Thanks Brent, I thought a couple were ok, at some point I just started pointing the camera at what ever looked close to a photo Lol this video was taking forever and I just wanted a variety of shots in different lighting for the comparison, I ended up with a couple shots that I liked, there was a time I thought that was a good haul for a roll Lol I was pretty impressed by both of these films, it’s been awhile since I’ve shot 35mm film and it’s better than I remembered, once I get my scanning process down I think I will be using 35mm film more often.
I very much appreciate your down to earth assessment of both films: You just have to make your material work instead of searching for silver bullets. 👍
Nice outing. I feel the pain on your new camera. I had to return one a few weeks ago because of a malfunctioning shutter. Yesterday I received another version of that model. Heading out today to try it out. Very much enjoy your channel.👍👍
Thanks Robert, the fern shot was one made before I started the comparison, I ended up liking a couple shots but some were just taken so I could compare the films on different subjects in different light, not chosen for artistic merit but for expediency, I figured if I like a couple shots on a roll of film, that’s a pretty good roll Lol in the future I hope to take a little more time : )
Hi Charles, no, there is no sepia tone, I'm not sure what you are seeing, it could be on my end with a slight color cast in video, that wouldn't surprise me 😆 but it wasn't intended to has a color cast.
For sure Martin, that fern shot was made with one of those cheap lenses, a 50mm 1.8 lens I got for less than $50, super sharp, lightweight and compact, a lot of lens for the money 😁
Film comparisons take me back to the good old days 😆. I used to shoot slide film and have prints made at a custom lab. Of course some films made it easier to get the results I was looking for from the lab. So I did extensive film comparisons, and felt like I learned a lot.
Yes Bart, I remember those days as well, I think slide films showed a bigger difference between them, you'd never mistake Kodachrome for Fujichrome Velvia 😆
David, no mistaking those two 😂. I remember when Velvia came out and very quickly took over. Personally, I loathe it. After all my comparisons I ended up using Agfachrome RSX 50, and used it until they stopped making it 😢
Thanks Bill, I understand it can take awhile to finish a roll, it took me well over a month to get through that roll of Delta 100, I finally just started pointing my camera at anything just to finish the roll 😆
The N90 was a great little film camera, if you can find a working one, they can be pretty affordable and capable of giving excellent results, I still have mine even though its battery holder is broke, keeping it just in case I find another battery holder.
My first camera was an n80. It's still my go to, a great versatile little camera. Built really well too, basically a smaller f100 but not much lost in the way of real features. Thanks for the video, great shots and I would agree, both Tmax and Delta are great.
Thanks John, I would have to agree, the N80 is a great little camera, I'm just finishing a video where I took the N80 out with a roll of Delta 400, it would be hard to find a lighter camera with so many features, the camera is just a pleasure to use. I also recently picked up a F5 to use when the conditions get rough, the cameras complement each other well, each camera has its strong points.
@@DavidPattonPhotography I've been eyeballing an f4 or f3 for a while now. Not sure if I want that or to make the jump to medium format with a yashica 124.
The Yashica would be a fun camera as a walk around medium format camera, I use to use a F4 in the early years of my photojournalism career, great camera! I almost went with the F4 instead of the F5 but decided the F5 would work better with my lens lineup. You need to watch out for bad LCDs on the F4, all these film cameras are getting pretty old, so its a bit of a gamble when buying one. I'd love to have all the Nikon F cameras from the F3 to the F6, Lol then throw in a FM2 for good measure :)
Personally, I think it's amazing how similar they are. I can't imagine any professional being able to tell the difference. As you said, it's nice to know you can shoot on either film and get excellent results. I'll let the price per roll drive my decision from now on. BTW, Have you tried DSLR scanning your film yet? I use to scan on an Epson V500 but recently started using my D600 and D850 for film scanning and love it. Lastly, another Nikon film camera that has the aperture sub-wheel in front that allows you to use your G series lenses in fully manual mode is the F100 but I don't think it will auto focus G lenses. I may be wrong about that. I bought an F4s for the auto focus capability and discovered it would not focus my G lenses so I had to buy D lenses.
