Ilford FP4 vs Delta 100

I have shot TriX400 for decades and love it. But I need a slower film at the moment. Which of these two does anybody think is closest to TriX 400 in terms of smoothness of tonalities?

It isn't exactly what you ask for, but the chromogenic (C41) black-and-white films (Ilford XP2 especially) have wonderful smoothness of tonalities. XP2 can be shot at a broad range of exposure indexes (even on the same roll of film) from 50 to 400 and up, though the film is nominally rated at ISO 400. It requires no adjustment of processing.

 

What you are getting is dye clouds rather than grain, per se.

Delta are tabular grain, so should be compared to TMax films. That suggests that FP4 would be your choice, if cubic vs. tabular is important to you.

I don't really understand the question. Slow films are entirely different than fast films in terms of tonality. If you want the Tri-X look, get a neutral density filter and use Tri-X. IMO, a slow film will have better smoothness and tonality just by virtue of being a slow finer grain film.

Thanks to all. Conrad, I need both a neutral density filter and slower film, as I am trying to shoot 2 second exposures on near sunny days. I had thought about XP2, so will try it and FP4. I'm nervous about having a big lab process my film, as opposed to it being hand developed. process by Phil, as opposed to it being hand developed.

Thanks to all. Conrad, I need both a neutral density filter and slower film, as I am trying to shoot 2 second exposures on near sunny days. I had thought about XP2, so will try it and FP4. I'm nervous about having a big lab process my film, as opposed to it being hand developed. process by Phil, as opposed to it being hand developed.

 

You could try a pinhole camera.

 

One favorite is to attach a pinhole (such as in aluminum foil) to a body cap for your favorite removable lens camera.

I'm going to be making very large prints from negatives shot in a swing lens camera. I couldn't do either of those with a pinhole, not an end up with a sharp print. But thanks for the suggestion.

Ilford PanF 50 is fairly contrasty, but with ultrafine fine grain...less than even Delta 100. That may get you to the speed ypu lie, especially at 25iso in Perceptal.

As a side note on Pan F-even though it's a great film and I've used it on several occasions, one thing I've noticed is that it seems to have the poorest latent image keeping ability of any film I've ever used. I've left Tr-X in the drawer for 10 years(not a good idea in general), and it more or less looked like it was shot yesterday. I've done the same with a lot of other common films-Plus-X, FP4+, TMX, TMY, and some others. Pan-F stored in the same drawer had only the faintest trace of image and edge markings on it. I've also shot cold-stored Pan-F that was in date and processed within a reasonable amount of shooting(in some cases the same day, not more than 1-2 weeks) and was able to get a nice, well exposed and easily printable negative with faint edge markings. I know these are just two data points, but an internet search will show other people complaining of the same. FWIW, in my case the film was processed in either D76 or HC110.

 

Don't let this deter you from shooting Pan-F, as there's really nothing else like it. Given the speed and the name, I was expecting something comparable to FX-32(Panatomic-X) but it has a very different "feel" from the Pan-X I've used, and under similar conditions seems to have somewhat finer grain. With that said, it's not my every day go-to film, and is also not something I keep an appreciable amount of on hand-I probably have 1-2 rolls of 120 stacked back in the freezer, where I feel like I'm getting low if I have 20 rolls per format of other films I shoot. Pan-F also doesn't suit well with my "wait until I have a lot of time to spend in the darkroom then process everything in one sitting" workflow.

Going slower than Iliford's excellent Pan F+ consider Rollei RPX 25. Even slower, but not panchromatic is Svema blue sensitive film which is about ISO 6 (at Film Photography Project).

Another alternative to get long daylight exposures is to use an R72 filter. Although it is an infrared filter it does let a small amount of red light. I once made a daylight exposure with this filter on Panatomic-X. I think exposure was about five minutes.

I left Tri-X in (my father's) drawer for 30 years. The latent image was fine, though there was

some fog that you see in black areas. Little white dots where there shouldn't be any.

 

I also had some Panatomic-X (ASA 40) that was over 30 years, but I suspect underexposed

in the first place. I was using Diafine at the time, which suggests EI 250, and I believed it.

Then, over 30 years later, I developed it in Diafine. Printable, but a little thin.

 

I have heard about Pan-F+ poor latent image properties, but I don't think I will

try testing it for 10 or 20 or 30 years.

Pan F does indeed have poor latency. I can see a density difference between same day and 2 weeks. That said, depending on needs, if I am porcessi in a few days, it is fine.

I found my photo made on Panatomic-X using an R72. Tripod mounted five minute exposure. I think I used a 28mm lens.

Tops of trees blurred due to wind blowing. The deep red of R72 made red stop sign very light.

Interesting. I wonder how much is red light (shorter than 720nm) and how much is the tail

of the sensitivity curve.

 

Human vision has a long tail. Bright enough 740nm or so is pretty easy to see.

Further note on R72- you can look through one on a sunny day and see a faint deep red view. However, an 87C will show no light at all since it blocks all visible light. I plan to use both with my two remaining rolls of infrared film.

As I said, though, the eye can see to 720nm or 740nm if it is bright enough.

 

But okay, the 87 is 50% at about 790nm, and the 87C 50% at about 850nm.

I suspect that the eye can still see those at high enough intensity, but also that when

you get close to those intensities it could burn up the retina.

 

Looking at the sun through an 87C could probably hurt your eye, even though you don't

see anything. There is a lot of sunlight at longer wavelengths that comes through!

 

Talking about what to use with IR film, I also have some 5R flashbulbs...

Very true, Glen. The dilated pupil when visible light is low compounds the damage to the retina even more so. An attention getting demonstration for those who still doubt this is true is to place an 87C in contact with a magnifying lens and watch a piece of dark paper start smoking in full sunlight. Not wise, however, to look at the paper where the invisible spot forms as it can still be harmful to the eye.