Jump to content

Delta vs. T-Max


Recommended Posts

Yaakov having used both only in 120 format (at present I only use Delta100 in 45), I do prefer Delta finding it a sharper finer grained film with very smooth high values.Of course it does depend on how you process the film and I'm sure there are those who get more out of T-Max then I ever did. None the less T-Max is an excellent film and I believe John Sexton still uses it so it can't be bad.

Also folk speak well of FP4 plus, which I've yet to try.

Regards, Trevor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too used both films in 120 format and do NOT find the Delta to be

sharper or finer grained, in fact TMX developed in XTOL is

unbelievably fine grained! For some reason I prefer the "look" of

Delta 100, that's why I use it and not the TMX! I guess with lots of

experimentation in the dark room I could make the curves of TMX

similar to Delta but I'd rather be out in the field taking pictures

(maybe it's just me, but I feel like I already wasted too many hours

doing "test shots"....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yaakov, Having tried TMax 100 and the Ilford alternatives I now

solely use FP4 Plus and Delta 100. For me both films offer amazing

sharpness and gradation/tonality in a variety of developers. I would

agree that TMax is a sharp film, especially in XTOL, but it does not

seem to compare with the sharpness I can get from both of the Ilford

films. For the record I use both films in 120 and 5x4 sheet.

Regards Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One issue that I usually don't see discussed in the Ilford - Kodak

question is surface flaws. I can't think of any of my favorite

photographers that use Ilford film. When you discuss this with them,

they all have horror stories about the photography trip and the best

image being ruined by surfaces flaws in the film. Most will say that

they will not use Ilford films for this reason. My experience with

Ilford is with their papers, a few years ago, it was not uncommon to

find entire batches with flaws in the surface. On the advice of

photographers whose work I respect is why I usually use Kodak film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've tried Delta 100, TMax 100 & 400, and FP4+ in 4x5 and have since

settled on FP4+ developed in either HC-110 or Rodinol. The modern t-

grain films are indeed quite sharp, but I don't like their tonality

nearly as much as traditional emulsions. Also, I find that FP4+ is

much more compatible with my darkroom processes and zone system

practices than either Delta or TMax films. As for surface defects,

I've exposed more than 200 sheets of FP4+ in the last 6 months and

have yet to see anything but a perfect sheet of film. However, the

first batch of film I ever shot in LF, TMax 100, was thoroughly

messed up. On contrary to Jeff White's comment about none of his

favorite photographers shooting Ilford, my favorite photog, Clyde

Butcher, shoots quite a bit of stuff on Delta films. And I'm sure if

you've seen any of his photographs, you can agree that his results

are nothing short of phenomenal. Finally, to answer James' question,

I'm here in northeast Ohio near Cleveland, AKA "the mistake on the

lake."

 

<p>

 

Just a thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yaakov, I too use T-Max,Delta 100, and FP4 Plus, in 120 and 4 x 5.

I use these for simple high volume documentation work(25-35exposures

in a day) for recording Job site progress. These are not works of

Art and really are just for the record. For me Andrea�s and Chad hit

it on the head. If all works out even in the processing,

I can�t explain it but the Ilford Products seem to make a far more

appealing finished print(regardless of method and materials used to

print). Chad�s comment is the real selling point for me---The Ilford

products are far more forgiving during processing (especially if

processed in Ilford Materials), and for me the cost of using all

Ilford (film and chemicals) is very very economical and just plain

easy(OK so I�m just lazy). For my �Good Stuff�, 5X7, and 8X10 I use

Plus-X in HC110. But sometimes I�m wondering about that when I look

at the results with the Ilford Products. Another film that I use is

Agfa APX but I have the same problem with consistency, but I have to

admit that the price versus the application can make it work out just

fine.As to surface flaws, having made 100's of exposures on all of

the above films I have yet to see any film suface flaws(and I'm always

looking for excuses)to justify the those that are filed in the round

file.

 

<p>

 

And for James I�m from the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, you title, one vs. the other might better be changed to Delta

OR TMax, as this isn't a fight. Then, if you try one and like it

better than the other, for you it is better. Other than that, there

is no 'better' between most of the comparable films. If you think it

works for you, use it.

I and a number of other photographers shoot Ilford films in large

format work, 8x10 and up. Arista in 8x10 is inexpensive and excellent

in both the 125 and 400 versions. "as good as Ilford FP4+ and HP5+",

is how many put it. The Ilford films work well and in many large

sizes give results that show well in the finest galleries in the

world. A lot of the worry you may have about the 'best' film can be

solved by picking one---any one---of the good films on the market

today & working with it for a year with any one of the basic

developers on the market. Get to know the film and get to know how to

print from your film developer combination. Whether TMax or Delta

coupled with Xtol, or the old 'tri-x & HC110, if you like the

results, it is a good combination for you. Look at the work across

the world and you will find everything from secret formulas to

sacrificing a mother in law as the magic answer to excellent results.

You will even find printers who do nothing but follow the basics,

using off the shelf film, chemistry and paper. And other than a few

of us who wonder at someones excellent results & ask about the film

or whatever, no one else gives a darn about the process-they look

because they like the picture.

If it works for you, use it, no matter what anyone else is doing,

just as long as your quality is top notch and you don't fall into the

rut of mediocre work with the old 'I am my own standard' BS. Quality

if quality, and once you learn to produce it you won't be satisfied

with 'good enough' any longer and the questions of 'best' will also

fade away---as you produce excellent work with almost any combination

that works for you but someone out there will carp, piss & moan about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use TMax 100 and I like the results that I get. I develop in the

original, non-replenishable, TMax developer. In using this film, you

mist have consistent temperature, agitation, etc., or you're not going

to get good results. I took the time to do my calibration tests for

ASA and development times, and have been rewarded with some excellent

photographs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil, are you using the T-Max (not RS) developer on TMX sheets? If

so, what processing methods do you use, i.e. tray, tank, Jobo, etc.,

and have you ever suffered the dreaded dichroic fog? Thanks for any

experiences you can share. I also very much like TMX in T-Max, but

have only used it with 120 so far, and it will be a while before the

opportunity presents itself to try sheets in that developer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, interesting discussion. I think that Dan Smith hit the nail on

the head. Use any given film/developer combo for a year and learn to

produce fine prints with it.

 

<p>

 

My film/developer combo of choice today in 4x5 is T-max 100 and pyro.

Yes, I get sufficient stain with T-max and I find consistent results

and not the finiky results with other developers. For 120 I use Delta

100 and pyro. My enlargements glow and have a wonderful tonal range.

 

<p>

 

I use T-Max 100 because I don't have to load film holders. Lazy?, yes

but with pyro I have made this excellent film work for me.

 

<p>

 

ecently I have played around with Ilford's new Ifotec DD. With T-Max

the results are outstanding and processing is a breeze compared to

the on again off again results of XTOL.

 

<p>

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I use both of these films on a consistant basis, mostly in 4x5.

Either could be determined better mostly deppending on the DEVELOPER

that is used to develop the negs. The big difference being that you

CANNOT USE REGULAR T-MAX DEVELOPER for 4x5 t-max film. You have to

use the replenishing developer. My lab uses t-max replenishing

devo. so when I know that I am going to have them develop the film I

use t-max...but they double thier price if I push or pull. If I push

or pull my film I will develop the film myself and use Delta 100,

which works better with the cheaper edwal FG7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Responding to Sal's question above . . . (Sorry not to have responded

earlier, but I've been on vacation.)

 

<p>

 

Let me offer what I know on this, since I took some time to look into

it. To answer the question, I've never experienced the dichroic fog,

and I use 2 1/4 film developed in a standard stainless steel tank with

a 120 (not a 220) reel.

 

<p>

 

As to what I found out from Kodak (after finding the right person),

TMax 4x5 film has the exact same emulsion as TMax 2 1/4 roll film.

Their recommendation against the TMax original, non-replenishable

developer has more to do with physics than chemistry. Since 4x5 film

is larger, and since Kodak recommends less agitation for sheet film,

there's a greater propensity for the dichroic fog causing contaminate

to collect in concentrations that can cause the fogging. I spoke to

the person who drove development of the RS developer w/in Kodak. It's

chemical composition limits the how much of the contaminate that can

be formed. But, the RS developer also does not have as nice a film

development curve as the original developer.

 

<p>

 

I did all my original testing with the original developer (a large

investment of time and expense), so I plan to continue its use. While

I haven't used it yet, I purchased a nikon tank for 4x5 sheet

development that agitates and works much the same as the reel that I

use for 120. I'm hoping that this will prevent the dichroic fogging

from occurring on sheet film.

 

<p>

 

See a "future" post for John Sexton's approach to removing this

fogging. The Kodak person to whom I spoke said one can also "finger"

squeegee the film with water, and that this will remove the fog.

However, once the film has dried, the fog becomes permanent and can't

be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I finally got around to testing 4x5 TMX on a CPE-2+ (2509n reel in

2523 tank) using T-Max developer. Both the film and developer were

very fresh; emulsion expiration was late 2002, and the chemistry

manufacture date code indicated early 2000 (March, if I recall

correctly).

 

<p>

 

Results: no trace of dichroic fog. Negative characteristics were

the same as I've become accustomed to with this combination in 120,

except for base fog. Using the developer diluted 1:7 for 6 1/2

minutes at 75 degrees, rolls exhibit 0.10 fb-f, while for sheets it

was 0.04.

 

<p>

 

On to even tones. I filled all six slots of the Jobo, placing two

sheets that had been uniformly exposed to Zone VI in one each of the

innermost and outermost positions. Along both short (4 inch) edges of

both sheets, there were areas of reduced density approximately 3/8

inch wide. These strips are about 0.04 - 0.05 lighter than the rest

of the negative. Remainder of the sheets were very even, save for a

rather small area in the center which was around a 0.01 more dense

than average. There were no other defects, such as surge marks or

mottle. I've not yet made prints, but expect that the short edges

would appear visibly darker. Perhaps one might trade off using a

smaller area of the negative (masking the camera's focusing screen and

not printing the edges) in return for all other rotary processing

advantages. This would preclude needing to pay - - or have room - -

for a larger CPP/CPA-2 processor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yaakov, you still there? One other thing to consider, at least it's a

factor here in Michigan, USA, is that reciprocity corrections are much

milder for T-Max films. I find this important when doing multi-minute

exposures as is often the case in my work. Also, there isn't the nasty

build-up of contrast one usually gets when making this compensation

with other emulsions. I've used both and still prefer T-Max. I, too

have run into flaws with Delta, however, I've never had a bad piece of

Ilford paper and I have experienced problems with EKC paper a number of

times! They're very good about replacing it, I might add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sacrificing the mother-in-law. That's good Dan. I like it. As can be

discerned from this discussion, all films are about the same given

their proper care and use. Different films were developed for

different purposes and need to be used accordingly. People from the

Continent seem to prefer Ilford's products as well as point and

shooters here in the US. LF enthusiasts seem to like the TX or TMX

emulsions. I've talked to 100's of LF photographers and many,

many more roll film shooters and asked them their film and

developer preferences. I've tried them all, believe me, and they all

behave up to the promises of the manufacturers and their followers. It

is never a question of one being better than the other (unless you are

paranoid and need assurance that your choice is valid) but in the use

of the material. TP does increadible things but not for fast action or

contrasty situations. TMX is wonderful for landscapes in the 5 stop

range and for the ability to be pushed and pulled with predictable

results, as are the Ilford mid speed materials. It depends solely on

what you want and how you go about it. James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I was re-reading some of these & catching up on newly posted

answers I realized I didn't answer James question. I am from one of

the gosh awful places no one has ever heard of. Utah, Polygamy

capitol of the western world. Yep, we have about 80,000 of them here.

And the county I live in has the infamous one who beat his daughter

when she tried to run away from her husband...his brother! Now he is

in jail & the brother is being prosecuted for incest.

Then we have the polyg from Juab County being prosecuted by the

Governors Brother (DA in the county) for sex with a minor. Seems he

got pregnant & married a 13 year old. If he had waited a few months

he would have been free & clear...kids are fair game for marriage

here at 14.

Then, we have Panguitch, Utah, where they declared a holiday to

celebrate the cloning of Dolly the Sheep. That means now every boy in

town can have the prettiest girlfriend.

We also have MagCorp, the No. 1 Polluter in the whole USA, right on

the South Shore of Great Salt Lake, and on the edge of Skull Valley

where the Goshute Indian Tribe is trying to put a Nuclear Waste

storage site in place. Can't wait, tons of pure chlorine gas being

released over Great Salt Lake from Magcorp, and you will be able to

see it 24 hours a day from the glow from Skull Valley. (site of a

nice hawaiian graveyard as well)

But, on the other hand, we have the Olympics coming, the best show

money can bribe(oops, not supposed to mention that here), Delicate

Arch, Canyonlands, Zion, Bryce and the Great Salt Lake. So it isn't

all bad. And, the Great Salt Lake only turns red a few times a year

when the blood sacrifices in the Temple in Salt Lake drain off too

fast to be diluted.

 

<p>

 

So, when you mention wierd, out of the way places, bring you cameras

here. Photograph our wilderness & red rock country before that idiot

Jim Hansen paves it.(and ride the shuttle busses in Zion National

Park, just don't whach the driver on the head with your tripod legs-

they get touchy about that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...