Delta or T-Max?

Question:

Based on my experience, both films have very fine grain. T-max seems to have a better latitude, thus making it a better film for pushing, but when shot at the regular rated speeds, I am convinced that the Ilford film has a better tonal scale. That said, I would NOT recommend either one of these films unless you are consistently making 16 X 20" prints (or larger) and grain characteristics are critical, because I am more then absolutely convinced that Tri-X blows away these films in all other respects! Tri-X is fare more flexible when pushing or pulling, and the subtle tones achieved with Tri-X cannot be touched by either T-max or Delta. As added bonuses, it requires less fixing time, and is cheaper too! Just my two cents, based on many years of trial and error, -Chris Hey Everybody, I am wondering which you people prefer: Ilford’s Delta or Kodak’s T-Max. I am talking about every aspect of the film – sharpness, contrast (important), and the ability to record the most tones (very important). If I decide to use Ilfords Film, can / should I develop it using the TMax developer? (In a Jobo) If not, which developer should I use? ‘ Thanks! Adam

– TO REPLY: PLEASE REMOVE THE "***NO SPAM***" MESSAGE FROM THE ADDRESS BOX! Advertisers! It is illegal to use this e-mail address for unsolicited commercial e-mail per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I reserve the right to assess a US $500 charge for reviewing & deleting each unsolicited commercial e-mail. Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to my email address denotes acceptance of these terms. Postings from me to UseNet neither grants my consent to receive commercial emailings nor is intended to solicit commercial email. CHRIS HO (503) 768-3800

Response:

If I could throw in another recommendation…. Ilford XP2 Super has even finer grain than the Delta, Tmax or Tri-X, and the contrast is absolutely exquisite. It’s a 400-speed that looks like a 100-speed film, even blown up to 11×14. It’s the most crisp, clean, beautiful film I’ve tried yet, and you can have it processed in C41 chemicals at your local 1-hour lab. Check it out — you won’t be disappointed! Kerry

is the grain of XP2 super the same as the regular XP2? and in terms of sharpness.. does afga apx 25 perform better than any/all of these. i havent had as much experience with ilford/afga since i use tri-x primarily, and in the past tmax.

Response:

I use them both, simply because I can’t decide upon one or the other – here’s why: Delta has, by far, the best tonal range of the two. Processed in Rodinal, and printed onto good paper, such as Ilford Gallerie, it’s great. However, T-Max has the finest grain. Grain though, is not the be all, and end all of everything. That grainless appearance of T-Max 100 can just make it look soft when compared to Delta, particularly if you use a "fine grain" developer, which usually have poor acutance (sharpness) characteristics. One other bad point about T-Max is that the negs are very easily damaged compared to delta, both during, and after processing. They are both great films, so it’s down to whether you prefer finer grain, or greater sharpness and tonality. Although, I can’t decide finally, I use a lot more Delta than I do T-Max. The only exception to this is with the ISO 3200 films. T-Max 3200 is a better film to work with. Delta has finer grain at this speed, and greater latitude, but suffers badly from base fogging during processing, whereas the T-Max 3200 does not. Others have suggested that T-Max has greater latitude, but mono print film has a 5 stop latitude anyway: If you can’t get it right with 5 stops to play with, just throw the towel in now Regards, David.

Response:

Grain, grain, grain…. Yes, XP2 has fine grain, but it’s tonal characteristics aren’t even close to Delta. If you’re so bothered about grain, then move up to medium format, or start using stuff like APX 25. Delta 100 rules David.

Response:

and in terms of sharpness.. does afga apx 25 perform better than any/all of these. i havent had as much experience with ilford/afga since i use tri-x primarily, and in the past tmax.

