I have heard that both films aren't even true 3200 films. I hear that P3200 is 2000 and Delta is 1000. I would be interested in seeing if these estimates are even accurate.
It’s true that these films are technically lower iso films but are designed to be pushed to 3200. You can have great results with them at 800 or 1600 if not pushing!
I've been using Ilford film before it was officially imported into the U.S. in the 1970's. Freestyle Sales Co. was my source for HP4, FP3, and Pan F in bulk film 100 foot/30 Meter rolls. Along with ORWO black-and-white film, these were useful additions to the "usual Eastman Kodak suspects.";) By the way, out here contrast control is a matter of reducing the usual "Soot and Whitewash" in these tropical Pacific islands.
Nice! :) I remember having a pleasant experience with Delta 100, 400 and 3200, I can easily use them all for my casual photo walks! Keep up the good work!
I've chosen Delta 400 as my goto film to have in the bulk loader. It looks great and can be used most times of day and still come out fine. It also has a wide latitude it can be pushed or pulled.
I recently shot some portraits on Delta 400 for like the first time and actually really liked the output. I even accidentally overexposed some frames by like 3 stops and while not great they were still usable sort of. Will definitely try it some more going forward. Though it kinda makes me want to then invest in t-grain specific developer to make the most of it but eh, we'll see
I have 2 rolls of Delta 100 on the way! My C330 just arrived yesterday and I have ACROS already in the fridge! Thanks for the informative review, CHEERS!
I used Delta 100 with sunny 16 for about half a year before I saved up to buy a light meter, and I wouldn't have guessed the exposure needed to be more stringent. Even when I screwed up it still looked alright.
Thanks Noah! I like the various Ilford films (including the less popular lower ISO versions) in both 35mm and 120. Have tried the T-Max films also (not 3200 though) -- and yeah, the Delta/T-Max don't have that "old film" feel -- I shot/developed only TriX in high school for the yearbook -- these newer grain films definitely have a different feel. I don't think that you have done this -- but a side-by-side of Delta vs. T-Max would be cool. Same cameras/lenses/exposure and subjects -- just one roll of each (either 100 or 400) and then forget the traditional films, just compare these two. What would you say are the pros/cons of each visually, and technically (exposure latitude, developing, scanning)? Here I go -- making work for you!!! :-) Cheers -- and enjoy the beautiful spring Toronto weather!!!
Love Delta - started BW development / BW Reversal with it, and keep shooting BW slides since. It really excels in metal textures, contrast and sharpness, and the base isn't too dark too - good for those popping highlights in projection. Haven't touched it for some years, though - out exploring and reversing many, many other films : )
"You should be more careful with exposure" Lol, I bought a roll of Delta 100 once to see if an old 6x6 camera we had at school worked. The settings on the camera are very finicky (the shutter speed and aperture are two small levers around the lens) so I completely forgot about them. I ended up shooting the whole roll at f/3.5 and 1/125 in very bright daylight. How many stops of overexposure is that? The entire roll came out so dense that even the 160W bulb on my enlarger can barely shine through it. Despite that, I actually got somewhat usable, albeit light prints out of it. I also asked a lab to scan the roll, and some of the photos ended up with bars on them because the lab had to improvise with a light that could shine through such a dense negative. And even then, the photos were usable, though very grainy. Very impressed with the film. At some point I'll buy a 35mm roll and try it out properly.