I really like both films and as you said I’m letting price be the determining factor, they are both capable of giving excellent results. Yes I do use a digital camera for film scanning, I was using a Nikon D810 and an older 55mm macro but recently started using a Sony A7R2 and adapting a newer Nikon 60mm 2.8 D macro lens, that combo has been giving me some very good scans, the mirrorless camera has made scanning a bit easier. I only have 2 G lenses left, I’ve been slowly replacing my G lenses with AIS or D lenses because I miss the aperture ring, for my film photography I like to use manual mode a lot. I also recently picked up a Nikon F4, the 4 battery version, so I’m really missing the aperture ring on those wide angle lenses. 😆 Right now I have the 20mm 1.8 G and a 28mm 1.8 G, I may just split the difference for a while and work with a 24mm 2.8 if I can find one in good condition.
Thanks Ken, back when I had a working dedicated 35mm film scanner I would get some beautiful 11x14s even larger if was using a fine grain film, once I get the scanning worked out, I could see myself using more 35mm film.
@@DavidPattonPhotography I started using a digital camera for scanning 35mm then found a good used Plustek7600. Slower to use, but got better scans with the Plustek. I only scan images, worth printing.KB
I’m looking at the Plustek 8100 or getting an old manual focus macro Len to use on my Nikon d810 to scan my negs, I’m trying to figure out if I can make Nikon’s ES2 film scanning adapter work on the 55mm micro lens, it’s designed to work with the 60mm macro but I’ve read some people have been able to use it with different lenses, either way it’s something I need to get worked out before shooting a lot more 35mm.
I shoot digital on most of my for hire jobs. But I will always be a film guy at heart. So with the constant increase in film prices, videos are very helpful. For portraits I have been using Ilford FP4. But for scenery I have always been a TMax 100 guy. I tried the Delta a few times, but always went back to the TMax. I am guessing it was because of the developer I was using that made the TMax appear sharper. This video has inspired me to try the Delta again, using a different developer to see what the results are. Great video by the way.
Thanks, TMax is a great film and like you has been my go to for many years, when I was shooting medium format I decided to give Delta 100 a try and found it to be great film as well. It is possible that TMax could be a tad bit sharper but from what I’ve seen the developer, development time, temperature and dilute ratio have an impact on the final image results as well as if I over exposed the shot or over developed the film, there are just so many variables. I’ve come to the conclusion that the difference between the film is not nearly as must as I was expecting, in the future I will probably use both films with no worries because both are capable of producing great results. I will just pick the film that I can get cheaper or that is available. I keep an eye out for good prices and take advantage of it when it comes along. Sometimes I like to buy film in 24 exposure rolls so that also effects what film I will choose to use, sometimes 36 is more that I need, no sense wasting film when I don’t need to.😁
Great video - sorry to hear that the latch got damaged in the film camera which you just purchased. But good it happened early that you can still send it back and get your refund (because having it repaired later would likely exceed the camera's value!). After I settled down in my my new place where I recently moved to, I plan comparing FP4+ 125 with Delta 100. I haven't shot with Delta 100 yet but heard lots of good things about including your review in this video. Much more affordable than T-Max film. You captured again beautiful B&W images on this trip!
Thanks Martin, I’ve been pretty impressed with Delta 100, I’d be interested in seeing how it compares to FP4+, I’ve been using FP4+ in 4x5 but never in the smaller formats. You should enjoy finding new subjects in your new location, add a new film to that and that sounds like an adventure in film 😆
I have the same opinion of both that you have. When i develop them I use XTOL 1:1. Both have almost no grain. They both are relatively easy to scan (I use a digital camera). Usually I use TMAX 100 but if I get a good deal on Delta, I do not hesitate to get it.
Thanks for sharing your experience using both films, Erich, TMax has always been what I used, probably because I used so much of the 400 iso version in my early years of photojournalism, Ilford films are relatively new to me, so I was happy to see Delta 100 was on par with Tmax 100, It’s good to have more choices, especially when it comes to film. :)
Hello! I stopped posting scanned negs all together. I do however scan my negs to do a quick review and determine the ones I want to print in my darkroom. From there if the print look good enough to post I will do that with no adjustments do to the print, so when posted it is as I see it. I use a V850, and my enlarger is a Omega 4x5 with a color head. The reason I do all of this is the scanned neg looks nothing like a wet print, so in my opinion, to really make your work sing, scan the actual finished work, it's worth it.