APX 25 will make XP2, Delta100, and T-Max100 look stupid. I’ve shot stuff on APX25 that people wouldn’t believe were on 35mm until I showed them the negs. Processed well, and shot with good optics, APX25 is simply exquisite. It needs to be used carefully though: Contrast is a problem, so a suitable developer is needed ( I use Rodinal at 1+ 50), and it suffers the same problem as T-Max: The negs are easily scratched, so be careful. David.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey Everybody, I am wondering which you people prefer: Ilford’s Delta or Kodak’s T-Max. I am talking about every aspect of the film – sharpness, contrast (important), and the ability to record the most tones (very important). If I decide to use Ilfords Film, can / should I develop it using the TMax developer? (In a Jobo) If not, which developer should I use? ‘ Thanks! Adam I use them both, simply because I can’t decide upon one or the other – here’s why: Delta has, by far, the best tonal range of the two. Processed in Rodinal, and printed onto good paper, such as Ilford Gallerie, it’s great. However, T-Max has the finest grain. Grain though, is not the be all, and end all of everything. That grainless appearance of T-Max 100 can just make it look soft when compared to Delta, particularly if you use a "fine grain" developer, which usually have poor acutance (sharpness) characteristics. One other bad point about T-Max is that the negs are very easily damaged compared to delta, both during, and after processing. They are both great films, so it’s down to whether you prefer finer grain, or greater sharpness and tonality. Although, I can’t decide finally, I use a lot more Delta than I do T-Max. The only exception to this is with the ISO 3200 films. T-Max 3200 is a better film to work with. Delta has finer grain at this speed, and greater latitude, but suffers badly from base fogging during processing, whereas the T-Max 3200 does not. Others have suggested that T-Max has greater latitude, but mono print film has a 5 stop latitude anyway: If you can’t get it right with 5 stops to play with, just throw the towel in now Regards, David.

Hi there. Delta 3200 has not, in my experience, fogged at all when I use T-Max 1+4 developer. No problem, and it’s tonal range appears better. It is also *much* easier to process and dry. I have found T-Max to be much more critical when taken to EI3200. I think of Delta3200 as an 800-speed film which one can push. And it does so very, very successfully. One tip: I put around 20% more developing time than the Ilford box suggests at these speeds, and I get a good neg from doing that. Just my experience with htis stuff – best regards, Trevor Gale.

Response:

Delta 3200 has not, in my experience, fogged at all when I use T-Max 1+4 developer. No problem,

Never tried T-Max dev, mainly because I don’t process T-Max in it, so I rarely have any. I’ll try it though, as base fogging aside, I prefer Delta over T-Max. I process T-Max in Aculux2 if I want fine grain, and Rodinal if I want sharpness. One tip: I put around 20% more developing time than the Ilford box suggests at these speeds, and I get a good neg from doing that. Just my experience with htis stuff – best regards, Trevor Gale.

I’ll try it next time I use any. Thanks. David.

Response:

I wonder what you mean by "tonal range". Both these films will record a much longer scale than is reproducable on any paper. Both films appear to have similar curve types, i.e. a relatively short toe and long relatively straight line section. I am curious to hear some description of what it is you are seeing. The problem with discussion groups like this is that we rarely see actual prints, even scanned images really don’t tell you what the image looks like, there are too many other variables in the way. So, even though this sounds like an argument it isn’t, its really a request to try to find some way of describing the quality you see which is different in these two films. It would also be helpful to know what format or formats you work in. Grain though, is not the be all, and end all of everything. That grainless appearance of T-Max 100 can just make it look soft when compared to Delta, particularly if you use a "fine grain" developer, which usually have poor acutance (sharpness) characteristics. One other bad point about T-Max is that the negs are very easily damaged compared to delta, both during, and after processing.

I haven’t experienced this. When is the damage occuring, while the film is wet or later? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – They are both great films, so it’s down to whether you prefer finer grain, or greater sharpness and tonality. Although, I can’t decide finally, I use a lot more Delta than I do T-Max. The only exception to this is with the ISO 3200 films. T-Max 3200 is a better film to work with. Delta has finer grain at this speed, and greater latitude, but suffers badly from base fogging during processing, whereas the T-Max 3200 does not. Others have suggested that T-Max has greater latitude, but mono print film has a 5 stop latitude anyway: If you can’t get it right with 5 stops to play with, just throw the towel in now Regards, David.

— Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, Ca.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Based on my experience, both films have very fine grain. T-max seems to have a better latitude, thus making it a better film for pushing, but when shot at the regular rated speeds, I am convinced that the Ilford film has a better tonal scale. That said, I would NOT recommend either one of these films unless you are consistently making 16 X 20" prints (or larger) and grain characteristics are critical, because I am more then absolutely convinced that Tri-X blows away these films in all other respects! Tri-X is fare more flexible when pushing or pulling, and the subtle tones achieved with Tri-X cannot be touched by either T-max or Delta. As added bonuses, it requires less fixing time, and is cheaper too! Just my two cents, based on many years of trial and error, -Chris Hey Everybody, I am wondering which you people prefer: Ilford’s Delta or Kodak’s T-Max. I am talking about every aspect of the film – sharpness, contrast (important), and the ability to record the most tones (very important). If I decide to use Ilfords Film, can / should I develop it using the TMax developer? (In a Jobo) If not, which developer should I use? ‘ Thanks! Adam

One troublesome characteristic of Tmax is the tendency to produce severe newton rings in a glass negative carrier. I haven’t tested delta in this regard, but 8×10 Agfa apx 100 (now discontinued, unfortunately) is newton ring free. Tmax produces about 50 newton rings in the same situation, using a plain glass carrier. Tmax will even produce newton rings on the emulsion side. Harold Clark

Response:

Delta tends to have more curve in the shoulder and toe than T-Max, which makes it more forgiving of slightly off exposures. You get better shadow and highlight contrast with TMax if you do it right though. I haven’t used a lot of Delta, but Tmax is a lot sharper than Tri-X, and the difference in grain is quite apparent at much smaller enlargement sizes than 16×20. My personal experience seems to indicate that smaller grain = smoother tones, which is one of the reasons people like Medium Format tones better than 35mm. A lot of people seem to swear by Tri-X, and claim that it blows T-max away, so I suppose for some people it is true. Personally, I don’t see any big difference other than less contrast in the toe and shoulder, and more grain. Perhaps it is a failing on my part though, and in the end I suppose everyone should make their own tests. Adam Griffith

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Delta tends to have more curve in the shoulder and toe than T-Max, which makes it more forgiving of slightly off exposures. You get better shadow and highlight contrast with TMax if you do it right though. I haven’t used a lot of Delta, but Tmax is a lot sharper than Tri-X, and the difference in grain is quite apparent at much smaller enlargement sizes than 16×20. My personal experience seems to indicate that smaller grain = smoother tones, which is one of the reasons people like Medium Format tones better than 35mm. A lot of people seem to swear by Tri-X, and claim that it blows T-max away, so I suppose for some people it is true. Personally, I don’t see any big difference other than less contrast in the toe and shoulder, and more grain. Perhaps it is a failing on my part though, and in the end I suppose everyone should make their own tests.

One thing worth noting about the T-Max films is that for most users, they give their best results in T-Max developer (some people also report good results in Xtol, but I haven’t tried it.) The T-Max instruction sheets also call for a different agitation pattern than many of us were taught (5 sharp inversiions during a 5-second period, as opposed to the old ‘ASA agitation’ of 3 gentle inversions in a 5-second period.) Many people who try developing T-Max using their old favorite developer, and agitating it the way they’re used to instead of the way described in the directions, get substandard results — and then blame the film, saying "Tri-X (or whatever) blows T-Max away." On the other hand, people who follow the recommendations get much better results. So, follow the recommendations if you want to give T-Max a fair shake. On the other hand, if you can’t conveniently get the T-Max developer and/or need to process a mixture of different films at the same time, that might be a good argument for using Delta.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Delta tends to have more curve in the shoulder and toe than T-Max, which makes it more forgiving of slightly off exposures. You get better shadow and highlight contrast with TMax if you do it right though. I haven’t used a lot of Delta, but Tmax is a lot sharper than Tri-X, and the difference in grain is quite apparent at much smaller enlargement sizes than 16×20. My personal experience seems to indicate that smaller grain = smoother tones, which is one of the reasons people like Medium Format tones better than 35mm. A lot of people seem to swear by Tri-X, and claim that it blows T-max away, so I suppose for some people it is true. Personally, I don’t see any big difference other than less contrast in the toe and shoulder, and more grain. Perhaps it is a failing on my part though, and in the end I suppose everyone should make their own tests. One thing worth noting about the T-Max films is that for most users, they give their best results in T-Max developer (some people also report good results in Xtol, but I haven’t tried it.) The T-Max instruction sheets also call for a different agitation pattern than many of us were taught (5 sharp inversiions during a 5-second period, as opposed to the old ‘ASA agitation’ of 3 gentle inversions in a 5-second period.) Many people who try developing T-Max using their old favorite developer, and agitating it the way they’re used to instead of the way described in the directions, get substandard results — and then blame the film, saying "Tri-X (or whatever) blows T-Max away." On the other hand, people who follow the recommendations get much better results. So, follow the recommendations if you want to give T-Max a fair shake. On the other hand, if you can’t conveniently get the T-Max developer and/or need to process a mixture of different films at the same time, that might be a good argument for using Delta.

I’m not sure this is at all true. I found I got best results with D-76 diluted 1:1 and find a lot of others seem to agree with me. As far as agitation goes, the Kodak recommendations for T-Max are exactly the same as for Plus-X and Tri-X roll films, namely 5 to 7 inversions in five seconds. See the data sheets available from the Kodak web site. Going back to a 1976 film data booklet I find the recommendation to be 5 inversions in 5 seconds. Very old data sheets (1950’s) don’t give any recommendation. I wonder if you are confusing this with Technical Pan which requires a sort of vigorous cocktail shaker action. — Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, Ca.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – One thing worth noting about the T-Max films is that for most users, they give their best results in T-Max developer (some people also report good results in Xtol, but I haven’t tried it.) The T-Max instruction sheets also call for a different agitation pattern than many of us were taught (5 sharp inversiions during a 5-second period, as opposed to the old ‘ASA agitation’ of 3 gentle inversions in a 5-second period.) Many people who try developing T-Max using their old favorite developer, and agitating it the way they’re used to instead of the way described in the directions, get substandard results — and then blame the film, saying "Tri-X (or whatever) blows T-Max away." On the other hand, people who follow the recommendations get much better results. So, follow the recommendations if you want to give T-Max a fair shake. On the other hand, if you can’t conveniently get the T-Max developer and/or need to process a mixture of different films at the same time, that might be a good argument for using Delta.

Jim, Though I’ve heard that some folks prefer T-Max developer for pushing T-Max films, I think that if you’ll research what’s been said in this group, you’ll find that most people get the best results using D-76 with TMX. The grain is much finer and the sharpness is much better. I think the general concensus has been that D-76 1:1 at 72-73 F and 5 inversions (no one ever mentions whether or not they are ’sharp’ inversions) each 30 seconds is the preferred method. I haven’t kept a strict tally, but I’d guess that most of the regular posters would agree. It also seems that there are many cases of comparing apples and oranges, since most posters don’t note what format they’re using. If you read between the lines, you can occasionally tell that one person’s ‘wonder film’ is in 35mm format, while another’s is 8×10. Very nice 16×20 prints can be made from 8×10 Tri-X, but making merely acceptable 16×20’s from 35mm format Tri-X is problematic. TMX and Tech Pan are wonderful for making large prints from small film, but may not give the LF photographer the desired ‘look’. These undeclared comparisons throw variables into the discussion that confound the comparison of developers with a given film. Unless all factors are put out on the table at the beginning, no one can make a really meaningful comparison of their situation with that of the poster. (BTW, I shoot 6×7.) I think most people (myself included) do not find the ‘best’ film and developer combination for their use unless they do some experimentation. I stumbled around for several years believing that Kodak had optimized T-Max developer for use with T-Max film. After I started experimenting, I found a number of developers that give me vastly better results with TMX than I get with T-Max developer. Having tried D-76, Xtol, Microdol-X, Acufine, Kodak Hobby Pac liquid (discontinued) and Alta Gamma Plus (understatement), and different dilutions of some of the above, I haven’t found anything I like LESS than T-Max developer, though the jury’s still out on the Gamma Plus. I won’t feel like I know as much as I need to know about TMX until I try processing it in Rodinal, HC-110, Dektol (yes, Dektol) and the Ilford offering (ID-11?). I may find something I like better than D-76. Manufacturer’s recommendations are nice starting points, but don’t give always the ‘best’ results, or the photographer’s desired results. Giving a film a ‘fair shake’ may require the user to experiment with a variety of exposure methods, developers, processing temperatures, agitation methods, and even different printing papers. Simply following the manufacturer’s recommendations and hoping for the best seems to me to be taking a shortcut that may bypass a lot of excellent possibilities. Yes, it’s a lot of work, but at least I actually end up KNOWING what works best for me, rather than blindly accepting the word of the manufacturer. I eventually want to run a similar set of experiments with Agfa and Ilford films. I hope I don’t find what I like best just before the discontinuance notice is issued by the manufacturer. Lastly, processing ‘a mixture of different films at the same time’ is never a good idea. Mixing film types in the same tank will always result in compromized results with each roll. Best regards, Stew — Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart UNIX: It’s not just ‘User-Unfriendly’, it’s ‘Proactively User-Hostile’! Nothing generates so much silence as confronting a person with an undeniable truth which is contrary to that person’s beliefs. Manual cameras, Luna-Pro’s and stick shifts. Please send e-mail responses to the following address ONLY: cheerfully ignored (Intel policy). The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of Intel Corporation.

