Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,707   Posts: 1,548,542   Online: 934
      
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 61
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Delta 400 is noticeably less fine grained than Tmax 400 II - the current version.

    I think you will need to test for yourself to see what the look is like with D400 pushed, but you will of course get a more pushed look at 1600 with D400 than Delta or Tmax 3200, because they have a true speed of about 800 (tmax) to 1000 (Delta) and so at 1600 are actually being pushed less.

    I've had some beautiful results off D400, but it is a very different look to TriX and I am personally happy to accept the loss of resolution in return for more pleasing overall look. YMMV.

  2. #12
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,792
    Ilford delta 400 is somehow a strange orphan: delta 100 and delta 3200 are adored by many - but 400 not. I am sharing this opinion also

  3. #13
    pstake's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    705
    Images
    66
    So I was thumbing through my old Kodak Black and White Darkroom Dataguide when I came across a comparison of all its films, which includes each film's resolving power in lines per millimeter. Thought people on this thread might be interested. I was surprised to see that Tri-X compares favorably to T-Max 400, and that T-Max 3200 (when rated at 800) actually resolves as much as T-Max 400, too.

    This book was published in 1988, so the information for the T-Max emulsions, which were reformulated in 2007(?), may not still be accurate.

    Tech Pan = 320 ("Extremely High")
    Commercial 4127 = 100 ("High")
    T-Max 100 Professional = 200 ("Very High")
    Ektapan = 125 ("High")
    Plus-X = 125 ("High")
    Super-XX Pan = 100 ("High")
    Tri-X Ortho = 100 ("High")
    Tri-X Pan Professional = 100 ("High")
    T-Max 400 Professional = 125 ("High")
    Royal Pan 4141 = 80 ("High")
    T-Max 3200 (true speed of 1000 ISO, exposed at 800) = 125 ("High")
    HIE = 80 ("Medium")

  4. #14
    6x7
    6x7 is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    United States
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    10
    Delta 400 pushed to 1600 is not problem. Nice tonality but very different from Tri-X or even T-max. Grain structure is also different. I did a couple rolls in DD-X 1:4 and really liked the look. For certain subjects (street, urban, industrial) it's very nice.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by pstake View Post
    So I was thumbing through my old Kodak Black and White Darkroom Dataguide when I came across a comparison of all its films, which includes each film's resolving power in lines per millimeter. Thought people on this thread might be interested. I was surprised to see that Tri-X compares favorably to T-Max 400, and that T-Max 3200 (when rated at 800) actually resolves as much as T-Max 400, too.
    From my experience, TMY-2 resolves a lot better than Tri-X. TMZ was about the same as Tri-X; maybe a hair better, but hard to see with the extra grain. This wasn't with a resolution target or anything. You can find this stuff in the Kodak PDFs for each film too...

    Then again, resolution isn't everything, but the above experiences do inform my film choice periodically.

  6. #16
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,560
    Images
    28
    Delta 400 and Tri-X are very different.. Delta 400 is has extended red sensitivity with a sharp drop off, Tri-X has extended blue/UV.

    I like Delta 400 for landscape over many other films work pulled to 100 (not simply less contrast, it looks like a completely different film this way), Delta 100 doesn't have the extended red, but Delta 3200 does.

    Haven't tried pushing Delta 400.

  7. #17
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,560
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by pstake View Post
    So I was thumbing through my old Kodak Black and White Darkroom Dataguide when I came across a comparison of all its films, which includes each film's resolving power in lines per millimeter. Thought people on this thread might be interested. I was surprised to see that Tri-X compares favorably to T-Max 400, and that T-Max 3200 (when rated at 800) actually resolves as much as T-Max 400, too.

    This book was published in 1988, so the information for the T-Max emulsions, which were reformulated in 2007(?), may not still be accurate.

    Tech Pan = 320 ("Extremely High")
    Commercial 4127 = 100 ("High")
    T-Max 100 Professional = 200 ("Very High")
    Ektapan = 125 ("High")
    Plus-X = 125 ("High")
    Super-XX Pan = 100 ("High")
    Tri-X Ortho = 100 ("High")
    Tri-X Pan Professional = 100 ("High")
    T-Max 400 Professional = 125 ("High")
    Royal Pan 4141 = 80 ("High")
    T-Max 3200 (true speed of 1000 ISO, exposed at 800) = 125 ("High")
    HIE = 80 ("Medium")
    It's not accurate at all, it's using the wrong information, T-Max 100 is 63 lp/mm not 200, as stated by Kodak's document, T-Max 400 is 50.



    Those above figures are all for 1000:1 contrast, useless unless for scientific imaging, astro work, etc.

    As the all your high spatial frequencies in a pictorial scene occur over low contrast, so use the 1.6:1 figures for making a base comparison. Your only high contrast high spatial frequencies in a pictoarial scene is usually a single line pair. A dark object, against a bright sky etc, that single high contrast edge. The detail/resolution across the surface of an object is low contrast.

  8. #18
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Athiril, you are mixing up "lines/mm" and "line pairs/mm." Those are different.

  9. #19
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,560
    Images
    28
    They are 1000:1 figures and incorrect to be used as the resolution, 1.6:1 figures should be used for pictorial detail if you do not look at the MTF + contrast curve of the film.


    They are written as lines/mm. Look at the PDF whats written as lines/mm and then compare that to the MTF.

    Just to re-iterate the quoted figures were 1000:1 figures, look at where they fall on the MTF for those respective films, you should not rely on those figures for pictorial high spatial frequencies (surface detail).

    T-Max films http://wwwau.kodak.com/global/en/pro...4016/f4016.pdf
    Last edited by Athiril; 04-04-2012 at 10:41 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    It's not accurate at all, it's using the wrong information, T-Max 100 is 63 lp/mm not 200, as stated by Kodak's document, T-Max 400 is 50.
    Why is it not accurate at all? Both numbers are in Kodak's documents...

    TMX - 63 lines/mm for 1.6:1 and 200 lines/mm for 1000:1
    TMY - 50 lines/mm for 1.6:1 and 125 lines/mm for 1000:1

    Unfortunately, unless I missed something, not all of their film docs have these figures, notably Tri-X. So if the film data guide decides to quote the 1000:1 figures as a metric for comparison, then that's all we have to go with for some of these films. It should give a good sense of relative resolution between the films.

    For example, Plus-X was rated exactly the same as TMY, for both numbers. Which is exactly what pstake wrote.

    Sure, it's worth clarifying that these numbers are for higher contrasts (1000:1), but to call them 'not accurate' and then come up with a comparison chart that is pretty much exactly the same as what pstake posted seems a bit pedantic.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin