Re: [Leica] Delta 400 and 400 Delta New Ilford films

[henry <henry@henryambrose.com>]

Mark Rabiner wrote:
>Henry did you shoot the same thing with both films and make prints from 
>both at
>a matching apparent contrast?
>I can't see who other then doing that would really tell you.
>Looking at a neg under a microscope does not tell you as they will 
>inexplicably
>print with more or less grain than you think. The prints have got to be 
>contrast matched.
I'm going to prepare a complete report and post it, but to answer your 
questions:

I constructed a scene consisting of a white silk with white nylon web 
border, a black duvetyne with black nylon web border, 2 gray cards, a 
black nylon bag, all laid out on my near 18% painted back deck. Bright 
blue sky day, sun at about 30 degrees from overhead. You'll see the 
pictures soon.

I shot both films immediately one after the other on tripod in an F5 with 
60 2.8 Macro. I shot 17 frames of each in 1/3 stop increments spread 
around the metered combination. Didn't use Leica cause I needed high 
shutter speeds and to reload with out moving the camera. Both rolls were 
exposed in identical conditions identical framing of the same scene. (if 
anyone wants to give me an R8 I will start using it and I'll even name 
the tests after the donor)  :)

I scanned the frames starting with some a bit too dense for my scanner to 
see through and worked my way up until I got some white detail and then 
on to get some shadow detail. Looking at scans IS A VERY GOOD WAY to see 
whats put on the film. Assuming that you use a standard repeatable method 
to scan all the frames - I did. 12 bit into Photoshop, auto levels - 
thats all it takes. All the frames from the 2 films lined up sequentially 
- - every step on each film matched the same step on the other. Very 
similar behaviour within about 1 and 1/2 stops of the "best" exposure.

Today I went to the darkroom with the negs. I selected the frame from 
both old and new films that were both at the threshold of my scanner. 
(the ones I selected as the "best" exposure) I printed them with a 21/2 
filter on Ilford MGIV RC Glossy. (I had just printed some wide scene 
range film that was not too different from the test negs) They looked 
much like the scans but higher contrast. Then I switched to a 1/12 
filter. Prints looked like scans! Then last of the small full frame 
prints I burned one in on the white print areas and I could get nice 
detail there. Here the wet darkroom beat the scanner - the scanner could 
not see through the dense film that I could print through. But it would 
have been pure hell to print so its not really important. So matched negs 
from the old and new films gave prints that were soooo close! 

Next I printed the detail area I had selected in the scans at about a 
10-12 X enlargement. Same filters, same times for each enlargement from 
the new and old films. The grain was finer in the new film. Other than 
that the prints looked quite the same.

So where I am is that it really is about 1/3 stop faster than the old and 
its less grainy. I call that better.
>
>I think Ilford has come up with Delta 100 and 400 films. They have to be 
>pretty
>smart to have done this.
I think Delta 100 is incredible and beautiful and wonderful. When I have 
enough light its in my camera!
After this 400 test I'm going to use 400 more and maybe I'll like it a 
lot too.
>The 3200 I'm less impressed with as it's really 1200.
Try it at 1600 in MF - it looks REALLY nice. I thinks its pretty grainy 
in 35. I shot some the other day in the new Bronica 645 RF, I have a scan 
of that if you want to see it.
Looks good. Those are pretty nice cameras BTW. An f4 lens is pretty fast 
with 1600 film.
>
>But still these guys have a lot going for them.
Ilford seems to be interested in B&W photography.
Kodak seems to not care.
>So would they shoot themselves in the foot by screwing up their Delta 400?
>I'd assume not unless proven otherwise.
>I'm sure it has been tweaked in the right direction.
It is a little faster and a little finer grained. 
I see no down side at all other than that making a change involves a 
little testing.
>
>It had occurred to me though that Neopan 1600 might be eating into their 
>400 sales.
>That is what happened to me.
>So if the 400 became an 800 film that would fight that.

I think it could be an 800 film. How about you do that test? 
I bet you can pull some nice stuff out of it with your 1:3 Xtol. 
Figure out a way to get 800 and a broad range all at once.
And tell us about it.

Henry