Ilford 'traditional' vs delta films.

[don sigl]

I use HP5 almost exclusively. Years back I tried the delta films and found them to be a little sharper, but almost impossible to handle due to film curl (120 size). They were also quite a bit more expensive at that time. I went back to the HP5 and have stayed with it. For me, it was an easy decision.

[Gerald Koch]

T-max/Delta emulsions have less exposure latitude than conventional ones. This is due to the fact that the grains are more homogeneous in size.

[percepts]

All things being equal, they do give you a point of reference to compare with other films/developers.

I disagree. From personal experience I know that the published characteristic curves are less than accurate. I would not put any reliance on the published curves. This is not a reflection on the product which I think is excellent, but the data sheets are lacking in accuracy and as I have already said, you will never reproduce those curves anyway.

[couldabin]

The manufacturer's published data suggest FP4 has more exposure latitude. Is that something one ought to believe?

I disagree. From personal experience I know that the published characteristic curves are less than accurate. I would not put any reliance on the published curves. This is not a reflection on the product which I think is excellent, but the data sheets are lacking in accuracy and as I have already said, you will never reproduce those curves anyway.

[eddym]

I use HP5 almost exclusively. Years back I tried the delta films and found them to be a little sharper, but almost impossible to handle due to film curl (120 size). They were also quite a bit more expensive at that time. I went back to the HP5 and have stayed with it. For me, it was an easy decision.

That was pretty much my observation about Delta 400, too. It was nice, but certainly not worth paying more than I pay for HP5+. Of course, I think HP5+ is REALLY GOOD film!
I do like Delta 100, though.

[percepts]

The manufacturer's published data suggest FP4 has more exposure latitude. Is that something one ought to believe?

the ilford delta films hit the shoulder sooner than traditional films but what do you mean by latitude. You can have a film which can capture 14 stops or more but have you ever tried making a decent print from a neg which is that dense. You may be able to pull it back with the right development but again we are talking extremes here. The vast majority of scenes are well within the range of the delta films and if you are exposing very high contrast subjects then you should be testing your films to such an extent that any data in the data sheets is virtually irrelevant and the development contraction required to pull the film back will significantly alter the charactistic curve so what relevance does the data sheet curve have? And that assumes that what is printed in the datasheet is correct which is not a safe assumption.

Do your own testing to be 100% sure of what the films limits are.

[Ole]

... You can have a film which can capture 14 stops or more but have you ever tried making a decent print from a neg which is that dense. ...

I have, several times. The negatives aren't dense, just long. Maintaining a decent tonal separation in the midtones without blowing the highlights or blocking the shadows is fairly easy with lith printing.

Scenes with 14 to 17 stops are far more common around here than you'd expect. FP4+ does a great job in these cases.