Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,747   Posts: 1,515,685   Online: 936
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38
  1. #11
    Harry Lime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    465
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    Good god I HATE grain. I refuse to shoot Kodak for anything to be enlarged because of it, but with an 8x10 neg contact printing I should not see the grain, or does FP4 have boulder sized grain like Tri-x?.
    If you despise grain, then why shoot film?

    And I mean that in a sincere way.
    Last edited by Harry Lime; 11-13-2012 at 06:20 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,494
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    Good god I HATE grain. I refuse to shoot Kodak for anything to be enlarged because of it, but with an 8x10 neg contact printing I should not see the grain, or does FP4 have boulder sized grain like Tri-x?.
    If you hate grain stick with T-grain films, Delta, Acros, T-Max, etc.

    Data sheets show FP4+ also has a big shoulder, while most other films are straight lined after the toe (according to the sheets).

    In 8x10, you're not going to notice it that much anyway. So FP4+, or even Shanghai GP3 is going to be fine.

    If cost and grain are both issues, why not go back down to 4x5 T-grain films?

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    While it is possible to make the generality that faster films have a larger RMS granularity than slower films. One cannot make a similar statement that all films of the same speed have the same granularity. Older style films from second tier manufacturers are granier than the same speed films from Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  4. #14
    ChristopherCoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Armpit of Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,190
    Images
    28
    I asked the same thing this morning...

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/112246-1st-box.html

  5. #15
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,579
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    I have used both in MF. I like both and they both seem to expand a contract well.

    It may simply be luck or the stars aligning or how I hold my mouth, but FP4 just seems to work easier/more reliably for me.

    Heck for all I know though the next time I try Delta 100 it may finally click.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,490
    In terms of tonality and flexibility, they are very similar - unless OP is using a Pyro developer such as WD2D or PMK, in which case Delta 100 will lose a lot of speed compared with FP4+. While Delta is finer grained than FP4+, since OP is talking about contact prints from 8x10 negatives, grain, resolution and sharpness are non-issues. Delta has better reciprocity characteristics than FP4+ which may be of some value to OP in 8x10 if long exposures are anticipated.

    As an aside to OP (Mark), if you use small or medium formats and you hate grain, do not rule Kodak out since TMX is the finest grained general purpose film around. It is noticeably finer grained than Delta 100 (Fuji's Acros falls in between), finer grained than Pan F+ etc.

    As for the purist vs tabular issue, it will probably disappoint some people to learn that the films they consider "traditional grained" such as FP4+, Plus-X, HP5+ and Tri-X are not as traditional as they once were. The current versions of these films are more like hybrids of traditional and tabular technology. Perhaps "semi-tabular" would be a more accurate description.
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 11-13-2012 at 08:06 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Typo

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    62

    Dif between delta 100 and FP4

    Back in the day when the tabular films first came out, I was told that you only really benefit from them when they are matched with a developer designed for them, otherwise they behave like the more traditional films. Given the response in this thread has been quite, ahem, diverse, I might get a bit of a wide ranging response but I would b most interested in hearing from the tab-fans.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    775
    Images
    28
    ...it will also depend on which developer you use. Since every person who has replied likely uses different agitation methods, developer type, concentration, temperature and container types, the results will vary. My experience with Delta 100 has been favorable for fine-art prints and portraiture, but I don't like it for general use or street photography because with my methods, way of shooting, developing techniques, etc. shadow detail has fallen off the map and the highlights hit too vibrantly and my mid-tones get lost in shadows.

    But since we're talking about 8x10 contact prints...you'll notice nothing in difference in terms of grain -believe me. I can't see grain in fp4 or delta with a 35mm neg blown up to 8x10 to the point where I have to try to focus with a grain focuser until my back hurts trying to find any of the stuff. I'll give you one of my kidneys if you can prove otherwise.

    ...really what it should boil down to is characteristics, not grain, which is what you were kind of originally asking. And I would say that FP4 has a more classic look with a longer range of midtones and better controlled highlights, where Delta 100 has a more "digital" feel to it, where it's seemingly more crisp and sharp. I prefer FP4 for this reason, but that's just my opinion. Unfortunately, you'll likely have to buy a box of each and check it out for yourself.

  9. #19
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,579
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by dsmccrac View Post
    Back in the day when the tabular films first came out, I was told that you only really benefit from them when they are matched with a developer designed for them, otherwise they behave like the more traditional films. Given the response in this thread has been quite, ahem, diverse, I might get a bit of a wide ranging response but I would b most interested in hearing from the tab-fans.
    My developer of choice is DD-X and I still lean toward FP4 over Delta 100. In 400 speed films my preference is for Delta 400 over HP5.

    For all I know it may be the way I hold my mouth but I like Delta 100 better in WD2D+ than in DD-X so far.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  10. #20
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,299
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    Are you shooting medium/large format or 35mm? If 35mm and you "hate grain" then I would most definitely go with Delta 100. As many have said, they are more similar than different. I shoot MF and much prefer FP4 which I still find extremely fine grain. I develop in FP4 in rodinal frequently to bring out its grain and amazing sharpness. But if I were shooting 35mm I may not do so.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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