seablister
Member
StuartHi 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.
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