RE: [Leica] B&W film: Ilford vs. TMax

["Tim Atherton" <timphoto@nt.sympatico.ca>]

Not exactly a rigorous test, but I shot a lot of B&W in Central America
earlier this year. I shot both T Max 400 and Delta 400 (don't ask why the
mix - deals on film!).

Most was shot at 800. Developed in Xtol. And working with the negs, both
traditionally, in the darkroom and digitally, the Ilford beats the pants off
the Kodak. Now some people may say I should have used T Max developer for
the TMax. But I have never found it that great (actually, D76 is supposed to
be one of the best for TMax). But comparing other negs that were developed
with this, the Ilford still wins.

Overall, slightly sharper, better contrast and just an overall better
looking image.

As I say, not a scientific test, but for me, one that counts - in the end,
which image looks better. For me, with this work, it is the Ilford.

Tim A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Jonathan
> Borden
> Sent: October 10, 1999 10:05 AM
> To: Leica Users
> Subject: [Leica] B&W film: Ilford vs. TMax
>
>
> Not to beat a dead horse ... okay *to* beat a dead horse on a slow news
> day... viewing Ted Grant's book has given me new inspiration to get back
> into available light B&W after a 15 year pause. In the old days I had a
> Canon FTb with a 50/1.8 lens and shot Tri-X @ 200 and developed
> in HC110 Dil
> B. Worked pretty great at the time for outdoor photography.
>
> I've recently been doing a bit of T-Max 100,400,3200 in T-Max
> developer and
> printing on Forte Multigrade developed in Ilford film dev. The negs are a
> tad thinner than the old Tri-X but perhaps a tad smoother (modulo film
> speed). Recently I've been reading about Ilford's 100,400,3200 lineup in
> Ilfotech DD-X developer and the consensus of the articles seems to prefer
> Ilford. In particular, the October issue of the U.K Practical Photography
> compares the films and the Ilford appears a bit sharper than T-MAX. On the
> other hand the test setup used of all things a cheap zoom lens (albeit
> stopped down and in the center). It seems to me that what I can see as
> differences on the test shots are more due to focus, contrast and
> developing
> differences than real film differences. Given that both are about the same
> price etc, is there a real difference between the two? Is either
> sharper or
> easier to work with, print etc?
>
> I would and plan to test the two myself but I fear that at this
> stage in my
> regained darkroom experience and differences might be more due to
> my errors
> than real differences. What do people with more experience think about
> Delta/DD-X vs. T-MAX/T-MAX using sharp lenses with high local contrast?
>
> Jonathan Borden
>