Re: [Leica] Delta 400 vs Tmax 400

[Guy Bennett <gbennett@lainet.com>]

>Until you have tried other developers/times/techniques don't give up on
>the new film.
>I'm not saying you are wrong but it could be that the problems you have
>are the result of processing.
>Locally, the good pro lab does B&W in a fancy Refrema processor. I doubt
>that anyone can top them for consistency and quality of their process.
>Their E6 is beyond criticism.
>BUT
>This means that they run everything in the same chemicals and at standard
>times. So nobody gets optimzed processing. You get something close and
>that's it - if you're lucky. If not, you get something bad for your film
>choice and exposure - you might think a particular film is no good and
>wonder why they even bother to make it!
>I think that if you can't find a lab to do exact custom processing or if
>you are not willing to tailor your work to fit a standard process you
>need to do your own film.
>The result is that you have control over your negatives.
>Its that simple.
>
>Henry Ambrose


Henry,

Of course you are right; were I souping my own negatives, I could
experiment until I found the developper that gave me the results I want. My
problem is time: with working 50-60 hours a week, I'm lucky if I have an
afternoon to spend in the darkroom or a whole day out shooting. For that
reason, it's simply more convenient for me to have my film processed by a
lab, which means I have to live with the results I get or switch labs.

The reality is that I used to get results I liked with the previous Delta
400. Now that that is no longer the case, I'll just go back to my old
standard: Agfapan 400. It's not a disaster, the new Ilford emulsion may be
better for most folks and that may have been a wise decision on the part of
the company. For me, it just means using another (comparable, IMO) film.

Guy