Hello Mr Brooks, thanks for sharing, it’s sounds like you have a process that is working great for you. Unfortunately many photographers, if not most, don’t have the funds or the space for a traditional darkroom, myself included, so their only option is to scan their negatives. I wouldn’t sell short the quality that can be had from a well scanned negative or transparency, I’ve made thousands of prints in the darkroom, I just don’t have access to one right now but I can say that the prints I’ve made from my 4x5 and medium format negatives have been every bit as good as the wet prints I’ve made in the darkroom, (that may say more about my skill in the darkroom) Lol but much of the early part of my professional photography career was managing a darkroom so I’ve have my hands in plenty of chemicals. It’s 35mm that I’m not happy with the scans, I’ve used a dedicated 35mm scanner in the past with good results so I know it’s possible to get good scans, I’m just not set up for it yet but hope to be in the future. Another area where the scanned negative shines is the size of enlargement that can easily be made, I can get much larger prints with the digital process, with not much more effort than it takes to print small and I would also much rather clean dust spots and scratches in my editor that try to deal with those issues with wet printing. So in the end I think it comes down to what you like in a print and which process works best for you, as I often say, there’s really no wrong way, as long as you are getting the image you want.
On the video, I really couldn't see much difference in either so as you said, it looks like either film works well. I did have a question. Is it cost prohibitive to have images scanned by a lab (I'm guessing that there is such a service available) versus buying a scanner? I'm really interested in getting into some BW film photography but my scanner is a really old flatbed and I don't even recall how it works anymore.
Well for me it would be cost prohibitive, I spend less than a dollar to develop my film and scan it, if you are only going to shoot a roll every once and awhile, or you just want to try BW film out to see if you like shooting film, then it wouldn’t be a bad idea to just pay to have it scanned. I don’t like giving up control of the process, so I’d rather do it myself, plus I can turn around my film much faster than if I sent it to a lab. I think I will be trying to use my DSLR to do my scans in the future.
I have shot both films in 35mm 6x6 and 4x5. in fact I still have maybe 50 sheets of Delta 100 4x5 to shoot. Tmax does have way better reciprocity characteristics like why better. I prefer the tonality and contrast in the Tmax but like you it is so close I am just fine shooting either. Film that I have just shot for the first time. And I have fell in love with is TRI-X 320 which is a Large Format film only. Shot a 10 sheet box for testing and I am ordering a lot more.
Thanks for sharing Terry, I just shot my first roll of Delta 400 in 35mm yesterday, looking forward to seeing to seeing the results today! It's been a long time since I ventured past 100 speed films 😆
@@DavidPattonPhotography Trying to remember that very super fine grain film from Adox. You need their developer and you shoot it at iso 12 to 25 depending on the contrast of the scene. I tried to order some a few months ago but it was back ordered forever so i gave up. Might have to try to get some now if it is available.
Nice comparison! I love Delta, but seeing your pictures it looks like Tmax seems a bit more natural and has more depth? Anyway, keep up the good work, great channel!
Thanks Pieter, you can’t go wrong with either of the films, I’m glad I had a chance to use them side by side, it showed me just how close they are and shattered the preconceived ideas I had going into the comparison.
great video. very good job on the comparison of the two films. I think you said everything perfectly about the difference between the two and the variables that also effect each individuals experience with the film. for myself, I have slowly switched over to Delta and other Ilford films just due to cost. Delta 100 is considerably cheaper than the Tmax 100 is and since both films give great results, my wallet is deciding for me.... lol.
Use an enlarger and make prints the old fashioned way. Then you can really see how it looks. Developers affect films differently. So one developer is better for a particular film and other developers are better for other films.
Yes, using an enlarger is one way to do it, I've made thousands of prints but that's not the only way nor is a realistic way for many people now days. The thing about film is there is no one way to use it, just as there is no one look or better look for that matter. The best look is the look that best fits your vision as a photographer. Given so many variables, exposure, developers, scanning and printing methods, it can take awhile to get what you are looking for dialed in.
If Delta didn't jump up in price with TMax I would of switched, but can't see switching for the savings of a few pennies. I haven't bought any film since the jump, luckily was stocked up pretty well. It's just getting to expensive, my old cameras are dying along with the guys that can fix them. People are paying way to much for old cameras who may only have a few rolls left to shoot before they die. Last camera I bought was a very clean Nikon FA I love the Matrix meter but after two rolls the shutter just fell apart mid roll. Sent it off to get repaired, should of just bought another. After a few weeks I get the camera after paying $367 for the repair nearly double the price of the camera, get it out of the box and it's dead, so back it goes.
