Would be interested to hear reports on which of these two is better. I'm more i nterested in the 100ASA version. I read a highly complimentary review of Delta, but I have a feeling T-Max is more popular. Many thanks in advance.
Would be interested to hear reports on which of these two is better. I'm more i nterested in the 100ASA version. I read a highly complimentary review of Delta, but I have a feeling T-Max is more popular. Many thanks in advance.
Yaakov having used both only in 120 format (at present I only use Delta100 in 45 ), I do prefer Delta finding it a sharper finer grained film with very smooth hi gh values.Of course it does depend on how you process the film and I'm sure ther e are those who get more out of T-Max then I ever did. None the less T-Max is an excellent film and I believe John Sexton still uses it so it can't be bad. Also folk speak well of FP4 plus, which I've yet to try. Regards, Trevor.
I too used both films in 120 format and do NOT find the Delta to be sharper or finer grained, in fact TMX developed in XTOL is unbelievably fine grained! For some reason I prefer the "look" of Delta 100, that's why I use it and not the TMX! I guess with lots of experimentation in the dark room I could make the curves of TMX similar to Delta but I'd rather be out in the field taking pictures (maybe it's just me, but I feel like I already wasted too many hours doing "test shots"....)
Yaakov, Having tried TMax 100 and the Ilford alternatives I now solely use FP4 Plus and Delta 100. For me both films offer amazing sharpness and gradation/tonality in a variety of developers. I would agree that TMax is a sharp film, especially in XTOL, but it does not seem to compare with the sharpness I can get from both of the Ilford films. For the record I use both films in 120 and 5x4 sheet. Regards Paul
I don't know about about anyone else, but I've found TMax to be too finnicky for my taste. I know you didn't ask about it, but I get much more consistent results with Plus-X. I use 5x7 and 8x10.
Now, how many of you are from England? The USA? British Commonwealth? Some sordid place no one's heard of? James
One issue that I usually don't see discussed in the Ilford - Kodak question is surface flaws. I can't think of any of my favorite photographers that use Ilford film. When you discuss this with them, they all have horror stories about the photography trip and the best image being ruined by surfaces flaws in the film. Most will say that they will not use Ilford films for this reason. My experience with Ilford is with their papers, a few years ago, it was not uncommon to find entire batches with flaws in the surface. On the advice of photographers whose work I respect is why I usually use Kodak film.
I've tried Delta 100, TMax 100 & 400, and FP4+ in 4x5 and have since settled on FP4+ developed in either HC-110 or Rodinol. The modern t- grain films are indeed quite sharp, but I don't like their tonality nearly as much as traditional emulsions. Also, I find that FP4+ is much more compatible with my darkroom processes and zone system practices than either Delta or TMax films. As for surface defects, I've exposed more than 200 sheets of FP4+ in the last 6 months and have yet to see anything but a perfect sheet of film. However, the first batch of film I ever shot in LF, TMax 100, was thoroughly messed up. On contrary to Jeff White's comment about none of his favorite photographers shooting Ilford, my favorite photog, Clyde Butcher, shoots quite a bit of stuff on Delta films. And I'm sure if you've seen any of his photographs, you can agree that his results are nothing short of phenomenal. Finally, to answer James' question, I'm here in northeast Ohio near Cleveland, AKA "the mistake on the lake."
Just a thought...
Yaakov, I too use T-Max,Delta 100, and FP4 Plus, in 120 and 4 x 5. I use these for simple high volume documentation work(25-35exposures in a day) for recording Job site progress. These are not works of Art and really are just for the record. For me Andreas and Chad hit it on the head. If all works out even in the processing, I cant explain it but the Ilford Products seem to make a far more appealing finished print(regardless of method and materials used to print). Chads comment is the real selling point for me---The Ilford products are far more forgiving during processing (especially if processed in Ilford Materials), and for me the cost of using all Ilford (film and chemicals) is very very economical and just plain easy(OK so Im just lazy). For my Good Stuff, 5X7, and 8X10 I use Plus-X in HC110. But sometimes Im wondering about that when I look at the results with the Ilford Products. Another film that I use is Agfa APX but I have the same problem with consistency, but I have to admit that the price versus the application can make it work out just fine.As to surface flaws, having made 100's of exposures on all of the above films I have yet to see any film suface flaws(and I'm always looking for excuses)to justify the those that are filed in the round file.
And for James Im from the USA.
I use TMax 100 and I like the results that I get. I develop in the original, non-replenishable, TMax developer. In using this film, you mist have consistent temperature, agitation, etc., or you're not going to get good results. I took the time to do my calibration tests for ASA and development times, and have been rewarded with some excellent photographs.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks