On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 HI100@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Simon,
> ruralwales@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> << I found Delta 400 only gave a small improvement in grain over HP5, and
> pushing was worse, so I stayed with the older film. >>
>
> I have recently been using Delta 100, 400 &3200 (I assume old versions)
> after they were recommended by a list member a while back. I find the grain
> improvement over Tri-X/HP5 quite significant **when exposed correctly**.
>
> Reciprocity does seem worse and if underexposed it does not do as
> well. Overexposure seems to be better. Processing also seems more picky
> (check the time-temperature-dilution -developement curves on the Ilford
> website to see why).
I can only second that statement. Both the Delta400 and the Delta100 seems
to have better performance (as in: finer grains etc.) than the
FP4/HP5/Kodak-equivalents - when exposed correctly. I have never been much
into the pushing-business (except for the Delta3200, which, btw., does a
wonderfull job at 6400) so I cannot really comment on the performance
there.
Save for using up the stock of FP4/HP5's I am almost exclusively using the
Delta's now for 35mm work. When I shoot medium format, I almost always
have either a good tripod or detailed control over the lightening (as
in: formal portraits etc) - or both. Hence I most often use a PanF-50 iso
for that purpose (and the prints hereof can be enlarged to almost infinite
size without looking "grainy and wierd").
Best regards
--thomas
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|