Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Ilford Delta 100

Subject: Re: [OM] Ilford Delta 100
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:54:07 -0800 (PST)
Albert wrote:
>I picked Ilford Delta 100.  Any thoughts on it?  I have never
>tried it; nor the agfa; but I personally don't like the Tmax.

Ilford Delta 100 has a very strong following, for good reason. 
The film almost sings when developed properly.  I'm using
Ilfotec DD-X chemistry with my Ilford films and have found the
results to exceed my every expectation.

I ran film/development tests on Delta 100, 400, HP5+ and PanF. 
Delta 100 shot at 100 is dead-on.  However, the film reflectance
is such that when using OTF auto-exposure a setting of 80 is a
hair better. I wouldn't over-expose it beyond that, though, as
the shadow detail is already pretty deep.  Any more and things
turn muddy.  Highlights hold very well.

The biggest advantage to Delta 100, is that you do not need to
worry about the film.  Equivelent speed films, such as FP+ or
Plus-X, tend to overexaggerate the shadows and blow out the
highlights and TMAX 100 has a "plastic" look to it.  Delta 100
is a very neutral film with an expanded range which responds
extremely well to scanning.

I'm exclusively using Ilfotec DD-X developer for all Ilford B&W
films. DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT allow any Ilford B&W film to be
processed in TMAX chemestry!  The grains will "clump" and the
densities go nuclear on you.  DD-X is a high-quality (expensive)
fine-grain developer with advantages of other formulations.

Here is my brief Ilford Film rundown (all based on DD-X
processing):

Pan-F (shoot at 40) process at 50.  Extremely fine, but
traditional grain. Smooth gradients from one extreme to the
other. Avoid under-exposure like the plague. Highlights hold
forever. Negs are thin, but the film is a joy to print.  Doesn't
scan as well as Delta.  PanF remains my number one choice for
landscape work when speed/flexibility isn't paramount.  Oh, PanF
responds to on-camera filtering the best of any B&W film I've
ever used.

FP+ (shoot at 100) process at 100.  Traditional B&W film look.
Negs are dense, grain is very evident, but small.  Use this film
if you like the traditional look.

Delta 100 (shoot at 80 or 100) process at 100. Extremely fine
grain. Grain almost forms the "dye cloud" look of C41 films.
When developed and printed properly, an 8x10 from a 35mm
negative is grainless to the naked eye. Scans better than any
other B&W film.  The tonal scale is long, and shadows don't go
dark.  Only thing to watch is that the low-range hump in the
response curve could make things that are supposed to be dark
look chalky instead.  In my experience, the Delta films don't
respond as deeply to filteration as older films do.  I'll run
some controlled testing to prove how much of a variation exists
at some point.

Delta 400 (shot at 400) process at 400.  Grain is similar to FP+
or Plus-X without the attitude.  This is not your father's
emulsion, that's for sure.  Delta 400 is an excellent film for
all purposes--expecially for portraits.  Scans very well. 
Lovely skin-tones.  I'm told that it is supposed to have similar
tones to Tri-X.  Maybe, but the grain structure is completely
different.

Delta 400 (shot at 500) process at 500. Identical to 400, except
in the shadows. This is supposed to be the "ideal" speed for
this film.  Can't go wrong at either 400 or 500.

Delta 400 (shot at 800) process at 800. Twice the speed, none of
the calories.  I think I might actually like it pushed one stop
more than shot straight.  The grain starts to look slightly more
"traditional", but otherwise it's still smaller than HP5 or
Tri-X at 400. Tones are great.  No complaints here. I have no
fear of pushing Delta 400 one stop for anything or everything. 
I'm sure that for an upcoming holiday pagent at the school I'll
be photographing my child with D400+1.

Delta 400 (shot at 1600) process at 1600. I'm convinced that
this film/development combination (using DD-X) is superior to
ANY 1600/3200 B&W film out there.  Grain is about the same as
Tri-X developed in D76.  Only complaint I have is that the
shadows tend to be ever so slightly on the muddy side.  Believe
it or not, it still scans very well--even on my Nikon Coolscan
II.  If your picture has texture to it and no huge expanses of
single tone, the grain is a non-factor.  Pictures are much
sharper than what you'd get from the faster emulsions.  Given
the right picture, I wouldn't hesitate to make a 16x20 from a
35mm neg.

Ilford HP5+ (shot at 320) process at 400. Finally, I've found a
developer that gives me the look I like from this film.  I had
abandoned HP5+ for Delta 400, except for the two rolls that came
with a package of paper.  Processed it in Ilfotec DD-X under
very controlled conditions.  Had I successfully done this
before, I may never have tried Delta 400.  All the traditional
tones without the grainy attitude.  Not nearly as pushable as
Delta 400.

Delta is a harder negative to print, in my experience, than
traditional films.  Most traditional films like FP+ and HP5+
have a fixed top and bottom to the response and you basically
match your paper grade to achieve both extremes.  With Delta,
the extended range means that getting a nice tonal scale will
still leave some highlights and shadows "on the table".  It's
tougher to print all the data stored on the film.  It's almost
like you still have 1/2 stop exposure control of the original
scene even in the darkroom.

My big complaint with Delta films--they're more expensive.

AG-Schnozz

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus ? Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz