardless of local market, are cited as reason for a boycott of those products.

[IanG]

My mention of a political crusade was not intended to reference national or partisan politics. Rather, it concerned this thread


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?137828-The-Film-Pricing-Thread

in which the prices of Kodak LF film, regardless of local market, are cited as reason for a boycott of those products.

We had the same thing with Ilford price rises a few years ago, it's unfortunately reality.

Ian

[Pere Casals]

This thread is a transparent element in your campaign to convince LF photographers they should boycott Kodak sheet film. It just so happens that, in my opinion, 100 DELTA is, in most respects, a better choice than TMX. However, the best choice among these two is "none of the above."

Since TMX manufacturing was moved to Bldg. 38 and, some years later, TMY-2 was introduced to replace TMY, the best choice has been TMY-2. Especially when developed in XTOL, there's no more versatile sheet film than TMY-2.

Please don't rant about Kodak prices. If you are not interested in or capable of paying them, buy all the 100 DELTA you'd like. Making the choice of film a political crusade at this Web site is not appropriate.

Not at all, here I'm not say a word aganist Kodak or Ilford. I like TMAX: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/29604172183/in/dateposted-public/

Just want to know real difference between D100 and TMX.

[Pere Casals]

I've shot a lot of both films and like them both. I switched to Delta 100 because of real difficulties finding Tmax 100 (or any other Kodak B&W film) while living and traveling abroad (Turkey and South america), Ilford and surprisingly Foma films were easy to find.

I get superb results with both films, some don't like Tmax and Delta films but I'm happy to use either, you'd see the differences more with smaller formats but only if you shot the films side by side, by the time you compare prints of differing subjects there's nothing in it, I'd say the same with Fomapan 100 & 200 which I also use.

Sal brings up the issue of political choices but reality is it's often the effects of exchange rates US/UK/EU/Japan that affect film pricing in different markets.

Ian


I'd ask if you think that, because different spectral response, one can make TMX look like D100 by using a pale yellow filter ?

[Pere Casals]

My mention of a political crusade was not intended to reference national or partisan politics. Rather, it concerned this thread


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?137828-The-Film-Pricing-Thread

in which the prices of Kodak LF film, regardless of local market, are cited as reason for a boycott of those products.

Hello Sal,

This was another thread, I'd ask to focus here in discussing about technical and practical differences D100 vs TMX for LF form users that use both. Here I'd like not speaking at all about pricing or boycots, of preference for brands. Just technical discussion.

Regards

[Willie]

reciprocity failure

This is clear, TMX has less. It's the single real technical performance difference I found for LF?


Does TMax 100 still have a UV blocking layer that makes it lousy for Pt/Pd and other alternative printing processes that rely on UltraViolet light?

Have been told the TMax extended red sensitivity made for shadows that were under blue skies darker and caused them to lose detail/block up sooner than other films. Have not checked it, anyone know if this is reality? I would ask my Uncle but this is the weekend for the NCAA Wrestling tournament and he is not available to ask til it is over. (Go Penn State - winning its 6th Title in 7 years under Coach Cael Sanderson)

[Pere Casals]

I support kodak anyway I can. never liked tmax100 but love tmy2 as it is my go to film...have played with delta 100 a bit and I like it...
I use what I need to to get the results I want...
thank you Sal for speaking up! this is a photography site; let's keep it that way!!

I'd like to know what differences do you find between TMX vs TMY? It's because curve, spectral response ?

[Pere Casals]

reciprocity failure

This is clear, TMX has less. It's the single real technical performance difference I found for LF?


Does TMax 100 still have a UV blocking layer that makes it lousy for Pt/Pd and other alternative printing processes that rely on UltraViolet light?

I also feel it's the single performance difference. One situation it matters is for long exposition to smoothen water, then shadows of rocks go to reciprocity failure. For that situation Acros is best, and TMX if better than D100.

But... let me ask, would you place a different (yellow) filter depending if you are using D100 or TMX ?

[koraks]

Does TMax 100 still have a UV blocking layer that makes it lousy for Pt/Pd and other alternative printing processes that rely on UltraViolet light?

