Moving to Ilford from Kodak, begrudgingly…

[Daniel Stone]

Hey all,

I have been a long time user of Kodak films, mostly in sheet form. 120 roll film in my early days starting out. My primary formats of choice are 810 and 45. 57 if I can find a KMV reducing back! Well, I would like to shoot 810TMY for as much as possible, but my wallet looks at me with tired eyes every time I click the shutter ;)

With the recent news of Kodak raising prices (again, grrr), my favored emulsion for black and white being Tmax 400, it’s simply pricing me out of the market. Because I would like to continue using sheet film for most of my shooting, I am looking at other options, Delta 100 being a recommended alternative. I recognize that this is a speed loss, and change of curves, but I wanted to get opinions from those of you who use Delta 100 in 45, 57 and 810 formats. I see that those three sizes are readily available in cut form for much lower prices than Kodak is currently priced at, even before this next increase in 2022.

Most negatives will be processed for contact printing and/or optical printing. I’ve been using up an old bottle of mixed 510 Pyro concentrate that Jay Defehr sent me years ago.

Thanks for your time,
Dan

[jim_jm]

I've been using Delta 100 in 8x10 for a few years now and have been happy with it. Only processing in HC-110, but I'll be trying out Pyro PMK after my current stock runs out.
For 8x10, I've only been doing contact printing. Mostly Ilford FB papers with Ilford MG or PQ paper developers.
I also love the TMax films in smaller formats, but I went with Delta 100 primarily due to the cost savings in 8x10. I've got no regrets and find the film easy to work with in a variety of situations. Ilford products always seem to be very consistent.

222709

222710

[Michael R]

Delta 100 is an excellent film. I’ve used a good amount of it in 4x5. The wild card is your developer. When developed in most general purpose developers, the Delta 100 characteristic curve is essentially the same as that of T-Max 100 (which has lower contrast than TMY2 in extreme highlights). However I can’t comment on 510 Pyro.

While Delta 100 would of course work for 8x10, maybe HP5+ is worth considering for higher speed. Sure, it’s grainier than TMY2, however image structure characteristics are non-issues with negatives that size. Depending on how much you enlarge, this could be the case for smaller sheet film formats as well.


Hey all,

I have been a long time user of Kodak films, mostly in sheet form. 120 roll film in my early days starting out. My primary formats of choice are 810 and 45. 57 if I can find a KMV reducing back! Well, I would like to shoot 810TMY for as much as possible, but my wallet looks at me with tired eyes every time I click the shutter ;)

With the recent news of Kodak raising prices (again, grrr), my favored emulsion for black and white being Tmax 400, it’s simply pricing me out of the market. Because I would like to continue using sheet film for most of my shooting, I am looking at other options, Delta 100 being a recommended alternative. I recognize that this is a speed loss, and change of curves, but I wanted to get opinions from those of you who use Delta 100 in 45, 57 and 810 formats. I see that those three sizes are readily available in cut form for much lower prices than Kodak is currently priced at, even before this next increase in 2022.

Most negatives will be processed for contact printing and/or optical printing. I’ve been using up an old bottle of mixed 510 Pyro concentrate that Jay Defehr sent me years ago.

Thanks for your time,
Dan

[paulbarden]

Dan, I use both Delta 100 and FP4 in 8x10 format and I really like them both. I see no reason to pay $$$$ for TMY when Delta 100 is a VERY reasonable alternative (and almost HALF the price!). I've processed both in PMK and Pyrocat HD and the results have been excellent in either.
I don't care for HP5 in sheet format - it lacks "sparkle" in the higher values. That makes it great for portraits (smoothed skin tones) but less appropriate for what I do (landscapes, still life)

[Alan9940]

I, too, have been a long time user of Kodak films--Tri-X, in my case. I've shot Tri-X in all formats from 120 roll to 8x10 since the late '70's. I'm now down to my last 200 sheets of 4x5 and, maybe, 40 rolls of 120 and I doubt I'll be buying this stock, again. Over the years, I've used Delta 100 in 120, 4x5, and 8x10 and have no complaints. It seems to perform well in just about any developer, but my favorite for this film is Clayton F-76+; just seems to be something magical about that combination. Just recently returned to experimenting with 510-Pyro, but haven't souped any Delta 100 in it, yet. Anyway, bottom line...I don't think you can go wrong with this film.

[r.e.]

With the recent news of Kodak raising prices (again, grrr), my favored emulsion for black and white being Tmax 400, it’s simply pricing me out of the market.

That's quite a price hike. In August, B&H was selling 10 sheets of 8x10 T-Max 400 for $100. Four months later the price is $150, although B&H says it has a "limited supply" at $120. In the same period, Ilford's price for FP4 and HP5 has remained at $7.12 a sheet, although Delta 100 has gone up from $6.80 to $7.60.

