Delta 100

[victor_lioce]

First, I am starting over. As a former professional, and someone

degreed in photography almost 25 years ago, I got out...out of touch,

out of equipment, etc. I joined this forum last year and have

enjoyed! Enough Background.....

 

I have recently started shooting Delta 100 and processing in Ilfosol

at 1:14. So far, I think I like the results. Who else out there has

comments on this film/developer combo. I am shooting with older

Mamiya 645 equipment and like the feel, compared to the old TLR's I

used to own. So I would appreciate comments... I am not shooting

professionally anymore, but want to strive towards high quality

images. Not printing much bigger than 11x14 to 16x20 range so far.

 

So, constructive comments welcome. Better developer combos, other

film/developer combos, etc.

 

Love the forum!

 

Victor Lioce

[stuart_harris]

Victor,

 

Delta 100 is a fantastic film, I use it with D76 or ID-11 and some of the fine grain developers, It's an incredibly forgiving film. I vary the development time depending on what my photos are of and I like the fact that it still looks great whether i'm going for high contrast or subtle light effects. It's hard to say without knowing what you're photographing and what your personal tastes are but I would recommend you to stick with the film and just try out different dev/time combos. In my experience and talking to others at some point you will hit apon one combo which is perfect for you, with slight alterations you can then tailor it to your tastes.

 

In my opinion it's the best B+W film for general use, try shooting at slightly lower than it's rated asa too.

 

Happy Shooting.

Stuart

[todd frederick]

The tea garden was photographed two weeks ago on a rainy day with Delta 100 processed in HC110 using a Minolta Autocord I. I have processed Delta 100 with both HC110 and Ilfosol S with equally good results. I made this proof on the new Ilford MG Deluxe RC "cooltone" paper pearl finish. Nice paper. Fine film.

 

<img src="http://www.zing.com/picture/p2112310d3afe5d2d2f1d3d31fa40cef9/feddb0ba.jpg.orig.jpg">

[scott_eaton]

I've been experimenting with the Tmax films processed in Rodinal at 1:100. Yields *much" sharper, finer grained and better mid-tone graduated negs than Delta. More of a harder edged, classical, "gritty" look without the grit.

 

Delta is a great film with characteristics of the chromogenic films (T-CN400, XP-2) while retaining a standard B/W film density range. Delta's highlight roll-off is amazing, and reminds me of verichrome pan. I guess the big thing I don't like about Delta is the grain structure. Try as I might, I've always found TMY 400 to be sharper than Delta 100, which may/may not matter to you in MF.

 

Konica makes an extended red sensitive film called 750 IR, that's about 50 speed, not to hard to process, has incredible density range making for great conventional prints, and makes an exellent landscape film.

[dave_schneider]

I was in a similar spot, 20 years away from the darkroom, then came back using Delta100 and Ilfosol-S at 1+14 dilution. To keep contrast under control I found development times were very short, 6-7 minutes. I tried ID11 at 1+3 and found the times were longer which made it easier to manage, less errors, etc. I also found that I liked the tonal qulaity of ID11 better, it may be a little sharper.

 

My question for Delta100 users, is there any way to create a bit of shoulder with this film? It has a very long straight line but sometimes I would prefer the shoulder. Should I just use a traditional emulsion like FP4 in those circumstances?

[todd frederick]

I enjoy the long tonality of Delta 100, yet, I've been using some TMax 100 lately (after not using it since the late 1970's), and, like Scott, I like what I'm getting, both in 35mm and 120. There is a subtle smoothness to it that I can't describe...sorry, I'm not a chemist...I describe what I see in aesthetic terms. The following is a photo I took of my son and his dog a few weeks back with TMax 100. Very smooth.

 

<img src="http://www.zing.com/picture/p752a0bf5e56cb5f6251498acda19ce59/fed36253.jpg.orig.jpg">

[jerry_friedman]

Hi Everyone:

 

I need some help. I lost all of my photographic website bookmarks (don't ask how i was able to do such a smart thing!).

 

Could people please list the major MF websites so that I can copy them?

 

Gosh, I feel nude.

 

Jerry

[scott_eaton]

Seems Delta is the film of discussion this week.

 

Attached are some extreme 1:1 crops from 1600 dpi scans of 120 Delta and 120 Tmax 100 processed at the same time in Rodinal at 1:100.