Yes Mathew, just use what you like, they are so close in price there’s really no savings either way, unless you come across a good sale on film close to expiration or something. I feel your pain, I’ve had to many film cameras fail recently, this week I bought a Nikon F5 in hopes of getting a year or two out of it, the built in autofocus motor is already giving me trouble but everything else seems to work, so far anyway. This is most likely my last hurrah when it comes to using film, I imagine it won’t be long before it doesn’t make since and I’ll be back to digital full time but until then I’m gonna try to make the best of it. I hope your luck changes with future camera purchases Mathew, thanks for sharing your experiences.
there is quite a considerable difference in price though between the two. for example, just last week (3-30-2022) I bought some more film. a 100' bulk roll of Delta 100 cost me $103 plus tax, but the Tmax 100 bulk 100' roll was costing $155 plus tax!! not sure if that constitutes "savings of a few pennies" to you, but for me that is a huge difference in cost. the rolls of 120 are even worse, having a much bigger price gap between them.
Lovely images... You've done so well with your dog, love watching you videos. Thank you Darren.
Thank you, Nori has grown into a wonderful dog and woods companion, she’s only about a year and a half old, so expect she will only get better.
Thank you so much for doing this comparison work!
Beautiful images David! I especially like the last two!
Thanks Brent, I thought a couple were ok, at some point I just started pointing the camera at what ever looked close to a photo Lol this video was taking forever and I just wanted a variety of shots in different lighting for the comparison, I ended up with a couple shots that I liked, there was a time I thought that was a good haul for a roll Lol I was pretty impressed by both of these films, it’s been awhile since I’ve shot 35mm film and it’s better than I remembered, once I get my scanning process down I think I will be using 35mm film more often.
I very much appreciate your down to earth assessment of both films: You just have to make your material work instead of searching for silver bullets. 👍
Nice outing. I feel the pain on your new camera. I had to return one a few weeks ago because of a malfunctioning shutter. Yesterday I received another version of that model. Heading out today to try it out. Very much enjoy your channel.👍👍
Thanks Terry, I was pretty bummed, I was really enjoying the camera, good luck on your replacement, I hope it goes well for you.
Nice video, David. Really liked the fern shot especially! Cheers!
Thanks Robert, the fern shot was one made before I started the comparison, I ended up liking a couple shots but some were just taken so I could compare the films on different subjects in different light, not chosen for artistic merit but for expediency, I figured if I like a couple shots on a roll of film, that’s a pretty good roll Lol in the future I hope to take a little more time : )
Wow! Great film comparison and conclution. So right, the results will vary acording to your workflow!!!
Thanks Sammy
Thank you for the video and the time it took to create. To my eye the Delta images have a "sepia toner" image? Is it me or my monitor? Thanks.
Hi Charles, no, there is no sepia tone, I'm not sure what you are seeing, it could be on my end with a slight color cast in video, that wouldn't surprise me 😆 but it wasn't intended to has a color cast.
Another 35mm advantage, mucking around with cheap lenses! And oooh! That last shot of the ferns is lovely 🤩
For sure Martin, that fern shot was made with one of those cheap lenses, a 50mm 1.8 lens I got for less than $50, super sharp, lightweight and compact, a lot of lens for the money 😁
Film comparisons take me back to the good old days 😆. I used to shoot slide film and have prints made at a custom lab. Of course some films made it easier to get the results I was looking for from the lab. So I did extensive film comparisons, and felt like I learned a lot.
Yes Bart, I remember those days as well, I think slide films showed a bigger difference between them, you'd never mistake Kodachrome for Fujichrome Velvia 😆
David, no mistaking those two 😂. I remember when Velvia came out and very quickly took over. Personally, I loathe it. After all my comparisons I ended up using Agfachrome RSX 50, and used it until they stopped making it 😢
I have to admit I was a Fujichrome guy😜 when Provia came out I moved away from Velvia, it was more to my liking.
I do like Provia, and still use it when I shoot slide film (still have a Pentax 67). Has similar qualities to Agfachrome.
