The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

About Tri-X and other flimsy stuff

Hi Mike,
I don't have an enormous experience with Delta 400, but it never really impressed me. I have not been a fan of the Delta films in general. Nothing about them ever made me take much notice of them. I used to use Delta 100 until I found Fuji Acros, which I prefer for its finer grain and more appealing tonal range (to me). The Delta films always felt a bit "dead" to me. I cannot emphasize enough, however, that this is personal and subjective. I think pretty much any modern film with good quality control (i.e. from Fuji, Kodak or Ilford) is going to perform well once it is dialed in with a well-chosen developer. I simply found those results more easily with Acros and TMY-2. Those are the main black and white films I shoot for myself. I process a decent amount of Delta 400 for a good friend of mine, and while he likes it there are a few things that spring to mind -- Delta 400 does not seem to be as fine grained nor have as long a tonal range as TMY2. The film base on TMY2 is also clearer (as is Acros). I believe this was to make them easier to scan. My sense is that TMY2 is more of a "digital look" black and white film, though it is hard to mistake for digital. What I mean by that is that it is very smooth and sharp, with a long tonal range. The grain is generally subtle, and the default contrast is sometimes low since it has such a long tonal range. The Delta films seem to have an older school film look -- more grain, grayer highlights, grainier shadows. Again, others might have a different experience -- developer, technique, enlarger or scanner, exposure style...it all can have a large transformative effect. One thing is clear, however...both will take excellent photos if treated well.
Stuart
Your comment about "easier to scan" begs a couple follow-on questions, for me anyway. First, are there films that were created long before digital that might have been great in a wet darkroom environment but not so great when digitized? And are there films created since scanning and digital printing that are more suitable for that process?

And second, would the development times (i.e. neg contrast) be any different for a downstream wet process vs a scan process? Less contrasty for scan perhaps?

Since you do both in your lab, it seems like you might be a good source for this kind of info.

Thanks

Jim
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Hi Jim,
Yes, I think that is definitely the case. Some films scan better than others, and development can have an influence as well. In the darkroom, one tends to want negatives that are, if anything, a bit on the denser side (that is generously exposed and developed). This helps keep the contrast in a more easily controllable range and keeps your exposure times long enough so that you can use standard lens apertures, development times and so on. You have enough time to dodge and burn effectively and so on.

In the digital darkroom, things are a bit different...you can basically add as much contrast as you need, but it is much harder to flatten things out without losing information. A slightly flatter negative is easier for a scanner to deal with as well, as the highlights and shadows fit fully within the dynamic range of the scanner.

In general, I try to develop right down the middle and make a full scale negative, but since most of my clients (and myself as well) tend to scan more than wet-print, I think my development is a bit less than what a traditional printer might favor.

In terms of films, I would say that the best for scanning are probably the chromogenic black and white films like XP2...the lack of grain and silver seem to mesh well with the light sources of most scanners, and if your scanner has digital ICE, it will work most effectively on a film with little or no silver. After that, I think modern films with fairly clear emulsions tend to scan the best -- Fuji Acros, Tmax, Neopan 400 (well...it did), Delta 100 and 400 etc. After that, finer grained films tend to do better than grainy films. Most scanners have non-diffused light sources that behave like condensor enlargers in their propensity to accentuate grain. A few like the 949, X5 and Minolta Scan Multi Pro with the Scanhancer mod use a diffusor that cuts it back a bit. Additionally, films with a lot of silver will not work with Digital ICE, which works really well with color films or chromogenic black and white.

In general, any properly exposed and developed negative should scan well with a good scanner, but certain films seem to do it better, and the more recent the film, the better they tend to do. I know that Kodak played up the fact that the new Tmax 400, the new Portra films and Ektar 100 were optimized for scanning...based on my experience, I believe them. Still, pretty much anything fresh, well exposed and properly developed will do just fine. The only film I had which never seemed to do well digitally is Bergger 200. That film is like dumping a bunch of salt and pepper on your film! It's the same on analog though, so it's just how it is.
 
Hi Mike,
I don't have an enormous experience with Delta 400, but it never really impressed me. I have not been a fan of the Delta films in general. Nothing about them ever made me take much notice of them. I used to use Delta 100 until I found Fuji Acros, which I prefer for its finer grain and more appealing tonal range (to me). The Delta films always felt a bit "dead" to me. I cannot emphasize enough, however, that this is personal and subjective. I think pretty much any modern film with good quality control (i.e. from Fuji, Kodak or Ilford) is going to perform well once it is dialed in with a well-chosen developer. I simply found those results more easily with Acros and TMY-2. Those are the main black and white films I shoot for myself. I process a decent amount of Delta 400 for a good friend of mine, and while he likes it there are a few things that spring to mind -- Delta 400 does not seem to be as fine grained nor have as long a tonal range as TMY2. The film base on TMY2 is also clearer (as is Acros). I believe this was to make them easier to scan. My sense is that TMY2 is more of a "digital look" black and white film, though it is hard to mistake for digital. What I mean by that is that it is very smooth and sharp, with a long tonal range. The grain is generally subtle, and the default contrast is sometimes low since it has such a long tonal range. The Delta films seem to have an older school film look -- more grain, grayer highlights, grainier shadows. Again, others might have a different experience -- developer, technique, enlarger or scanner, exposure style...it all can have a large transformative effect. One thing is clear, however...both will take excellent photos if treated well.
Thank you. Kind of what I expected.

So, do you get the thinner (scanning) neg with Kodak's (or massive dev chart) suggested development times? Or do you cut the times a certain specific percentage? Your TMax 400 and Acros in Xtol for example?
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I process in a Jobo CPP-2 and Kodak's times suit me pretty well. TMY2 does pretty well at 9:15 seconds 1+1 at 20 degrees as long as you have sufficient undiluted developer per roll (about 100-150mL). 9:30 is sometimes better if you are working indoors or at night (even with proper exposure). Acros is not listed on Kodak's chart, but I found that the Massive dev chart's time was quite low. I think it was around 7 minutes or 7:30. I process it for 8:45 or 9:00 (or even 9:15 if I am doing TMY2 at the same time). In general, Kodak's Xtol data sheet is excellent, at least from what I have been able to tell. Kodak's data sheets are full of great information. Ilford too...though more for their own developers. In general it is really not possible to just cut by a certain percentage. It really is best to shoot a roll as you normally would and then photograph a chart or high contrast scene using a trustworthy incident meter. Develop according to the standard times and see what the negs are like in your workflow. There are more scientific methods with densomiters etc, but that will be more than enough for most people with black and white films.
 

white.elephant

New member
As for Tri-X, the article was a bit gushing, and now I have a scanner instead of an enlarger HP5 gets the nod purely on the basis that it lays flat and doesn't try to curl into a ball (perhaps a slight exaggeration).

Steve
Thanks for saying this I thought it was just me and the way I processed Tri-X that caused the horrible curling...
 
Top