As far as I know: yes. Also, it's not a layer, but inherent to the unique base material used for this film. It's a royal pain in the behind.

[IanG]

I'd ask if you think that, because different spectral response, one can make TMX look like D100 by using a pale yellow filter ?

It's not something I worry about so I can't really comment.

You're muddling Orthochromatic which is red blind, with the extended red sensitivity of Tmax 100 which is the total opposite. Better red sensitivity is important at low light levels where there's far less light from the Blue end of the spectrum but with a daylight image it's marginal.

Ian

[Pere Casals]

It's not something I worry about so I can't really comment.

You're muddling Orthochromatic which is red blind, with the extended red sensitivity of Tmax 100 which is the total opposite. Better red sensitivity is important at low light levels where there's far less light from the Blue end of the spectrum but with a daylight image it's marginal.

Ian


Ian, I said "orthopanchromatic", not "orthochromatic".
Acros is orthopanchromatic, TMX is Panchromatic, but I see an orthopanchromatic look because TMX is more blue sensitive (I guess)


162750


Those spectral responses are perhaps from different instruments, still it looks that TMX has a dominant blue sensitivity than delivers (to me) an orthopanchromatic look (Pinaverdol sensitizing dye style)

This is nice a classical look... that sometimes it has to be tamed with yellow filter.

Because different Spectral Sensibility I guess that one needs a different filter (D100 vs TMX) to obtain the same look from a particular scene.

[stawastawa]

(side question)
Is there by chance a compiled list somewhere of the films known to have UV blocking layers/bases?

~nicholas


As far as I know: yes. Also, it's not a layer, but inherent to the unique base material used for this film. It's a royal pain in the behind.

[peter schrager]

I'd like to know what differences do you find between TMX vs TMY? It's because curve, spectral response ?
Peter after photographing for nearly 50 years I pay no attention to curves or otherwise..if you use one film well; know it's attributes and shortcomings then you can max out the potential. I had recently taken some photos with delta 100 in fog and liked the results...I tried it because I looked at hundreds of other people pix on the Internet and saw a certain glow that I like. ..I'm result driven and the film you use like the paper you print on are your signature!

[koraks]

Not that I know of, but I suspect it may be a short list. A very short list indeed. I personally couldn't name any other film that has this characteristic apart from TMX.

[David Karp]

Years ago, John Sexton told us at a workshop that TMAX 100 was designed to avoid the need to use a yellow filter. Since many photographers regularly used at least a yellow #8 filter when shooting black and white, the idea was to avoid that necessity. It is more likely that you need to use a yellow filter on Delta 100 to get the look of TMAX 100 without it.

[Pere Casals]

Years ago, John Sexton told us at a workshop that TMAX 100 was designed to avoid the need to use a yellow filter. Since many photographers regularly used at least a yellow #8 filter when shooting black and white, the idea was to avoid that necessity. It is more likely that you need to use a yellow filter on Delta 100 to get the look of TMAX 100 without it.

A Sexton's workshop had to be something great. These 4 videos were very motivating to me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzZj-4H5tW8


Interesting... if Sexton said it...

Anyway I don't understant the reason as Spectral Response of TMX shows to me the counter, look the Kodak plot: it's more sensitive to blue than normal, so to get same response you should place the yellow filter on TMX to get same combined blue sensitivity than D100. I think the plot says it.

162750

Also TMX can see some more deep red than D100, some 25nm, but this is little.

I always thought that TMX makes caucasian faces lighter because higher blue sensitivity, like if placing a pale blue on D100.

[Pere Casals]

Peter after photographing for nearly 50 years I pay no attention to curves or otherwise..if you use one film well; know it's attributes and shortcomings then you can max out the potential. I had recently taken some photos with delta 100 in fog and liked the results...I tried it because I looked at hundreds of other people pix on the Internet and saw a certain glow that I like. ..I'm result driven and the film you use like the paper you print on are your signature!

Well, I guess that with experience one realize that important thing is subject !

