Rating Delta 100 and Tri-X

[max_wall]

This question may have been asked before, and if so, I apologize: What EI do forum

members give Delta 100 and Tri-X; why; and the intended results?

[al_kaplan1]

I've never tried Delta films, mostly because I've never liked the look of Kodak's T-Max films. I prefer the look of standard old technology films. I shoot Tri-X and "rate" it at 400 most of the time, with standard development in D76 1:1. That said, I mostly use incident light readings, and rarely give the exact exposure the meter says, because of the color or brightness of the subject, or type and contrast range of the lighting. If need be I'll under-expose a stop or two and increase development time to get a useable negative.

[Robin Smith]

Max

 

You may get as many answers as there are photographers as it is all dependent on how you meter and what developer you use and so on. I don't use Tri-X, but I rate Delta 100 at 80 in ID-11 stock for the Ilford's recommended time.

[terry_rory]

Tri-x at 200 and pulled 1 stop in dev. (ID-11 or D76)

 

Gives a nice even tone and helps with shadow detail....

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1178700

 

I do Ilford HP5 at 400 just as it says on the packet....

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1192126

[roger_michel]

i soup both these days in ddx. frankly i don't care much for delta 100. it always looks quite flat to me. pan f is by far my preferred slow speed b&w film. far better tonal pallette, smaller grain, easier to work with, great depth, etc etc. anyway, when i do use delta 100, i like to spice up the contrast a bit. i rate it, therefore, at about 150 and then increase the development time a bit (it is silly to give actual times, because somuch depends on ph, agitation technique, etc. my rotary times would be irrelevant to a shaker, e.g.). NEW tri-x also goes in the ddx. i find that it needs less development than old tri-x and gets contrasty a lot easier. i don't like the new emulsion as much as the old for this reason. however, the grain signature is preserved, and i suppose that is the most important thing. because of its tendency to get hot, i rate the tri-x pro at 400 and then back off a little on the published (and my historical) dev times. p.s. i really have grown to LOVE ddx!! try it d76 fans.

[lee_shively]

I'm in complete agreement with Al concerning the new tech films. I still like the looks of Tri-X, HP5+ and Pan F. I shoot mostly HP5+ these days and I rate it at 400. Tri-X is always rated at 400 as well. But I have a tendency to bracket toward overexposure with these films and I've always reduced processing times by 20-25% from what the manufacturer recommends. I guess that means I really rate it at a somewhat lower ISO but 400 would still be my baseline.

[cameron_sawyer]

Tri-X at 320 and standard development time in D76 (1:1) helps shadow detail a lot without noticeable blocking of highlights.

[greg_smith4]

I rate Tri-X 400 at 200. I just found 400 to be a tad bit thin. D-76 1:1 10 min. I do know people who rate it at 160 though.

[cosmo_genovese]

Tri-X @ EI 200 in D76 1:1 with Benzotriazole. Process Normal.