T-Max 100 VS Delta 100

What are peoples preferences between these two tabular films?

 

I just shot each in 35mm format to compare, but have not developed &

printed yet.

 

The darkroom Cookbook (pg 14) suggests that Delta is slightly grainer.

Also that Delta holds highlight detail better.

 

Has anyone found this to be true?

 

(I have read the old photo.net postings about Delta & T-Max films)

 

Would appreciate hearing about anyones experiences .

Ilford films have the reputation of better highlight detail and except for HP5 it

seems true to me. I like TMax 100 better than Delta for the grain reason. I

process in a high accutance grainy developer and the TMax 100 is a lot less

grainy for that. In general usage though with regular developer I don't think it

would be an issue worth worrying about.

IMO, strange as it sounds, after shooting many rolls of film...

 

T-MAX 100 looks better in D-76 @ 1:1 than Xtol Stock

 

Delta 100 looks better in Xtol Stock, than does T-MAX 100

 

Again IMO, TMX in D76 @ 1:1 has fine grain and is very sharp. TMX in Xtol Stock has fine grain, but not as fine in D-76 1:1 and is not sharp (in Xtol Stock.)

 

Delta 100 in Xtol Stock has very fine grain and is very sharp. I have yet to try Delta in D-76 1:1, but would love to see how Delta 100 performs in Xtol @ 1:1.

Add Fuji Acros to your list. I like it more than both TMX and Delta 100.

I've used both, rated at 50 ASA and devved in Rodinal 1:50. Delta is slightly grainer but sharper, and I like its rendering of highlights. I use more Delta 100 than any other film. Like Matt, I prefer Fuji Acros to TMX.

Hello Joe,

I did the same test with a model last year for a portrait project and I saw no gains at all in a print from my Tmax. I ended up voting Delta 100 and Plus-X to be my main 100 film for portraits for outdoors now. I love the rich tone that I been getting with the Delta films. I process them both in TMax developer and WOW! It's hard to say which one is better. I just pick the one I like for that type of look. I love Tmax in the studio and I shoot them both at box speed. I have also used them with other developers and the results has been always great. TMax is a tricky film but like all things you'll learn how to ride a bike.<div></div>

"Delta is slightly grainer but sharper"

 

Yes, I think so. It also has better local contrast, in comparison to the fairly flat look I have gotten with T-Max 100. I'm sure it is the increased contrast that allows Delta to look sharper than T-Max. It may well be that T-Max has higher resolving power, and that might make it preferable for scientific measurements and the like. But Delta LOOKS sharper, and the print looks snappier; and that's what I want.

 

My efforts to increase the contrast of T-Max by developing it longer resulted in blocked highlights. By the time I got some contrast, the negative was fairly cooked.

Long ago, I did a side by side test of the T-Max and Delta 100. Same scene, lens, etc. I then had them both souped in X-Tol. The Delta version looked much nicer. Considerably better tonality and contrast. The grain was about the same for both. The T-Max negs were flat and lifeless. Since then, Fuji has introduced their ACROS film, which is very good. For 100 speed film, I always go with Delta 100.

 

Russ

Thanks for sharing your experiences!

 

I developed the Delta for the time given by Ilford which I now

presume is for a difussion enlarger. Next time I will decrease my

development time to fit my Condensor enlarger's needs.

 

Made 8x10" prints. Delta certainly looks sharp. Will make bigger

prints to compare when I work out my development times.

 

I guess what drove me to this small experiment after 50 years of

using of Kodak films was an article in the Business section of

the newspaper. Kodak claims they will be all digital by 2008! So

what will happen to Kodak film? Will another company pick it up

or will it be gone in two years? Any one with a crystal ball out

there? .

Well, Kodak is just in the process of launching new films (the Portra II range) and will be mass distributing them next year, i.e. 2007. I wouldn't worry about them getting out of the market just yet.

Joe,

 

I'm not going to be any help, I love them both, and Acros too. The differences between these three films are very difficult to see, and one must have their process well under control to be able to pick one out of the lineup. Acros has the best reciprocity characteristics of the three, but the others aren't bad either. It's kind of a Pepsi-or-Coke thing; a matter of taste, or availability. You can't really go far wrong with any of these films. Enjoy.

 

Jay

 

P.S. that's a really nice shot, Rothelle.<div></div>

I am by no means an old timer conserning film and developers.

However, I did try out a few films, among them, TMax100 professional and Delta 100, both developed in T-Max developer at times found at the mighty development chart online.

 

I found that the Delta was much more grainier and "harder" (more contrasty I suppose) than the Tmax film, my taste is more for the Tmax type of look, so I ditched Delta in favour of TMax.

 

I XTol, I've found that TMax yields beautiful and smooth results at 1:1; Less grain, good sharpness and good contrast (imo).

I scan the negatives though, so I have the option to tweak the curve to increase contrast, should I have to.

 

Try them both in the same developer and go with what you favour is my advice, but Delta is clearly more grainiy and contrasty.

 

Regards

 

K

Update: worked out a good developing time, and made 10X

enlargements. For my purposes as an artist either film will work,

they are so close in quality. It is nice to have a back up film.

(Rothelle, great shot! it livens up our subject!)

Joe,

Thank you for the comments. Like I said they are both great films to use. I use them both but just love the look of my portraits with Delta and also Plus-X, Tri-X is still my #1 film no matter what they say:-)