Ilford FP4 plus 125 v Delta 100 professional

<p>ive read about these on the net<br>

I have developed them both but only to contact sheet stage so far.<br>

Is one better than the other for landscapes and portraits<br>

which one of these would you prefer over the other and why<br>

regards andrew</p>

 

<p>This is purely subjective, but in my experience FP4+ seems more responsive to variations in exposure and developing, with a wider available range of tonal characteristics and grain.</p>

<p>Delta 100 seems to fare best right around the rated speed. It has finer grain than FP4+ when both are used at the rated speed. FP4+ needed to be exposed at EI 64-80 with commensurately less development to achieve the same fine grain.</p>

<p>I've had similar impressions comparing HP5+ against Delta 400, and Tri-X against T-Max 400 - although the current version of Tri-X seems closer now to TMY than the older Tri-X of earlier decades.</p>

<p>While Delta 100 and 400 had very fine grain I preferred T-Max 100 and 400, which had even finer grain and more interesting tonal qualities. Nowadays I mostly have and used FP4+ and HP5+.</p>

<p>They're all very good films with relatively small innate differences. Most differences are found in exposure, developing, and enlarging or scanning. Decades ago, the gradual shift away from graded papers and toward variable contrast papers probably made more difference in the end results than the films and developers. Good quality scanning and editing techniques also tend to minimize subtle differences between films. Exposure and developing are more critical than the films. A film like Delta 100 has finer grain and scans well, but FP4+ can be carefully exposed and developed for finer grain and contrast well suited to scanning.</p>

<p>Really only you will be able to make that judgement. I think Lex covered it all.</p>

<p>I assume you do your own development. There are so many ways to influence the outcome with developing chemicals and procedures that there will likely be no difference at all, when done right. Pick one and work with it.</p>

<p>If you rely on a service, ask them which one does better or to your taste.</p>

I like FP+ better for landscapes, but like Delta 100 better for portraits. Both at box speed and processed in Kodak HC110 dilution B.

<p>I prefer the tonality of FP4+, but Delta 100 has finer grain and is a bit sharper. My experience with both film in D-76 1+1.</p>

<p>I agree with Stefan, but somehow I always seem to go back to FP4. I guess the tone is more important to me than the sharpness. I usually use HC-110 (B) and find FP4 a little more tolerant of time and temperature fluctuations.</p>

<p>guys thanks for your comments you have been a great help<br>

regards Andrew</p>