 

The top image is from Tmax 100, the bottom one from Delta 100. As you can see, Tmax 100 responds very differently than Delta to Agfa's high accutance developer. The Tmax negs have incredible sharpness and grain is almost beyond the range of the scanner - approaching the realm of Techpan. The Delta negs have clumpy grain and are in dire need of a more solvent developer.

 

This isn't saying the Tmax 100 is better than Delta 100 because they are two inherently different films. In MF, I simply can't of a situation that Delta wouldn't yield a nice image, but I *can* think of situations that I wouldn't dream of using Tmax 100 - mostly scenes with a lot of highlight detail.

 

The difference in grain though still bothers me, and there's no question in my mind that Tmax 100 is the radically sharper film. Not too much of a big deal with MF and larger, but 35mm shooters might want to pay attention to this.

[scott_eaton]

{} here they are {}

[scott_eaton]

{} here they are {}

 

<img src="http://www.mindspring.com/~wseaton/techpics/compare.jpg">

[andreas_carl]

Thanks Scott, this is very informative! Just curious, have you made a similar comparison TMAX/Delta using XTOL? Also, I wonder what causes this clumping of grain? Is it an inherent characteristic of the film, or does it happen during film development? Are there ways to reduce clumping (volume, temperature, processing times)??? Using a more solvent developer would probably "mask" this clumping a bit, but not prevent it, is that correct?

 

For a while I thought that Delta/XTOL was "the" combination but lately I am getting ever more critical of the "look" of grain and just don't seem to find what I am looking for.... after all, the grain is the "atoms" (not literally of course) which our pictures are made from!

[john_hicks___]

I've tried Rodinal at 1:50 and 1:100, both with and without varying amounts of sodium sulfite, and after a few years of this concluded that Rodinal and the Delta films just don't get along together. Delta 100 takes on a somewhat gritty appearance but it isn't the crisp grit Rodinal usually gives. It's more of a gravelly grit that doesn't seem to increase acutance.

 

It didn't take years of trials for Delta 400 in Rodinal, just a couple of tries. The grain looks like oatmeal.

 

At any rate, my favorites for Delta 100 are D-76H 1:1 and 1:3. FX-39 1:14 may give a little higher acutance but imho the grain penalty is too much. Other than that, assuming relatively small repro ratios, FX-39 works well with Delta 100.

[scott_eaton]

{{The grain looks like oatmeal. }}

 

Yeah....that's it!

 

I was frankly shocked though at the difference in grain structure between these two films. While I'm not thrilled at the Tmax films developed in Rodinal at 1:25 and 1:50, at 1:100 and given mild agitation the mid-tones take on that elusive glow and the grain almost dissapears.

 

John, D-76 1:1 behaves a lot like HC-110 #B (1:31), so I'm wondering if this might be a combo to try since I hate working with powders. If If I were to mix up powders I'm thinking of trying Agfa's Atomal or Ilford's Microphen for Delta since both are very solvent based, but not so much as Kodak's Technidol. Both in my experience behave a lot like Kodak's marvelous Microdol-X.

[john_hicks___]

HC-110 has always to me looked fairly close to Rodinal, but I've never used it for Delta 100. Actually the last time I used HC-110 was with HP-4, which was a while back.

 

Microphen with HP-5+ gives somewhat more graininess than D-76; I'd expect about the same with Delta 100 but it may be worth trying at a higher dilution of 1:3 or so. If you don't want to fool with powder, DD-X has pretty much identical characteristics to Microphen but needs longer development times.

[dzeanah]

I sold a 30x40 to a client from 35mm once -- we had no idea she was going to want a large image so we were shooting 35mm handheld. Negs were Delta 100 EI 125, developed in XTOL 1:3.

 

The print was beautiful. Some camera shake was visible if you looked closely, but the print was incredible with barely noticable grain. Note that this was printed by Ivey Seright, not by me.

 

Try it. You might be really impressed, or you might prefer the look of ID-11.

[jeff_clark]

Acutol is the THEEE developer for Delta 100. High acutance and stable. Grainless isn't the definitive end to a good image. Why have have a grainless image if it's clouded with grain that seems to be reaching out to touch each other, when you can have a nice sharp and defined image? My 2 cents.

[keith_cranmer]

I, like Victor Lioce, am returning to photography after quite some time. Getting good results from tabular films continues to be a challenge for me. Shooting Tmax 400 at 1600 asa (two stops faster) and developing in Xtol, 1:3 for 17 min. has been the best results so far. However this film seems to suffer from a real lack of sharpness. Makes me long for Tri-X and HC-110. Has anyone had any luck with high definition developers?