If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Moving from TMY to Delta 400
Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these two films. I recently
decided I'd switch from Kodak TMY 400 to Ilford Delta 400. My developer is XTOL. My first set of negs turned out really dense. What's the difference in B+F between these two? The difference in development times seems more extreme than I would have thought too. I would usually soup my TMY at 8:45 in XTOL 1:1, but the starting recommendation for Delta 400 is 13 minutes in XTOL 1:1. Is there an "easier" developer to use with Delta 400? Thx. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Moving from TMY to Delta 400
In article lS9Zf.2280$_u1.1286@pd7tw2no,
Alan Smithee wrote: Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these two films. I recently decided I'd switch from Kodak TMY 400 to Ilford Delta 400. My developer is XTOL. My first set of negs turned out really dense. I have had persistent problems, with Delta 400, with a bluish cast to the base -- which I believe to be residual antihalation dye -- that prints as substantial base fog. The result is that the effective film speed is considerably lower than that of TMY. I abandoned any attempt to use Delta 400 when it was available as sheet film (now that it's not, I have no reason at all to use it) after the best speed I got with any developer, testing two different boxes of film, was between 200 and 260. No thank you, Ilford! As I've mentioned here before, one of the nicest things about the modern Kodak products is that their printed-on-the-box speed is very close to their actual speed for correct exposure that prints well (I'd say "Zone" speed, but that has all kinds of implications I don't want to get into). The Ilford Delta products are among the worst in this regard, in my experience. Ilford's development recommendation is for a gamma of 0.65, which should print well on paper about a grade softer than film developed to Kodak's recommendation of 0.58. It may be that with the curiously high base density of Delta 400, this helps hoist some detail up out of the murk down at the bottom of the curve; anyway, it's one reason your negatives look denser and the development time is so much longer than with TMY. One nice thing about Delta is that it gives beautiful supercompensation with PMK Pyro. It can be a good choice for photographing very contrasty subjects such as white flowers in bright sun, or shadows on snow. -- Thor Lancelot Simon "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Moving from TMY to Delta 400
In article ,
Lloyd Erlick Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote: On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:04:37 +0000 (UTC), (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote: I abandoned any attempt to use Delta 400 when it was available as sheet film (now that it's not, I have no reason at all to use it) after the best speed I got with any developer, testing two different boxes of film, was between 200 and 260. No thank you, Ilford! April 6, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, The speed at which one rates the film depends on the proposed use. You mentioned that you consider Kodak speed ratings as printed on the box to be very close to a user's rating. I do not doubt this is true. Even without being familiar with your work, my first thought would be that rating Kodak TMY at 400 (the box speed) probably suits your work perfectly. Well, that's as may be, but in that case it would seem particularly damning that I get a speed fo 260 for the Ilford film. Excluding truly wildly different curve shapes (which, from the published data, these two films do not have), if I get a high speed for film "A" with a given subject matter I should get a high speed (compared to others) for film "B". In fact, the huge base density of the Ilford film gives me a very _low_ speed, which means it may give an even lower speed for others. It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they like to print the lie (Delta "400") on the outside of the box. -- Thor Lancelot Simon "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Moving from TMY to Delta 400
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:47:45 GMT, "Alan Smithee"
wrote: extreme than I would have thought too. I would usually soup my TMY at 8:45 in XTOL 1:1, but the starting recommendation for Delta 400 is 13 minutes in XTOL 1:1. Ilford recommends 11:30 for Delta 400 in XTOL 1+1. Is there an "easier" developer to use with Delta 400? Thx. Ilfotec DD-X 1+4 is the "matched" developer for that film. It works very well with Delta films, as well as HP5+. Eight minutes there, and you can push in DD-X up to 1600. Microphen will get you good results at 3200. -- Rob on the Web - Trouble In Paradise http://rob.rnovak.net |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Moving from TMY to Delta 400
"Alan Smithee" wrote in message news:lS9Zf.2280$_u1.1286@pd7tw2no... Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these two films. I recently decided I'd switch from Kodak TMY 400 to Ilford Delta 400. My developer is XTOL. My first set of negs turned out really dense. What's the difference in B+F between these two? The difference in development times seems more extreme than I would have thought too. I would usually soup my TMY at 8:45 in XTOL 1:1, but the starting recommendation for Delta 400 is 13 minutes in XTOL 1:1. Is there an "easier" developer to use with Delta 400? Thx. "Really dense" suggests overexposure. What is the contrast like, do these dense negatives print OK on normal grade paper? Over development can lead to overly dense negatives but they will also be very contrasty. Base plus Fog density is two different things. One is the base or support density. For most roll and sheet films the base is nearly perfectly clear and has no significant density. 35mm B&W negative film usually has a pigment in the support to reduce light piping (conduction of light the long way through the film) and also aid in reducing halation although these films generally also have an anti-halation dye in the back coating. The base density is built into the film. The base density of 35mm film varies but is usualy around log 0.2. Fog is inherent fog of the unexposed emulsion. This is partly a function of the emulsion itself: faster films have higher fog than slower ones. It is also a function of age, becoming greater with age, and, to a limited extent, the developer. Xtol does not have a fog suppressant in it. It will deliver full film speed but will not reduce fog on foggy film. This is also true for D-76. The blue tint sometimes seen on Delta films, and the pink tint seen on T-Max is residual sensitizing dye. This can become bound to the gelatin and remains even when fixing is complete (contrary to what Kodak says). It can be removed completely by using Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent, which breaks down the mordanting of the dye along with the thiosulfate and silver complexes. Anti-halation dye is not removed in normal processing but is converted to a colorless form by the sulfite in both developer and fixer. The sulfite in wash aid should also decolorize it. Fog can be seen on the unexposed borders of the film. If the film is relatively clear the density is not fog. Check this by fixing out an unexposed clip of film and comparing the density of the result to a clear area of the film. If there is excessive emulsion on your negatives it may be due to defective film but more likely to something else. To check for fog process an unexposed clip of film. It should be relatively fog free (fast film always have a little fog) if not, contact Ilford, its the film. FWIW, Ilford's speeds and development recommendations are for a lower contrast than the ISO standard. The standard requires a contrast index approximately suitable for diffusion enlarging or contact printing. This is the value used by Kodak. Ilford has chosen to use a value of CI about mid-way between that needed for diffusion printing and that needed for condenser enlargers for equal paper grades. This is about one-half paper grade reduction in contrast. So, if you follow Ilford instructions you should really be getting somewhat thinner negatives. -- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Moving from TMY to Delta 400
In article ,
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote: It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they like to print the lie (Delta "400") on the outside of the box. Interesting, never had any problem getting 320 out of that film. -- Carry me caravan take me away, take me to Portugal take me to Spain,Andalucia with fields full grain. I have to see you again and again. www.gregblankphoto.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Moving from TMY to Delta 400
In article ,
Greg \"_\" wrote: In article , (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote: It is a pretty nice 200 speed film. It's a shame they like to print the lie (Delta "400") on the outside of the box. Interesting, never had any problem getting 320 out of that film. Were you using the sheet film? I think the sheet film was a little worse than the roll film. I *know* the antihalation dye is supposed to wash out after treatment with hypo clear. Supposed to. Sigh. -- Thor Lancelot Simon "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Moving from TMY to Delta 400
Alan Smithee wrote:
Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these two films. I recently decided I'd switch from Kodak TMY 400 to Ilford Delta 400. And why not Tri-X or HP5+. Dan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Moving from TMY to Delta 400
TMY 400 (TMAX) is T-grained and Delta 400 is T-grained. I've decided to move
away from Kodak products, not away from T-grained films. I've used HP5+ to get that grainy "look" but I don't like it for everything, ie. portraits. wrote in message ups.com... Alan Smithee wrote: Can someone explain to me the subtlies between these two films. I recently decided I'd switch from Kodak TMY 400 to Ilford Delta 400. And why not Tri-X or HP5+. Dan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Delta 400, Tmax 400; Delta 100, Tmax 100, FP 125; plus Pan F 50 | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 5 | January 25th 05 06:58 PM |
taking photos while moving | phillean | Digital Photography | 15 | July 31st 04 03:37 AM |
delta 3200: the same error? | Stefano Bramato | In The Darkroom | 16 | June 30th 04 02:24 PM |
Delta 100 vs. Pan F+ | Shawn H | In The Darkroom | 16 | April 11th 04 07:36 AM |
Delta 400 & Xtol 1:2 ? | Shawn H | In The Darkroom | 2 | February 25th 04 07:37 PM |