I'd love to see you do a comparison test of Delta 100 vs. TMAX 100. Also it's hilarious the way Ilford insists their technology is completely different from Kodak's T-Grain... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
i think your comparison beetween the fluffier and friendlier FP4 and a more perfect and demanding delta 100 is bang on. I love fp4+ and kentmere 100 for putting it casually in a camera, walking around, documenting life. But i think i was going on a more serious project, maybe i'd tend to go for the delta ... although there is also panF+ which i think i like better .... hum. though choice :D
I've liked delta films more than tmax films. I've felt weird about fp4, since its fluffy and casual, but is also a pretty slow film for the "walking around" film thing. I just pull hp5 instead. I don't know. I really want to like fp4. I guess when I'm doing b/w i look for hp5 or tri x and pick whichever one is cheaper at the time for walking around stuff. For more serious "I'm going to do landscapes or shoot a portrait session" I think about delta 100 and pan f. I think pan f is better for the way I do portraits, and delta 100 is better for the way I do landscapes. Creamy and human and emotional for pan f, stark and bleak and moody for delta 100. Those two films are always something that I end up having in a camera not wanting to "waste" the film on bad shots for whatever reason. There's a punch to the frames that feels good. I have similar feeling about expired double x I found at an estate sale. My girlfriend dramatically prefers stuff I've shot with delta over any other black and white film. Probably the contrast. I don't know if its my lab doing a good job with the noise and grain reduction, but I think I'd put delta 100 and xp2 in the same ballpark for "feel" and sharpness. I say this of course only having shot two rolls of each. Anyways, thanks for the video. I think the fluffy cloud fp4 metaphor is apt. Give pan f a try, I really like it a lot more than fp4.
Provia is such an interesting slide film. I've seen examples of it pushed to 400 and still look really good. Sadly fuji discontinued the 400f variant which would've been perfect in a market with only 50-100 iso slide films.
For what it's worth, Acros II is $0.33 a frame (using BH prices here). 35mm granted and I really really want to see it back in sheets honestly - though CHS ii is also orthochromatic (though uses a classical grain). Anyways point is, relative to, say, how much a stick of gum costs, $0.33 isn't bad when you consider the memories you make with it - or at least how much long a photo you take - on film - is meant to last. Some of those memories could be priceless too. So I know Acros is expensive but relatively speaking, there's a case to be made that maybe it's not so bad. Adox has mentioned (granted their not always tactful about it) that film prices need to go up to fund new research and development. As I recall, they were spot on for the last 2 price increases across all the vendors (raw material prices going up). I do think having a cheap entry-level film is also important though. So overall I'd say the market has some healthy options, but I do think Adox is right here that the advancement of film will require rolls costing more than a pack of gum at the drugstore. You chew a piece of gum for what like an hour? Film, and the prints made with it, can last a lifetime. From that standpoint, what's $0.33?
Ever since Acros ll released I've just found it cheaper to buy the original Acros on eBay. I feel it'll be the same situation with Fuji pro400h if it ever gets rereleased. That film has been discontinued so many more times than Acros and I'm almost sure fuji will bring it back
I don't know if this is because I developed Delta 100 and 400 with Ilford DD-X, but in my experience these films have had very low contrast and required lots of digital processing so they look good (unlike HP5 or PanF to a lesser degree). However, something I have noticed is that Delta 100 and 400 have greater dinamic range. I once took some landscape pictures with Delta100 and my F6 decided to meter some shots at the shadows instead of the highlights and I was able to recover the completely blown out highlights. Also, these films really shine with color filters (I'd say they are the best B&W film for filter use). Regarding Delta 3200, the grain on that film is just like sandpaper. I honestly find more pleasing HP5 pushed to 3200.
Eventually (and I totally get this would be a while down the road since 16mm is expensive as hell), but a cool video idea might be comparing Tri-X motion picture film to Eastman Double X. I haven’t seen very many videos directly comparing the two, which is a shame
the only ilford film i’ve used so far is an XP2 but idk if that considers as a black & white film or not... like can i go out and tell people that “i shoot black and white films”
One question: do you ever use photoshop filters on the prints you show on the videos? You probably don't, but I still ask because the images I get from my negatives don't seem to look that much sharp as yours. It's probably something with the scanner from my local lab.
My stuff is done on a flatbed so there's of course just a level of softness on 35 with that thing. I throw a very smallll unsharp mask on to sharpen things up a little bit, but never so much that it oversharpens and messes things up. The quality loss with RUclips can be a concern of course as well
Suggest you try a dedicated film scanner rather than a flatbed. I have a V750 but now only use it for 120 films, reason being that it cannot fully resolve the grain of 135 films. This doesn't matter with 120 because you're not going to see the grain anyway but with 135 the grain looks like mush. Would also point out that your comments on 'flat' and 'contrasty' films are not entirely accurate since any film can look flat or contrasty depending on development.