Response:

Though I’ve heard that some folks prefer T-Max developer for pushing T-Max films, I think that if you’ll research what’s been said in this group, you’ll find that most people get the best results using D-76 with TMX. The grain is much finer and the sharpness is much better. I think the general concensus has been that D-76 1:1 at 72-73 F and 5 inversions (no one ever mentions whether or not they are ’sharp’ inversions) each 30 seconds is the preferred method. I haven’t kept a strict tally, but I’d guess that most of the regular posters would agree.

[interesting stuff snipped] Simply following the manufacturer’s recommendations and hoping for the best seems to me to be taking a shortcut that may bypass a lot of excellent possibilities. Yes, it’s a lot of work, but at least I actually end up KNOWING what works best for me, rather than blindly accepting the word of the manufacturer.

Yeah, I agree. In fact, doing your own experimentation might even be a better way of finding out what works than "researching what’s been said in this group"! In fact, that suggests another reason for not just accepting other people’s word — your idea of ‘best results’ may be different from theirs. Yes, I got good grain and sharpness developing my T-Max in D-76 — but I preferred the T-Max developer for tonal separation — which to me is as important as sharpness and even more important than fine grain. Lastly, processing ‘a mixture of different films at the same time’ is never a good idea. Mixing film types in the same tank will always result in compromized results with each roll.

True. But let’s face it, sometimes in ‘real-world’ photography — as distinct from ‘darkroom artistry’ photography — you’ve gotta do it! If you can’t avoid compromise, the next best thing is to angle for the *most acceptable* compromise. Also, unfortunately, many people who want to use b&w aren’t able to process it themselves and have to turn it over to a lab. And many labs, even good ones, process all their b&w films in the same stuff. I think it makes sense to be aware of this when you need to shoot b&w, can’t process it yourself, and have to turn it over to a lab over which you have no control.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Though I’ve heard that some folks prefer T-Max developer for pushing T-Max films, I think that if you’ll research what’s been said in this group, you’ll find that most people get the best results using D-76 with TMX. The grain is much finer and the sharpness is much better. I think the general concensus has been that D-76 1:1 at 72-73 F and 5 inversions (no one ever mentions whether or not they are ’sharp’ inversions) each 30 seconds is the preferred method. I haven’t kept a strict tally, but I’d guess that most of the regular posters would agree. [interesting stuff snipped] Simply following the manufacturer’s recommendations and hoping for the best seems to me to be taking a shortcut that may bypass a lot of excellent possibilities. Yes, it’s a lot of work, but at least I actually end up KNOWING what works best for me, rather than blindly accepting the word of the manufacturer. Yeah, I agree. In fact, doing your own experimentation might even be a better way of finding out what works than "researching what’s been said in this group"! In fact, that suggests another reason for not just accepting other people’s word — your idea of ‘best results’ may be different from theirs. Yes, I got good grain and sharpness developing my T-Max in D-76 — but I preferred the T-Max developer for tonal separation — which to me is as important as sharpness and even more important than fine grain. Lastly, processing ‘a mixture of different films at the same time’ is never a good idea. Mixing film types in the same tank will always result in compromized results with each roll. True. But let’s face it, sometimes in ‘real-world’ photography — as distinct from ‘darkroom artistry’ photography — you’ve gotta do it! If you can’t avoid compromise, the next best thing is to angle for the *most acceptable* compromise. Also, unfortunately, many people who want to use b&w aren’t able to process it themselves and have to turn it over to a lab. And many labs, even good ones, process all their b&w films in the same stuff. I think it makes sense to be aware of this when you need to shoot b&w, can’t process it yourself, and have to turn it over to a lab over which you have no control.