Beautiful images David! Loved the video, maybe motivated me to get the Nikon Fm2 back out and finish the roll in the camera. 😊
Thanks Bill, I understand it can take awhile to finish a roll, it took me well over a month to get through that roll of Delta 100, I finally just started pointing my camera at anything just to finish the roll 😆
@@DavidPattonPhotography Guess I need to try that also😊
Too bad for your N90, I'm planning on getting one and try it out. The Delta 100 sure turned out really good, nice photos with the Delta.
The N90 was a great little film camera, if you can find a working one, they can be pretty affordable and capable of giving excellent results, I still have mine even though its battery holder is broke, keeping it just in case I find another battery holder.
My first camera was an n80. It's still my go to, a great versatile little camera. Built really well too, basically a smaller f100 but not much lost in the way of real features. Thanks for the video, great shots and I would agree, both Tmax and Delta are great.
Thanks John, I would have to agree, the N80 is a great little camera, I'm just finishing a video where I took the N80 out with a roll of Delta 400, it would be hard to find a lighter camera with so many features, the camera is just a pleasure to use. I also recently picked up a F5 to use when the conditions get rough, the cameras complement each other well, each camera has its strong points.
@@DavidPattonPhotography I've been eyeballing an f4 or f3 for a while now. Not sure if I want that or to make the jump to medium format with a yashica 124.
The Yashica would be a fun camera as a walk around medium format camera, I use to use a F4 in the early years of my photojournalism career, great camera! I almost went with the F4 instead of the F5 but decided the F5 would work better with my lens lineup. You need to watch out for bad LCDs on the F4, all these film cameras are getting pretty old, so its a bit of a gamble when buying one. I'd love to have all the Nikon F cameras from the F3 to the F6, Lol then throw in a FM2 for good measure :)
@@DavidPattonPhotography haha yes collecting all the Fs is a goal, but I'm only 22 so I got time.
@@DavidPattonPhotography also would love an f100, it's great
Personally, I think it's amazing how similar they are. I can't imagine any professional being able to tell the difference. As you said, it's nice to know you can shoot on either film and get excellent results. I'll let the price per roll drive my decision from now on. BTW, Have you tried DSLR scanning your film yet? I use to scan on an Epson V500 but recently started using my D600 and D850 for film scanning and love it. Lastly, another Nikon film camera that has the aperture sub-wheel in front that allows you to use your G series lenses in fully manual mode is the F100 but I don't think it will auto focus G lenses. I may be wrong about that. I bought an F4s for the auto focus capability and discovered it would not focus my G lenses so I had to buy D lenses.
I really like both films and as you said I’m letting price be the determining factor, they are both capable of giving excellent results. Yes I do use a digital camera for film scanning, I was using a Nikon D810 and an older 55mm macro but recently started using a Sony A7R2 and adapting a newer Nikon 60mm 2.8 D macro lens, that combo has been giving me some very good scans, the mirrorless camera has made scanning a bit easier.
I only have 2 G lenses left, I’ve been slowly replacing my G lenses with AIS or D lenses because I miss the aperture ring, for my film photography I like to use manual mode a lot. I also recently picked up a Nikon F4, the 4 battery version, so I’m really missing the aperture ring on those wide angle lenses. 😆 Right now I have the 20mm 1.8 G and a 28mm 1.8 G, I may just split the difference for a while and work with a 24mm 2.8 if I can find one in good condition.
Nice going David. Lately, I always have a Nikon N70 , that I recently bought. As long as I get good scans, to print 11x14, it works for me. KB
Thanks Ken, back when I had a working dedicated 35mm film scanner I would get some beautiful 11x14s even larger if was using a fine grain film, once I get the scanning worked out, I could see myself using more 35mm film.
@@DavidPattonPhotography I started using a digital camera for scanning 35mm then found a good used Plustek7600. Slower to use, but got better scans with the Plustek. I only scan images, worth printing.KB
I’m looking at the Plustek 8100 or getting an old manual focus macro Len to use on my Nikon d810 to scan my negs, I’m trying to figure out if I can make Nikon’s ES2 film scanning adapter work on the 55mm micro lens, it’s designed to work with the 60mm macro but I’ve read some people have been able to use it with different lenses, either way it’s something I need to get worked out before shooting a lot more 35mm.
I shoot digital on most of my for hire jobs. But I will always be a film guy at heart. So with the constant increase in film prices, videos are very helpful. For portraits I have been using Ilford FP4. But for scenery I have always been a TMax 100 guy. I tried the Delta a few times, but always went back to the TMax. I am guessing it was because of the developer I was using that made the TMax appear sharper. This video has inspired me to try the Delta again, using a different developer to see what the results are. Great video by the way.
Thanks, TMax is a great film and like you has been my go to for many years, when I was shooting medium format I decided to give Delta 100 a try and found it to be great film as well. It is possible that TMax could be a tad bit sharper but from what I’ve seen the developer, development time, temperature and dilute ratio have an impact on the final image results as well as if I over exposed the shot or over developed the film, there are just so many variables. I’ve come to the conclusion that the difference between the film is not nearly as must as I was expecting, in the future I will probably use both films with no worries because both are capable of producing great results. I will just pick the film that I can get cheaper or that is available. I keep an eye out for good prices and take advantage of it when it comes along. Sometimes I like to buy film in 24 exposure rolls so that also effects what film I will choose to use, sometimes 36 is more that I need, no sense wasting film when I don’t need to.😁
Great video - sorry to hear that the latch got damaged in the film camera which you just purchased. But good it happened early that you can still send it back and get your refund (because having it repaired later would likely exceed the camera's value!). After I settled down in my my new place where I recently moved to, I plan comparing FP4+ 125 with Delta 100. I haven't shot with Delta 100 yet but heard lots of good things about including your review in this video. Much more affordable than T-Max film. You captured again beautiful B&W images on this trip!
Thanks Martin, I’ve been pretty impressed with Delta 100, I’d be interested in seeing how it compares to FP4+, I’ve been using FP4+ in 4x5 but never in the smaller formats. You should enjoy finding new subjects in your new location, add a new film to that and that sounds like an adventure in film 😆
I have the same opinion of both that you have. When i develop them I use XTOL 1:1. Both have almost no grain. They both are relatively easy to scan (I use a digital camera). Usually I use TMAX 100 but if I get a good deal on Delta, I do not hesitate to get it.
Thanks for sharing your experience using both films, Erich, TMax has always been what I used, probably because I used so much of the 400 iso version in my early years of photojournalism, Ilford films are relatively new to me, so I was happy to see Delta 100 was on par with Tmax 100, It’s good to have more choices, especially when it comes to film. :)
Hello! I stopped posting scanned negs all together. I do however scan my negs to do a quick review and determine the ones I want to print in my darkroom. From there if the print look good enough to post I will do that with no adjustments do to the print, so when posted it is as I see it. I use a V850, and my enlarger is a Omega 4x5 with a color head. The reason I do all of this is the scanned neg looks nothing like a wet print, so in my opinion, to really make your work sing, scan the actual finished work, it's worth it.
Hello Mr Brooks, thanks for sharing, it’s sounds like you have a process that is working great for you. Unfortunately many photographers, if not most, don’t have the funds or the space for a traditional darkroom, myself included, so their only option is to scan their negatives. I wouldn’t sell short the quality that can be had from a well scanned negative or transparency, I’ve made thousands of prints in the darkroom, I just don’t have access to one right now but I can say that the prints I’ve made from my 4x5 and medium format negatives have been every bit as good as the wet prints I’ve made in the darkroom, (that may say more about my skill in the darkroom) Lol but much of the early part of my professional photography career was managing a darkroom so I’ve have my hands in plenty of chemicals. It’s 35mm that I’m not happy with the scans, I’ve used a dedicated 35mm scanner in the past with good results so I know it’s possible to get good scans, I’m just not set up for it yet but hope to be in the future. Another area where the scanned negative shines is the size of enlargement that can easily be made, I can get much larger prints with the digital process, with not much more effort than it takes to print small and I would also much rather clean dust spots and scratches in my editor that try to deal with those issues with wet printing. So in the end I think it comes down to what you like in a print and which process works best for you, as I often say, there’s really no wrong way, as long as you are getting the image you want.
On the video, I really couldn't see much difference in either so as you said, it looks like either film works well. I did have a question. Is it cost prohibitive to have images scanned by a lab (I'm guessing that there is such a service available) versus buying a scanner? I'm really interested in getting into some BW film photography but my scanner is a really old flatbed and I don't even recall how it works anymore.
Well for me it would be cost prohibitive, I spend less than a dollar to develop my film and scan it, if you are only going to shoot a roll every once and awhile, or you just want to try BW film out to see if you like shooting film, then it wouldn’t be a bad idea to just pay to have it scanned. I don’t like giving up control of the process, so I’d rather do it myself, plus I can turn around my film much faster than if I sent it to a lab. I think I will be trying to use my DSLR to do my scans in the future.
I have shot both films in 35mm 6x6 and 4x5. in fact I still have maybe 50 sheets of Delta 100 4x5 to shoot. Tmax does have way better reciprocity characteristics like why better. I prefer the tonality and contrast in the Tmax but like you it is so close I am just fine shooting either. Film that I have just shot for the first time. And I have fell in love with is TRI-X 320 which is a Large Format film only. Shot a 10 sheet box for testing and I am ordering a lot more.
Thanks for sharing Terry, I just shot my first roll of Delta 400 in 35mm yesterday, looking forward to seeing to seeing the results today! It's been a long time since I ventured past 100 speed films 😆
@@DavidPattonPhotography Trying to remember that very super fine grain film from Adox. You need their developer and you shoot it at iso 12 to 25 depending on the contrast of the scene. I tried to order some a few months ago but it was back ordered forever so i gave up. Might have to try to get some now if it is available.
Nice comparison! I love Delta, but seeing your pictures it looks like Tmax seems a bit more natural and has more depth? Anyway, keep up the good work, great channel!
Thanks Pieter, you can’t go wrong with either of the films, I’m glad I had a chance to use them side by side, it showed me just how close they are and shattered the preconceived ideas I had going into the comparison.
Good to know they’re so similar as I loved the T-Max on 4x5 but not the price. Great you can do this in a non partisan way.
great video. very good job on the comparison of the two films. I think you said everything perfectly about the difference between the two and the variables that also effect each individuals experience with the film. for myself, I have slowly switched over to Delta and other Ilford films just due to cost. Delta 100 is considerably cheaper than the Tmax 100 is and since both films give great results, my wallet is deciding for me.... lol.
Thanks, they are both excellent films, in deciding between them, my wallet has more to say on the matter than it use to :)
Use an enlarger and make prints the old fashioned way. Then you can really see how it looks. Developers affect films differently. So one developer is better for a particular film and other developers are better for other films.
Yes, using an enlarger is one way to do it, I've made thousands of prints but that's not the only way nor is a realistic way for many people now days. The thing about film is there is no one way to use it, just as there is no one look or better look for that matter. The best look is the look that best fits your vision as a photographer. Given so many variables, exposure, developers, scanning and printing methods, it can take awhile to get what you are looking for dialed in.
If Delta didn't jump up in price with TMax I would of switched, but can't see switching for the savings of a few pennies. I haven't bought any film since the jump, luckily was stocked up pretty well. It's just getting to expensive, my old cameras are dying along with the guys that can fix them. People are paying way to much for old cameras who may only have a few rolls left to shoot before they die. Last camera I bought was a very clean Nikon FA I love the Matrix meter but after two rolls the shutter just fell apart mid roll. Sent it off to get repaired, should of just bought another. After a few weeks I get the camera after paying $367 for the repair nearly double the price of the camera, get it out of the box and it's dead, so back it goes.
Yes Mathew, just use what you like, they are so close in price there’s really no savings either way, unless you come across a good sale on film close to expiration or something. I feel your pain, I’ve had to many film cameras fail recently, this week I bought a Nikon F5 in hopes of getting a year or two out of it, the built in autofocus motor is already giving me trouble but everything else seems to work, so far anyway. This is most likely my last hurrah when it comes to using film, I imagine it won’t be long before it doesn’t make since and I’ll be back to digital full time but until then I’m gonna try to make the best of it. I hope your luck changes with future camera purchases Mathew, thanks for sharing your experiences.
there is quite a considerable difference in price though between the two. for example, just last week (3-30-2022) I bought some more film. a 100' bulk roll of Delta 100 cost me $103 plus tax, but the Tmax 100 bulk 100' roll was costing $155 plus tax!! not sure if that constitutes "savings of a few pennies" to you, but for me that is a huge difference in cost. the rolls of 120 are even worse, having a much bigger price gap between them.
Wow, that's a big price difference! I've only been buying the individual rolls where the price seems a bit closer.