Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Delta 400 vs Tmax 400
From: Richard Edwards <REdwards@Vetronix.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:37:30 -0800

I have used a lot of the tabular-grained films in the past couple of years,
and gotten good results with all of them -- even TMY, which is
widely hated -- and I'm still excited by their possibilities.

But I think there is something in what you say: If we had been limited
to these tab-grained films all these years and Tri-X had just been invented
and introduced to the market in July of 2000, people would be falling
all over themselves praising this terrific new film which avoids
the occasional flat, sometimes even sickening, tonality of the
'older' Delta and TMAX films, and has only slightly larger grain.

After a few dozen rolls of Delta 100/400, TMX, or TMY, I feel
a rush of emotion when I go back to Tri-X or Pan F+. Delta
100 is a better film, of course -- it just doesn't look as good.
But, hey, to judge a film by how it looks is nit-picking.

New Ilford slogan: "Delta 100 -- Better Than it Looks".
(Didn't Oscar Wilde say that Wagner's music
is better than it sounds?)

Frankly, I do love Delta 100. And TMAX 100.

I'm also a confirmed Rodinal (ab)user.
Pan F+ and Rodinal 1+50: Wow!

- -A L



Pete Su wrote:


> I'm a young curmudgeon and never had much use for TMAX or the Delta films.
> Tri-X and D76 1:1 is very hard to beat.
> 
> If I want something sharper, I've been using Rodinal.
> 
> Mostly 35mm. I don't mind grain the prints. I like it.
> 
> Pete
> 

Replies: Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] Re: Delta 400 vs Tmax 400)