[neil poulsen]

I purchase all that I can from Ilford, just out of principle. If ever under Ilford goes, dire circumstances will black and white photographers face. I stick with, and get good results from, HP5+.

Long Live Ilford!

[Oren Grad]

At the risk of telling you something you already know: if you're printing in the darkroom and have well-defined preferences for tonal rendering, the question isn't what film to use, it's what film/paper combination to use. A new film might have a different characteristic curve, but you might be able to compensate for the differences in part or in full through choice of paper. So if you need to change your film, it's also worth revisiting the available papers and thinking about how to achieve a match that best suits you.

[Michael R]

I suggest OP not overthink this. People make way too much out of the differences between B&W films when it comes to the first tier offerings. Most of the control is in printing anyway and you end up making whatever adjustments might be necessary by using your eyes. If you didn’t know what film you were using you wouldn’t know the difference.

[Oren Grad]

Most of the control is in printing anyway and you end up making whatever adjustments might be necessary by using your eyes.

I've found that if I have a congenial film/paper match those adjustments are quick and easy; if not, printing is a hassle, dominated by tedious remedial manipulation and no fun at all.

YMMV. DMMV too. :)

[Mark Stahlke]

I shoot Delta 100 in 4x5 and soup it in Ilford DD-X. I'm very happy with the results I'm getting.

[Daniel Stone]

Morning all, Merry Christmas!

Thanks for your replies, both with experience shared along with some other considerations.
I know it might be heretical for some, but running a business typically means little to no time for darkroom work. I do plan on sticking with darkroom work going forward, but I would like to eventually scan negatives and output digital, enlarged negatives for printing via carbon. Still much to learn, but this would mean I can start from straight digital files, or scanned film. While I would much prefer to use Azo or Lodima, contact chloride papers are basically DOA for me, sadly.

I’ll pick up a box of 4x5 Delta 100 and start some testing.

cheers,
Dan

[ic-racer]

Welcome aboard. I started using Ilford instead of Kodak in 1974.

[paulbarden]

Morning all, Merry Christmas!

Thanks for your replies, both with experience shared along with some other considerations.
I know it might be heretical for some, but running a business typically means little to no time for darkroom work. I do plan on sticking with darkroom work going forward, but I would like to eventually scan negatives and output digital, enlarged negatives for printing via carbon. Still much to learn, but this would mean I can start from straight digital files, or scanned film. While I would much prefer to use Azo or Lodima, contact chloride papers are basically DOA for me, sadly.

I’ll pick up a box of 4x5 Delta 100 and start some testing.

cheers,
Dan

If it’s a contact chloride paper you want, Delta 100 is a near perfect match for Salt (ammonium chloride) printing.

[Willie]

Just looked at some fine prints from 8x10 Ilford Delta 400. Sure wish they still made it in that size. They really do look nice.

[Daniel Stone]

If it’s a contact chloride paper you want, Delta 100 is a near perfect match for Salt (ammonium chloride) printing.

Please explain some more. Time is a bit limited right now, but I am happy to start reading about alt processes if you're able to share some links or references you might recommend. Consider me green on this topic, a total newbie.

[paulbarden]

Please explain some more. Time is a bit limited right now, but I am happy to start reading about alt processes if you're able to share some links or references you might recommend. Consider me green on this topic, a total newbie.

Hi Daniel.
Here is a very basic Salt Printing primer: https://www.alternativephotography.com/a-dash-of-salt/

A salt print is Henry Fox Talbot's "photogenic drawing" process, by which you create your own POP paper by first salting an appropriate piece of paper with either table salt or (better) Ammonium chloride, and then introducing silver nitrate. The decomposition process results in a paper coated with Silver chloride, which is light sensitive. You then contact print a negative on the paper using either a UV exposure box, or sunlight. Exposure can take anywhere from a couple of minutes, to an hour or more. After that, you basically wash the excess silver from the paper, fix and wash it. Its a contact chloride print process, similar to AZO paper.

Scan of a recent salt print from a glass negative: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51720049606_d659922760_h.jpg

And here is Ellie Young's much more detailed volume, from which you can learn almost everything you need to know to make superb salt prints: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjt-I_huYL1AhVqIjQIHfRGB-I4ChAWegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F15614798.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0bqxKOyZIGqBU202_DIKzQ

Ellie has a book on the subject: https://www.alternativephotography.com/the-salt-print-manual/
And Christina Z. Anderson's book is also excellent: https://www.amazon.com/Salted-Paper-Printing-Step-Step/dp/1138280224

[John Kasaian]

I migrated from Kodak to Ilford and survived :)