I did some film testing the other weekend and found that Delta 100 (in roll film ) developed in XTOL has almost the same density curve as what Adams published fo r TriX developed in HC110. Has anyone used both of these films? Do you find that Delta 100 has a look most similar to TriX? Since I am using mostly roll-film, I need a low-grain alternative to TriX. Thanks!
NO! Pat
I second that "No." Read the Film Developing Cookbook if you want to learn about various films.
Could you please elaborate on your answer a bit - what makes it different: better shadow details, less muddy highlights, or what...
And where can I find the "Cookbook"? - Thanks!!!
Andreas, I have to agree with the rest... NO. Delta, a better alternative to TMA X still IMHO doesn't have the range of luminosity as the older emulsions. The T-grained films were a "cheap" imitation to films as we know them . I may get flamed for this but Kodak is marketing to the masses with this. Ilford has played the catch up game with Kodak because they have had to. If you want a nice film, slow that it might be, try Ilford Pan F. It is a 50 ASA film and is a beaut! If this is to slow for your purposes, the re is always Ilford FP4+ (100ASA) or HP5+ a 400 film. Cheers, Scott
When Sexton and Bond give up TMax So will I. My sens. curves with TMax 100 and TMax dev. give me an almost straight line with a short toe up way past 2.00. Vague descriptions of film characteristics such as "luminous mid range" etc. rank right up there with wine descriptions- "a young but presumptuous blend" George
Delta 100 in many developers has a curve shape in common with HP5+ and TMX; it's dead straight _way_ out there up to at least 2.0DU. In fact it takes what amoun ts to heroic measures to put a shoulder into these films and lower densities.
Might as well jump on this bandwagon. I agree with the thumbs down to Delta 100. I initially used this film (8x10) with Pyro developer and had satisfactory results. When I finally got ahold of some HP5 and FP4 I was a much happier camper. These two films from Ilford sing in Pyro.
C'mon guys, films really shouldn't be religions.
I can't simply answer the question because I don't use TX, haven't tested it i n any way. If the curve shapes are similar then it _should_ look pretty much lik e TX; if not, then not.
In many developers Delta 100 has very slightly decreased shadow contrast to ab out Zone III, then the curve shape is just about ruler-straight out to at least 2.25DU. This shape is consistent and is rather difficult to alter by developer c hoice, although of course CI can be readily changed.
The curve shapes of Delta 100 and HP5+ are very close matches; indeed in large formats it can be rather difficult to impossible to tell what was shot with whi ch film in "reasonable" enlargement sizes.
John, in which developers *doesn't* Delta 100 have very slightly reduced shadow contrast to about Zone III? Also, have you tried it in DD-X, and, if so, did you have the same increased speed and high grain results (which you characterized as Microphen-like) as with Delta 3200 in that developer? Thanks!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks