Delta 100 vs. Tmax 100 vs. Neopan Acros

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by clemens_eulig, Jun 1, 2003.

  1. I've read an article about the comparison of Tmax 100 and Neopan
    Acros which said, that the perfomance was nearly equal. But it said
    nothing about Ilford's Delta 100, which I normally use. I never tried
    any other B/W-material at that speed, 'cause Delta 100 gave me very
    pleasing results, and there is really no reason for me to change, but
    anyway: which of these has the best performance?
     
  2. I had less grain with Delta 100 than with TMax 100. I have to add that I processed Delta 100 myself with Tetenal Ultrafin plus while TMax 100 was processed in a lab. That may account for the difference.
     
  3. in my (brief) tmax experience, perhaps softer, smoother transitions, maybe a better gradation distinction -- delta 100 being more snappy and contrasty. Acros in between. As it turned out, I did not much like tmax, and prefer delta 100 still (or acros). I develop mostly in xtol, and I fully suspect there is more difference betwen film/developer combos than can be answered straight here. I think (personal opinion) that delta 100 is more process-tolerant than Tmax, certainly more so than the earliest tmax-s.

    I've heard that Tmax scans better than delta 100 (35mm), and I've had a scan or two from delta 100 that looked inexplicably worse -- perhaps harsher -- than the prints/negatives, but it is still my most predictable film.

    Whne I want that softer, old-style film look, pan f gives small grain and very smooth gradations. But, that was not your question.
     
  4. Lacey, have you had any experience developing Delta 100 or TMX100 in D-76? These films have been much less process tolerant in my experience than classic emulsion films such as Tri-X or HP5+, but I was wondering if someone with more experience and more rigorous processing standards has had any luck with this film/developer combination.
     
  5. Re: D76/TMX

    A good friend uses this all of the time with excellent results. I haven't used the film in some time and recall not having the best results with this combo, personally. I know it can be done, from his results.
     
  6. BTW - I checked out www.sunrain.de, and the B/W Cityscape and Portait work was superb. If I use these images as a guide I don't think you'll be over-whelmed with TMX or Acros, but they are worth a try.
     
  7. I've shot and processed them at all and consider this a pretty easy comparison.

    First, TMX 100 and Acros 100 are fare more similiar than they are to Delta. The Ilford film is very close to FP4 and Delta 400 in terms of tonality, and can be considered to have a more 'classic' look.

    As is typical of the Ilford films, I prefer to process Delta in more solvent, classic developers like D76, HC110, etc.

    TMX 100 and Acros in my opinion are significantly sharper than Delta 100, and can also respond better to acutance developers like Tmax developer and Rodinal.

    If you like the newer, straight shoulder 'look' of the Tmax films then TMX and Acros are for you. If you prefer a more classic film look then use Delta/FP4 or HP5/Delta.
     
  8. Thanks Scott, that really helped. (But I have to add, most of the portraits are made with Tri-x and HC-110, and the homepage isn't finished, sorry, I'm too busy.)
     
  9. I've used all three. TMax and Acros are very similat and in a blind test I would be hard pressed to distinguish between them. The grain of Ilford Delta 100 is slightly more evident but its sharpness is biting. I should point out that I develop in Rodinal. All are capable of rendering tones superbly and I had some excellent results from Delta rated at 50 ASA and devved in Rodinal at 1:50, 6.5 minutes, 20 C.
     
  10. It is impossible to acurately compare films unless you use the true film speeds. Both TMX and Acros are actually EI:64 (0.1>B+F) and D100 just noses in at 100 (0.09>B+F.) I consider Acos a bolt for bolt copy of TMX, as the curves for both are virtually indistinguishable. Delta 100 has a slightly longer toe than TMX which has an unusally short toe. This would give TMX an apparant advantage in shadow detail, but remember, you're starting 2/3 of a stop slower already. TMX is VERY developer sensitive and if you're not quite careful, you can easily over-develop the high values. Most people use TMX at 100 and (following the instructions from Kodak) over-develop it to 'push' it to 100. You wind up with a very snappy, hard to print negative, most of the time. However, if you expose TMX at 64 and develop it correctly, it will yield very good negatives. BUT it's a 64 speed film. Delta 100 has 2/3 stop more speed and doesn't take off into the stratosphere if you mistakenly give it 10 or 15 extra seconds in the developer. Try D100 in PMK for extremely sharp and very easy to print negatives. I use this as my main film/developer combination.
     

Share This Page