Topic: Talk to me about Delta vs. TMax films

[02Pilot]

I'm debating which emulsion I should start with - I've not used either one. I normally work with Tri-X, but this is for half-frame, and past experience tells me that I'll be happier with the finer grain of Delta or TMax with the smaller negative. Dealing with scale focus here, so I'm inclined toward 400 rather than 100 speed to build in a little DOF buffer, but I can do 100 if there's a compelling reason to do so. Development will be in Caffenol, so compatibility is a significant factor. Any and all input is appreciated.

(Note that I haven't forgotten about Acros, but given how Fuji is dropping emulsions lately, I'm not inclined to start with something that could disappear in the not-too-distant future.)

[astrobeck]

I'm a fan and user of T-Max in caffenol...
T-max in a Holga is great stuff.   

Acros is my favorite though and what I use most.

[SLVR]

Are you set on going with a modern t grained film? If you like tri-x then maybe fp4 would be something more up your alley.

Also let me add, I'm pretty sure Fuji still has commitment to keeping Acros around. It is a good film and reacts well with most developers. I did find though that both the Acros and the tmax100 both gave similar results, but behaved way different with the way it handles overexposure. I can't remember off the top of my head what my observations were but in the end I did prefer Acros over tmax in that sense. It's all food for thought really. But if you do have an eye for a traditional grained film I would recommend looking at fp4 or plusx if you can find it relatively fresh.

[Hungry Mike]

I didn't mind my results in half frame with Tmax. Acros was surprisingly good for me in half frame and I preferred it over the results of the same film in full frame. Though if you're using a scale focus halfie I think maybe Tmax might be the better option as I found Acros less forgiving with focusing. FP4+ has also given me decent results for half frame though you might find it similar to your halfie Tri-X negatives. I've personally never liked 400 in any of my half frame scale focus cameras but I found it fine in the Pen FT and I think the Samurai 3. What half frame are you using? A Oly Pen of some kind? Didn't you have a Samurai?

[imagesfrugales]

I also don't use Acros anymore since Fuji discontinued the Neopan1600, I was really p..sed off. I know it's childish. All 5 "modern" films are really great and it is hard to recommend one over the other.

Acros and Caffenol: a dream team from EI 25 to 400. No more words needed.

Tmax 100 and Caffenol: next dream team, a bit more contrasty in the lights. Not the huge latitude as Acros, but still very good.

Tmax 400 and Caffenol: a bit tricky, expect base fog even with a restrainer, pot bromide preferred. EI about 800 - 1600. Expect good film speed but also grain. For fast films I prefer Xtol now.

Deltas and Caffenol: no own experiance with the 400, but results of others look fine at EI 400 - 800. Delta 100 is very neat, I don't use Ilford a lot because they are always more expensive here than the others. Maybe the grain of the Deltas is not the smallest but the "nicest"? If price doesn't matter I can recommend anything by Ilford that I had in my hands so far.

[LT]

... I think maybe Tmax might be the better option as I found Acros less forgiving with focusing ...

I'm interested by this comment Mike. How might film type affect the camera/lens ability to focus?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Ezzie]

Tried TMX, TMY-2 and Delta 400 in Caffenol, TMX in R01 and HC-110, TMX and TMY-2 in TMAX developer, and Delta 400 in HC-110.

But have to say, Acros is the best I've tried, both in Caffenol, and in R09 (medium format, a bit too grainy for my taste in 135). Unbelievably smooth tonal gradation. When that goes, I'm going into mourning. In Caffenol it can easily be pushed, but I prefer not to go over EI 200. Neopan 400 also very good, but sadly gone. 1 roll left

Delta 400 in Caffenol also works well, better than TMY-2, a film I never really got the hang of in Caffenol, nor TMAX Developer and therefore have sacrificed for Delta 400 (and Neopan 400). In fact for 120 I prefer Tri-X in Caffenol, HP5+ too.

TMX works well more or less in whatever I have tried. But can be a bit contrasty in HC-110 if not careful. Best in Caffenol, at least for negatives that are going to be scanned (smoother tonal gradation). I don't use it much because Acros is better, but if the latter is taken off the market, then TMX it is.

[Ezzie]

... I think maybe Tmax might be the better option as I found Acros less forgiving with focusing ...