I have to agree... achieving wanted signature may be something very difficult or as easy as using a film+paper combination. I guess sometimes it's more about discovering those valued combinations than messing with curves :)

I'm still investigating about wet printing...

[Pere Casals]

Years ago, John Sexton told us at a workshop that TMAX 100 was designed to avoid the need to use a yellow filter. Since many photographers regularly used at least a yellow #8 filter when shooting black and white, the idea was to avoid that necessity. It is more likely that you need to use a yellow filter on Delta 100 to get the look of TMAX 100 without it.

One is in ergs and the other is a Wedge Spectrogram.

Well, perhaps these graphs cannot be compared, as I was thinking.

162750

I'm interested in investigating this. I'm to make a simple lab test to measure color sensitivity. I think that it can be done by making standard film calibration but using different color monochromatic LED light sources.

[faberryman]

I'm interested in investigating this. I'm to make a simple lab test to measure color sensitivity. I think that it can be done by making standard film calibration but using different color monochromatic LED light sources.
You could also take photographs and exercise judgment about the results. Between testing and boycotting, I don't see how you have time to actually photograph, particularly now that you will also be learning about wet printing with your newly acquired enlargers.

[Willie]

Have been told by a few whose work I admire that the 'yellow filter effect' of TMax 100 darkens blue a bit and as a result deep shadows under clear blue skies goes darker than normal and loses detail. Also told this is not a problem with other films.

Anyone actually checked this out?

[BetterSense]

Like women, one black and white film is as good as another. Really, it's a matter of getting used to whatever you have.

Also, I don't place much faith in the datasheet graphs. The manufacturer themselves typically admit the data is representative only and the actual film may vary. Plus I doubt they all use exactly the same labs or techniques between companies. Ilford even admits some of their films don't follow ISO definitions for the speed ratings.

[Pere Casals]

You could also take photographs and exercise judgment about the results. Between testing and boycotting, I don't see how you have time to actually photograph, particularly now that you will also be learning about wet printing with your newly acquired enlargers.

Hello faberryman,

Good advice.

Regards

[Pere Casals]

Have been told by a few whose work I admire that the 'yellow filter effect' of TMax 100 darkens blue a bit and as a result deep shadows under clear blue skies goes darker than normal and loses detail. Also told this is not a problem with other films.

Anyone actually checked this out?

Also I'd like to know...

[Pere Casals]

Also, I don't place much faith in the datasheet graphs. The manufacturer themselves typically admit the data is representative only and the actual film may vary. Plus I doubt they all use exactly the same labs or techniques between companies. Ilford even admits some of their films don't follow ISO definitions for the speed ratings.

Kodak graphs are technically very well done, Ilford graphs are more oriented to what common photographers want to read about.

[MAubrey]

Like women, one black and white film is as good as another.
Do we really need to be comparing human beings to objects?

[Willie]

Do we really need to be comparing human beings to objects?

Should we compare them to highways?

[Andy Eads]

I made an inadvertent test on the latent image characteristics of both films. I shot two sheets of each then misplaced the holders for about 3 years. I processed the film according to the original exposure/development plan. I found that there was no noticeable increase in base fog on the TMax 100 film. There was an overall base fog of about .3 on the Delta 100. However, both negatives printed well with both negatives having the planned print density range. The inference being the base fog on the Delta 100 was like a neutral density filter had been pasted to the negative. Both films did not show loss of speed or contrast due to the prolonged storage under less than ideal conditions. This speaks well of both films.

I occasionally use cyanotype to illustrate exposure to my high school photo students and the UV absorbing characteristics of TMax eliminate using those negatives from this activity.

[Pere Casals]

I made an inadvertent test on the latent image characteristics of both films. I shot two sheets of each then misplaced the holders for about 3 years. I processed the film according to the original exposure/development plan. I found that there was no noticeable increase in base fog on the TMax 100 film. There was an overall base fog of about .3 on the Delta 100. However, both negatives printed well with both negatives having the planned print density range. The inference being the base fog on the Delta 100 was like a neutral density filter had been pasted to the negative. Both films did not show loss of speed or contrast due to the prolonged storage under less than ideal conditions. This speaks well of both films.