Jim, Good points. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘real world’ photography. If you mean PJ, where time is frequently more important than getting the best possible image, I’ll grudgingly agree. I haven’t worked in a commercial lab, but I suspect that films are sorted and, though they may be run through the same chemicals, they can have their development time controlled to match the film type. The idea of running different films through the same chemistry for the same amount of time, as would happen by putting four different 35mm rolls in a 1-quart tank, affects me the same way as scraping fingernails on a blackboard. I’ll admit that commercial labs aren’t perfect, though. A few weeks ago our local ‘Pro’ lab cross-processed a roll of E-6 for me in C-41. This was an unrequested service, but they didn’t charge me extra for it. Fortunately, it wasn’t a very important roll. One of these days I’ll have to try printing some of it. Best regards, Stew — Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart UNIX: It’s not just ‘User-Unfriendly’, it’s ‘Proactively User-Hostile’! Nothing generates so much silence as confronting a person with an undeniable truth which is contrary to that person’s beliefs. Manual cameras, Luna-Pro’s and stick shifts. Please send e-mail responses to the following address ONLY: cheerfully ignored (Intel policy). The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of Intel Corporation.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Though I’ve heard that some folks prefer T-Max developer for pushing T-Max films, I think that if you’ll research what’s been said in this group, you’ll find that most people get the best results using D-76 with TMX. The grain is much finer and the sharpness is much better. I think the general concensus has been that D-76 1:1 at 72-73 F and 5 inversions (no one ever mentions whether or not they are ’sharp’ inversions) each 30 seconds is the preferred method. I haven’t kept a strict tally, but I’d guess that most of the regular posters would agree. [interesting stuff snipped] Simply following the manufacturer’s recommendations and hoping for the best seems to me to be taking a shortcut that may bypass a lot of excellent possibilities. Yes, it’s a lot of work, but at least I actually end up KNOWING what works best for me, rather than blindly accepting the word of the manufacturer. Yeah, I agree. In fact, doing your own experimentation might even be a better way of finding out what works than "researching what’s been said in this group"! In fact, that suggests another reason for not just accepting other people’s word — your idea of ‘best results’ may be different from theirs. Yes, I got good grain and sharpness developing my T-Max in D-76 — but I preferred the T-Max developer for tonal separation — which to me is as important as sharpness and even more important than fine grain. Lastly, processing ‘a mixture of different films at the same time’ is never a good idea. Mixing film types in the same tank will always result in compromized results with each roll. True. But let’s face it, sometimes in ‘real-world’ photography — as distinct from ‘darkroom artistry’ photography — you’ve gotta do it! If you can’t avoid compromise, the next best thing is to angle for the *most acceptable* compromise. Also, unfortunately, many people who want to use b&w aren’t able to process it themselves and have to turn it over to a lab. And many labs, even good ones, process all their b&w films in the same stuff. I think it makes sense to be aware of this when you need to shoot b&w, can’t process it yourself, and have to turn it over to a lab over which you have no control. Jim, Good points. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘real world’ photography. If you mean PJ, where time is frequently more important than getting the best possible image, I’ll grudgingly agree. I haven’t worked in a commercial lab, but I suspect that films are sorted and, though they may be run through the same chemicals, they can have their development time controlled to match the film type. The idea of running different films through the same chemistry for the same amount of time, as would happen by putting four different 35mm rolls in a 1-quart tank, affects me the same way as scraping fingernails on a blackboard.

