Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>What is your opinion of Delta 400? > > >totally fantastic; it is my staple film (having switched from agfapan 400 >about 18 mos. ago). > >i do 'experiment' with different films and different speeds, but always >come back to delta 400. the grain is very fine for a 400 film. the tonal >rendition is, imho, very rich. i've got good 11 x 14 prints out of it. > >that said, i've been shooting a fair amount of hp5+ lately. any one care to >yeah or nay this old war horse? > >guy Yeah. In artificial light and in real low natural light situations, using an e.i of 800, I prefer HP5 to Delta 400. I develop the HP5 in Rodinal 1+50 for 13 mins. That combo has much punch than Delta 400 in Xtol and look sharper. In these cases tonal rendition is not at the top of my list of requrements. Pushing HP5 to 1600 is very well possible and the usual drawbacks are not all that evident. My tests of Delta 400 in Rodinal have been disasters. (Delta 100 in Rodinal have a nice etching like grain effect making them look sharp.) Delta 400 in Xtol is very good for natural light, with a rich tonal rendition. However, if at all possible, I prefer to use Delta 100 and to open up a step or two and or shoot at slower speed. I like that Delta 400 and 100 have the same development times in Xtol 1+1 (provided you push both by the same factor, which I always do), this simplifies work.