I occasionally use cyanotype to illustrate exposure to my high school photo students and the UV absorbing characteristics of TMax eliminate using those negatives from this activity.

Interesting information. It is possible that TMX emulsion is more stable, but also it could depend a bit of when each expired, and preserving conditions before the shot.

I guess that TMX may have other sensitizing dyes, perhaps discovered for color film. That (sometines nasty to remove) pink tint suggest a different dye sensitizing apporach, I guess more advanced.

Anyway I also think both films are equally good for most situations.

Do you think Spectral Sensitivity is different ?

Do you think that TMX UV blocking feature will modify a bit the look for shots done with sunlight illuminated subjects ?

Should place a UV filter on D100 to have same look ?

[Mark Sampson]

In the immortal words of the late Fred Picker: TRY IT.[B][/B

[Pere Casals]

In the immortal words of the late Fred Picker: TRY IT.[B][/B

Of course !!! With film nothing subtitutes testing, you are right...

Anyway informaton from others also help to interpret what you test.

Thanks for make me dicover Picker: http://www.fototv.com/refining_the_print

[Vaughn]

Have been told by a few whose work I admire that the 'yellow filter effect' of TMax 100 darkens blue a bit and as a result deep shadows under clear blue skies goes darker than normal and loses detail. Also told this is not a problem with other films.

Anyone actually checked this out?

I have always treated TMax100 as such. I prefer a light sky, and a yellow on TMax100 always darkened the sky more than I wanted. This past couple of weeks I was out in Death Valley. I had both TMax400 and FP4+ loaded in the 8x10 holders (and some Tri-X 320). I only had a yellow filter for the 300mm, so used the FP4+ with that lens (and filter); and TMax400 with the 250mm and the 360mm if the sky was significant to the image. I figure the skies will be rendered fairly close between the two films.

I re-took this image (6yrs ago...palms are now dead). Same film (FP4+) as the original, I took the original with and without a yellow filter. I printed the one with the filter, I believe. I re-took it with a slightly longer lens (360 vs 300mm) from about the same spot, no filter. it will be fun to see how they compare.

[Bernard_L]

I'd ask if you think that, because different spectral response, one can make TMX look like D100 by using a pale yellow filter ?


You're muddling Orthochromatic which is red blind, with the extended red sensitivity of Tmax 100 which is the total opposite. Better red sensitivity is important at low light levels where there's far less light from the Blue end of the spectrum but with a daylight image it's marginal.Ian



Anyway I don't understant the reason as Spectral Response of TMX shows to me the counter, look the Kodak plot: it's more sensitive to blue than normal, so to get same response you should place the yellow filter on TMX to get same combined blue sensitivity than D100. I think the plot says it.

The Kodak spectral plot is for uniform energy (although, technically, it should not say erg/cm2, but erg/cm2/nm). While the Ilford plot is whetever density is produced by a 2850K blackbody. The latter has vanishing energy in the blue. Had the Ilford plot been normalized for energy, it would (in relative terms) have more blue and less red sensitivity than the Kodak one. Can't be more specific without having the respective data in numeric form.

Side note #1. Interesting to me! this is the first time I realize that Kodak and Ilford plots are normalized in different ways. The rising sensitivity towards the blue/violet end of the spectrum of TMX (and presumably Delta 100 when plotted in energy units) is good reason to use a yellow filter (which I did! on empirical grounds)

Side note #2. Is there an official definition of orthopanchromatic? Ot has this been made up for hype, like "high silver content"? I don't even know if it means "in-between panchro and ortho" or "panchro, only more so" (even more red sensitive)?

[Pere Casals]

Thanks for your information.



Side note #2. Is there an official definition of orthopanchromatic? Ot has this been made up for hype, like "high silver content"? I don't even know if it means "in-between panchro and ortho" or "panchro, only more so" (even more red sensitive)?


Not al all, you can directly relate Pinaverdol sensitizing dye to orthopanchromatic performance.

Well, there is a big difference between Ortho and Panchro: Red blind vs sensitive to full visible spectrum. OrthoPan is the middle point.

I consider with Ortho look the emulsions with Erytrosine sensitization dye. OrthoPan those with Pinaverdol. Panchro those with Pinacyanol (full red sensitive) and some Pinaverdol to get also good green sensibility.


Fuji Neopan Acros say in the data sheet it's Orthopanchromatic, page 1, section 4

http://www.foto-r3.com/files/acros.pdf


Note that 2017 marketed emulsions also use other sensitizing dyes, some secret, discovered for color film manufacturing.


IMHO, it's a well stablished photographic term, I ignore if there is a technical definition, nm based.

Recently I've discovered all that because I'm engaging dry plate, and I'm troubled by trying to obtain relatively good emulsion.

A lot of fun :)

Regards.

[Pere Casals]

Side note #1. Interesting to me! this is the first time I realize that Kodak and Ilford plots are normalized in different ways. The rising sensitivity towards the blue/violet end of the spectrum of TMX (and presumably Delta 100 when plotted in energy units) is good reason to use a yellow filter (which I did! on empirical grounds)



It looks that John Sexton says that TMX is designed to need less the yellow filter, but he does not say why.

Perhaps UV blocking feature of TMX removes the sunlight UV effect, and for this reason needs less the yellow filter.

This UV blocking feature is bad for UV alternative printing, but may have the benefit of not needing an UV filter, and less need of a yellow.


But it would be important to know if UV blocking is made in the emulsion or in the base. If not made in the emulsion then my theory is wrong.

[When I can I'll test that, I'll remove the emulsion and I'll see if UV blocking is still there...

[Michael R]

Pere:

In the original tech sheets Kodak indicated the TMax emulsions were designed to have slightly less blue sensitivity than other panchromatic films, in order to more closely approximate the sensitivity of the eye. This has nothing to do with the UV attenuating dyes which were/are on the film base.

[Pere Casals]

Pere:

In the original tech sheets Kodak indicated the TMax emulsions were designed to have slightly less blue sensitivity than other panchromatic films, in order to more closely approximate the sensitivity of the eye. This has nothing to do with the UV attenuating dyes which were/are on the film base.

Thanks for that information. So if the UV blocking is at the base then it has not that effect at all. Still I don't understand why using a base with UV blocking additives...

So lower blue sensitivity may/should be related to the sensitizing dyes and possible staining dyes potentially used for performance enhacements in dye sensitization.

Still including non sensitizing dyes in emulsion/supercoating to tame blue it could be a technical choice, perhaps, just speculating...

[djdister]

Thanks for that information. So if the UV blocking is at the base then it has not that effect at all. Still I don't understand why using a base with UV blocking additives...


Since UV radiation has a shorter wavelength than visible light, UV rays would pass through the emulsion layers and continue to "scatter" around between base and emulsion if they are not absorbed or otherwise attenuated by dyes in the base layer. As a related example for cutting down on UV rays hitting the film, some folks use a UV cut filter in front of the lens...

[Pere Casals]

Since UV radiation has a shorter wavelength than visible light, UV rays would pass through the emulsion layers and continue to "scatter" around between base and emulsion if they are not absorbed or otherwise attenuated by dyes in the base layer. As a related example for cutting down on UV rays hitting the film, some folks use a UV cut filter in front of the lens...

Yes... but also there is the anti-halation layer, so photons that have arrived to the base won't scatter there and will go to the anti-halation layer to be absorbed there. The UV absorbing film base would be a good idea if anti-halation layer reflects UV, just speculating, perhaps used anti-halation layer was not black enough for UV...

[Michael R]

The UV dyes apparently had to do with reducing static-related exposure from the back of the film.

[Pere Casals]

The UV dyes apparently had to do with reducing static-related exposure from the back of the film.

Hello Michael, so (I understand) as anti-halation layer is opaque... light comming from the back has been reflected in the interface base/anti-halation layer. The UV absortion of the base may remove that problem for UV... I guess...