Generally, yes, but there is an exception, namely divided developers. I used to use Diafine extensively, and you can in fact, just as it says, develop different films together for the exact same times. You will get more grain than with a normal developer, but you will also get more film speed (I mean "real" shadow speed, though I won’t go so far out on a limb as to say how much.) so you can use a finer grained film to start with. I no longer use Diafine except for pushing Tri-X (for which it works superbly) but it doesn’t need any different time or temperature. I experimented with Cachet A/B developer as well, and the same seems to be true, I just did not like the results. Really amazingly large grain, like golf balls. I actually had more grain from TMY in Cachet A/B than from Tri-X in D76, and maybe even more than Tri-X in Diafine. But it didn’t seem to need different times either. I know others have argued here before that divided developers simply can’t work as they claim, but as far as this claim of uniform time and temp. for all films goes, I did find it to be true for the two developers I have used and the films I tried with them. Roger Cole – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’ll admit that commercial labs aren’t perfect, though. A few weeks ago our local ‘Pro’ lab cross-processed a roll of E-6 for me in C-41. This was an unrequested service, but they didn’t charge me extra for it. Fortunately, it wasn’t a very important roll. One of these days I’ll have to try printing some of it. Best regards, Stew — Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart UNIX: It’s not just ‘User-Unfriendly’, it’s ‘Proactively User-Hostile’! Nothing generates so much silence as confronting a person with an undeniable truth which is contrary to that person’s beliefs. Manual cameras, Luna-Pro’s and stick shifts. Please send e-mail responses to the following address ONLY: cheerfully ignored (Intel policy). The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of Intel Corporation.

Response:

Delta or T-Max? Doesn’t make much difference. They are both fine films. The T-Max is a bit faster but both will give generally comparable results and are capable of producing excellant prints. I Use both. No problem. Arthur Kramer Las Vegas NV

Response:

I use them both. I find that I prefer XTOL at 1:1 dilution for best results with either. The two films have a slightly different toe curve and render slightly differently. TMax is a touch faster, Delta Pro has a lot of subtly in the shadow values and the highlights seem to glow a little bit. Godfrey

Response:

One thing worth noting about the T-Max films is that for most users, they give their best results in T-Max developer (some people also report good results in Xtol, but I haven’t tried it.)

Try it in Aculux2 as well. It’s great. Not as great as Delta, but great all the same David.

Response:

I wonder what you mean by "tonal range". ……[snip]

I answered this via e-mail, as I was telnetting from a different location. I hope you got the reply. David.

Response:

There’s no doubt about it. That said, I would NOT recommend either one of these films unless you are consistently making 16 X 20" prints (or larger) and grain characteristics are critical, because I am more then absolutely convinced that Tri-X blows away these films in all other respects!

I have to argue with you there though…. Tri-X is fare more flexible when pushing or pulling, and the subtle tones achieved with Tri-X cannot be touched by either T-max or Delta.

I used to be a PLus-X and Tri-X user until Delta came out. I find it’s tonality more pleasing. Again, this is a personal thing, and also one that’s heavily influenced by developer. There’s not much to choose between Delta and Tri-X tonaly, but the extra resolution, and teh ability to produce grain free negs more than makes up fro any slight loss of tonality, if indeed such a thing exists – even if you’re not printing at 16×20. As added bonuses, it requires less fixing time, and is cheaper too!

I can’t argue with you there Just my two cents, based on many years of trial and error, -Chris

David.

