Pan F Plus VS. Delta 100
I believe, that PanF+ strength's are natural subjects & textures such as soil/dirt/sand, rocks/rocky formations, tree bark, water, and skin/skin tones to name some. Delta 100 covers these elements just fine, just that Pan has that edge I believe in it's grain structure. Delta is good with what's man-made - architecture, day& night, bridges, boats/harbors. Also, Pan is great on a rainy night in the city for those wet reflections off the ground.
Please give feedback on your experiances with these 2 films - agree/disagree is fine.
Severak x vs y threads lately for some reason. It is difficult to judge because everyone sees things differently. All I can give you are my conclusions based on my own test data. Some quick comments: Pan F+ is inherently more contrasty than Delta 100. This can of course be controlled/altered but I'm referring simply to the film's "natural" characteristics. I have found the relative graininess of the two films to be virtually the same. In fact from an image structure perspective I find them difficult to tell apart. So I wouldn't characterize one or the other as being "better" for a specific type of subject. I'd select based more on the type of lighting/contrast conditions most often encountered. Of course there's also the difference in speed.
I probably should've posted "Pan F & Delta Compared" rather than "VS". because I'm not in any way saying one is better than the other, but trying to get other's experiances with these two.
Anyhow, when I use the grain focuser for darkroom work, Delta 100 is easy to see, Pan F difficult.
IMHO if you get your processing right, you won't be able to tell one from the other even at big (8-10x) enlargements since they're both just beginning to show grain at that point. The granularity when printed is pretty similar despite the differing emulsion technologies.
The main difference is that Delta is about 1.5 stops faster for a given contrast and has a straighter curve.
I wouldn't go making any such generalisations about one film suiting a particular subject or anything, they're both just films and they record whatever you shine on them. The lighting of your subject has far greater impact than any film choice.
Vision + lighting + subject + film + developer + agitation + paper.
Given so many variables, I'm not sure my experience relates much to others.
I don't like critical sharpness, need good tonal separation in the shadows, relatively high contrast prints, highlights less important, sbr in a roll can vary considerably, develop in pyrocat, print on RC paper. To keep shadow detail in Delta 100 I've had to expose at 50, while PanF+ I can shoot full speed.
Its a compromise, but PanF+ is my sole slow speed film because it can deliver these properties on a consistant basis. I had too much trouble getting good shadow detail with my printing skills when using delta 100. Delta 100 could keep very good highlights in my workflow, and would sometimes lose shadow detail. I'm sure I could have improved my technique to rectify this, but PanF+ was already enough for me.
"Vs" may not have been exactly your intent, but is handy when searching for information. It seems to have become the standard expression for internet comparisons.
I like both of these films, but neither has become a standard for me. I think the biggest difference is the characteristic curves. Delta 100 is a tabular grain film that seems to have more of a straight line response with more highlight contrast. Pan F Plus is a traditional emulsion and will shoulder off in the highlights. In some situations like the natural subject textures you mention, this might give somewhat more midtone contrast, depending on the scene of course.
I never entirely got the hang of Pan F Plus, probably due to the speed, but do tend to prefer a film with at least a bit of a shoulder. Others like a straight line response. The differences are there though to use as you prefer.
But isn't Pan F sort of "old school" grain and Delta "T-grain" emulsion they're sharing with Kodak?
Yes Pan F is old school and Delta the more modern T-grain "technology" but Kodak's and Ilford's emulsions aren't shared.
Originally Posted by DF
The grain difference between the two may or may not even be significant in the print.
PanF+, FP4+ etc are not "old school" emulsions. The current versions of these films are somewhere between traditional cubic and tabular grain films.
I've read this over and over again, and not only for these two films. Yet, what are the implications of this? Do we need the same special developers and techniques that the Film Developing Cookbook recommends for T-grain emulsions?
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974