A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Moving from TMY to Delta 400



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 6th 06, 03:47 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 6th 06, 04:04 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #3  
Old April 6th 06, 04:38 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moving from TMY to Delta 400

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.

However, I find TMY at EI 400 much less
useful than at EI 200. Rated at 200, I find
TMY extremely good for my work, which is
portraiture.

Even though the difference is one hundred per
cent, I consider the choice of 200 vs 400 for
TMY to be in the area of individual
preference. TMY is sometimes described as
demanding very tight controls on development
and exposure. Usually it's phrased in some
sort of 'con' manner. The 'pro' side would be
that controlling TMY at one point vs another
makes it a good tool for one job vs another.

Really, it's quite a film if it can be used
for portraits or something else just by
entering a different number into the light
meter and developing accordingly.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:

net:
www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

  #4  
Old April 6th 06, 05:06 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 6th 06, 07:48 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 6th 06, 08:07 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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




  #9  
Old April 6th 06, 11:55 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 7th 06, 12:22 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.