Re: [Leica] Ilford Delta 100

[Christer Almqvist <christer@almqvist.net>]

>In my search for the perfect black and white film I've recently discoverd
>Delta 100, which seems IMHO to have far and away the best tonal qualities and
>delicate highlights.  For a while I was big on Fuji Neopan but I've concluded
>that it has too much contrast and not enough  mid-tones. What do you guys
>think? What's the best ISO to shoot Delta 100 in low light  and bright
>conditions? Thanks,  Arthur.

Delta 100 is great, I _always_ shoot it at ISO 200. There may be a little
loss of shadow detail but one stop more speed offsets that either in the
form of more dof or less camera shake. If I have bracketed and have a
thinner and a denser Delta 100 negative of the same subject, then I think
the prints from the thinner negatives always win.  I may bracket from time
to time, but I do not change development time for low light and bright
light conditions.

My standard developer is Xtol 1+1 and I develop for 13 mins at 68°/20°
agitating for the first 30 secs and then 10 secs every minute. Agitating
means inversing the tank, waiting long enough (1 sec) to let the developer
settle in the overturned position and then turn back. Three of four
sequences take about ten secs. During the first 30 secs I do a bit of
shaking too.

Sometimes I use Rodinal 1+50 for 14 mins which gives the Delta 100 prints
an etching like look because the grain is so different from Xtol grain. You
may not like that, however. (I should also warn you that Rodinal with Delta
400 gives very muddy prints while Delta 400 in Xtol 1+1 is fine - but not
anyway near Delta 100.)

I have tried several other developer with the Delta 100, including
specialized ones like two bath developers, but all that extra fuzz and all
the extra expense never paid any real dividends.

Arthur (and anybody else!), I would be interested to know what your
experience is with Neopan 1600. Grain, sharpness, true speed, good standard
developer etc

Regards, Chris