Response:

Like Rodinal, D76 is a higher acutance developer than most "fine grain" developers, and I prefer Rodinal to D76, but the two are not that dissimilar. However, I have to argue with the statement than D76 produces the finest grain. I’ve tried many devs with T-Max and Delta, as these two are now my regularly used mono films, and after much searching, processing, and note taking, my findings are that Aculux2 gives by far the finest grain with both of the above films, but Rodinal gives the sharpest results – followed by Acutol, then D76/ID-11 (close enough to be called the same thing really). Before you all disagree, if you’ve had a differing experience, remember that there’s a lot the processor can do to alter that. Dilution; temp; water hardness; and even exposure of the latent neg itself can all have massive effects. I think the advice given by both myself, and others on here who have obviously experimented extensively is all equally valid, as we’ll all have widely differing teqniques. To a beginner reading this: Try all the developers and films we’ve suggested, as one may suit the way you work, and your aesthetic more than another, and the developers and techniques too. THE most important thing is to develop a technique, and be deadly consistent with it. Nothing will give you better results than that. You can use the best dev in the world, with the best film in the world, but if you do something different every time, you’ll never get good results. David.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Though I’ve heard that some folks prefer T-Max developer for pushing T-Max films, I think that if you’ll research what’s been said in this group, you’ll find that most people get the best results using D-76 with TMX. The grain is much finer and the sharpness is much better. I think the general concensus has been that D-76 1:1 at 72-73 F and 5 inversions (no one ever mentions whether or not they are ’sharp’ inversions) each 30 seconds is the preferred method. I haven’t kept a strict tally, but I’d guess that most of the regular posters would agree. Like Rodinal, D76 is a higher acutance developer than most "fine grain" developers, and I prefer Rodinal to D76, but the two are not that dissimilar. However, I have to argue with the statement than D76 produces the finest grain. I’ve tried many devs with T-Max and Delta, as these two are now my regularly used mono films, and after much searching, processing, and note taking, my findings are that Aculux2 gives by far the finest grain with both of the above films, but Rodinal gives the sharpest results – followed by Acutol, then D76/ID-11 (close enough to be called the same thing really). Before you all disagree, if you’ve had a differing experience, remember that there’s a lot the processor can do to alter that. Dilution; temp; water hardness; and even exposure of the latent neg itself can all have massive effects. I think the advice given by both myself, and others on here who have obviously experimented extensively is all equally valid, as we’ll all have widely differing teqniques. To a beginner reading this: Try all the developers and films we’ve suggested, as one may suit the way you work, and your aesthetic more than another, and the developers and techniques too. THE most important thing is to develop a technique, and be deadly consistent with it. Nothing will give you better results than that. You can use the best dev in the world, with the best film in the world, but if you do something different every time, you’ll never get good results. David.

David, Please re-read the paragraph of mine you quoted. I did not say that D-76 produced the finest grain. I said D-76 produced finer grain than T-Max developer. That most folks get the best results with this combo is not limited to grain size. Contrast control is easier, D-76 is a ‘classic’ developer in that it can be counted upon to produce consistent results, and, to my eye, it produces a more ‘natural’ looking negative with a broader range of tones. There are two developers I’ve found to produce finer grain than D-76 when used with TMX film. They are Xtol straight or 1:1 and Microdol-X 1:3. There are probably more, but I haven’t tested all possible combinations, and won’t even try. I’ve posted the results of the testing I’ve done so far on my web site. Please note: The test results posted are not a scientific study. They are posted to show that there are differences in developers when used with any particular film. They are not intended to show that you will get exactly the same results I did. I agree with what you say about process control. Eliminate variables and you will achieve better results. Best regards, Stew — Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart UNIX: It’s not just ‘User-Unfriendly’, it’s ‘Proactively User-Hostile’! Nothing generates so much silence as confronting a person with an undeniable truth which is contrary to that person’s beliefs. Manual cameras, Luna-Pro’s and stick shifts. Please send e-mail responses to the following address ONLY: cheerfully ignored (Intel policy). The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of Intel Corporation.

Golfers Wiki

A Golfers Paradise: Golf Bags, Golf Courses, Golf Clubs, and More – Everything a Golfer Needs!

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply