Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Christer Almqvist wrote: > > >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. ><Snip> > 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 Delta 100 in Xtol is my "quality" film now in Xtol 1:3 at ASA 100. (I'm at 15 minutes in 70 degree water agitation once per minute.) When Agfa threatens to phase out Agfapan 25 next time I'll be sheep faced lying through my teeth as to how I can't live without it. In my Rodinal daze I got way better results from Pan F than I did from Delta 100. But with Xtol I'm getting QUALITY results already with Delta 400. The 100 I use in the studio or when I'm going all out with the tripod and the cable release and heavy filtration. I'm getting Great results from Neopan 1600 in Xtol 1:3 for 16 minutes.I have some of negs are my light table now ready for snipping. Having walked into the cooler in Pro Photo looking for 35mm Delta 3200 and they were out of it. So I bought a brick of the old trusty Neopan 1600. But like most any film: a different ballgame in Xtol. In 35mm I'm using it instead of Delta 3200 for now on. Neopan 1600 is a true 1600 film in all the developers I've used with it so far the Delta 3200 will still deliver overly thin shadows at 1600 half the time. Seems to need 1200 and a less high dilution. Too much $$ for that IMO. These Neopan 1600 negatives are clean and sharp until you compare them with a 400 film like the Neopan 400 and the difference is quite evident. Neopan 400 is sharp as heck and like the 1600 is not even a tab-grain newer typed film! Christer's results from Delta 100 at 200 sound like my best work from decades past from Panatomic 32 @ 50. If shadows are sometimes thin it sure is better than blocked up highlights! Now THAT was great film! Mark Rabiner