I'm interested by this comment Mike. How might film type affect the camera/lens ability to focus?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

My theory is that Acros is both thinner in film base and backing paper. So may show up cameras with film flatness issues. I notice it on my DIY cameras, I need to adapt the pressure plate for Fuji films vs Kodak especially.

[DonkeyDave]

if I had to chose a 100 and a 400 it would be delta in 100, and Tmax in 400

Tmax100, is very crisp, but seems to be more sensitive to exposure than delta 100 - it can also look 'too' good, in that in MF/LF its is so grainless as to look almost digital

delta 400 has a weird grain, and seems intolerant to exposure errors in a way that Tmax400 doesn't

experience is all with DDX 35mm, MF, LF

[Late Developer]

Can I throw another option into the pot as well?

How about XP2 Super. Great latitude, you can develop in C41 or traditional chemicals and it's got what I regard as an unobtrusive grain for a 400ISO film.  I'm not familiar with using half-frame cameras but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be capable of at least good, if not great results.

Incidebtally, I went over to XP2 Super from Tri-X as I didn't, at that time, have any gear to develop my own and getting Tri-X shop processed was becoming expensive.  However, I'm just about to have a dabble with Delta (100 and 400) via medium format...

[02Pilot]

Lots of food for thought there - thanks, folks.

It sounds like there is probably no truly bad choice here. I've never shot either of the Delta films or XP2; I grabbed a couple rolls of short-date TMax 100 a while back, and I've been using Acros in 120 for some time in pinholes and conventional cameras with good results, but never in 35mm. I haven't completely ruled out the the traditional grain options; I actually prefer them in larger formats, but the grain can become too prominent for my tastes in half-frame. Perhaps I'll just start with the TMax I have and pick up a sampler of other options. Being half-frame, the decision process could end up taking several years. 

At least I don't have to go through the same thing for color. Ektar seems like the perfect half-frame film based on prior results.

[Adam Doe]

My theory is that Acros is both thinner in film base and backing paper. So may show up cameras with film flatness issues. I notice it on my DIY cameras, I need to adapt the pressure plate for Fuji films vs Kodak especially.

I've noticed from the few rolls of Acros 120 that I've recently developed that the negatives curl so much that I can't get them to sit properly in the holder for the scanner. I attribute this as well to a thin film base.

[SLVR]

Strange, I don't have that problem with Acros.

[Hungry Mike]

Leon - not sure if I can fully explain but I can concede I'm likely doing something wrong! When I've used Acros in a scale focus camera I found that the images when scanned had a greater degree of out focus shots compared to Tmax in the same camera. The settings I believe were the same. I didn't have the same issues in the SLRs - very consistent results. I recognise there are other variables at play including my lack of photographic rigour! So what does a poor photographer do? Blame the film! So take my fanciful comment with a grain of salt as I could have been quite likely doing something wrong. 

XP2 - I didn't care for it in the half frame personally as I found the grain was a little too pronounced.  However, I think it can & does work well in the full frame cameras I've used it in so it is definitely worth trying.

Colour - Ektar is definitely a good go to in the halfies. However, if you can track down some Hawkeye Traffic Surveillance film I'd recommend that as well. I've had excellent & consistent results with that in the Pen EE2.

[Francois]

Focusing wise, every film is the same with the exception of infrared film.
But a slow speed film will reduce the depth of field. So, if a higher sensitivity film is used, the added depth of field will give the illusion of sharper focus.

[LT]

In addition to François's comment,could be camera shake from slow shutter speed too?

[Hungry Mike]

Leon & Francois - Yes, that makes much more sense. I hadn't thought it through all that much as it was shot over the Christmas holidays and got shoved aside in my work flow when other concerns demanded my time. So I'll have a look at the negatives again but yes it is quite likely something along those lines. Thank you for calling me on my off handed & brazenly amateur comment! I don't always devote near enough time to problem solve my photographic misadventures (and it usually shows). Your patience is appreciated.

[Francois]

The wise man said that "Making mistakes simply means you are learning faster." 

[Photo_Utopia]

Ilford Delta is an epitaxial (T grain like) film with crystals of a similar size and shape in each layer. TMax is a hybrid film with different sized slab like silver (T grains) oriented in the same direction in the top layer and slower more uniform sized cubic crystals in the slower layer.
They are both nice, try loads of each....