Ilford Delta 100 is an amazing film, but I never shoot it at 100. I always pull it one stop to control the contrast you are mentioning. But really, which Ilford-film is not amazing? Thank you for making these videos.
Thanks for this video. I really appreciate the straight forward facts and the sample images right from the get-go. No wasted time. In so many of these film reviews, the host goes into their life story and what they did well and what didn't work. Stupid music plays. Uggghhhh! I have to stop watching. I don't care about all that. I come onto these videos for a reason: THE TITLE OF THE VIDEO. That is what I want to see. So thanks. Keep up the good reviews.
That drawing of the Core Shell grain looks suspiciously.....tabular. I've shot a lot of T-Max 400 but I'm about out. The price of this film is absurd. Over $170 per 100' roll. It was about $90 15 years ago. That's WAY more than the inflation rate. Ilford Delta 400 is a little over $130 a roll. And having watched a few videos, it appears to be a film that sidesteps the downsides of TMY. Well, who wouldn't want that...and at a lower price?
TMAX 3200 vs Delta 3200 would be an interesting comparison video to see
I have heard that both films aren't even true 3200 films. I hear that P3200 is 2000 and Delta is 1000. I would be interested in seeing if these estimates are even accurate.
It’s true that these films are technically lower iso films but are designed to be pushed to 3200. You can have great results with them at 800 or 1600 if not pushing!
Even though they aren't true 3200 film, I've found TMAX3200P to be much better. I can get a solid, printable image when pushing TMAX up to 125000
@@marlmachine Unless you shoot 120.
@@GregoryVeizades Or shoot anything politically sensitive...
I've been using Ilford film before it was officially imported into the U.S. in the 1970's. Freestyle Sales Co. was my source for HP4, FP3, and Pan F in bulk film 100 foot/30 Meter rolls. Along with ORWO black-and-white film, these were useful additions to the "usual Eastman Kodak suspects.";) By the way, out here contrast control is a matter of reducing the usual "Soot and Whitewash" in these tropical Pacific islands.
Delta 100 is one of my favourite B&W films so far. I’m pretty new so there is a lot I haven’t tried, but Delta 100 at night is so good.
I always go with delta 400 that I push to 1600 for my black and white macro work. It just works very well for me. Absolutely love it.
Nice! :)
I remember having a pleasant experience with Delta 100, 400 and 3200, I can easily use them all for my casual photo walks!
Keep up the good work!
I've chosen Delta 400 as my goto film to have in the bulk loader. It looks great and can be used most times of day and still come out fine. It also has a wide latitude it can be pushed or pulled.
I recently shot some portraits on Delta 400 for like the first time and actually really liked the output. I even accidentally overexposed some frames by like 3 stops and while not great they were still usable sort of. Will definitely try it some more going forward. Though it kinda makes me want to then invest in t-grain specific developer to make the most of it but eh, we'll see
I have 2 rolls of Delta 100 on the way! My C330 just arrived yesterday and I have ACROS already in the fridge! Thanks for the informative review, CHEERS!
Very good video. Thank you.
RS. Canada
I used Delta 100 with sunny 16 for about half a year before I saved up to buy a light meter, and I wouldn't have guessed the exposure needed to be more stringent. Even when I screwed up it still looked alright.
This is my go to in 4x5 for black and white. Absolutely love it. The contrast of Delta 100 can be tamed if you need the extra exposure range.
I cut my teeth on Ilford in the 1970s ... HP5 has always been a go to film!!!
Thanks Noah! I like the various Ilford films (including the less popular lower ISO versions) in both 35mm and 120. Have tried the T-Max films also (not 3200 though) -- and yeah, the Delta/T-Max don't have that "old film" feel -- I shot/developed only TriX in high school for the yearbook -- these newer grain films definitely have a different feel. I don't think that you have done this -- but a side-by-side of Delta vs. T-Max would be cool. Same cameras/lenses/exposure and subjects -- just one roll of each (either 100 or 400) and then forget the traditional films, just compare these two. What would you say are the pros/cons of each visually, and technically (exposure latitude, developing, scanning)? Here I go -- making work for you!!! :-) Cheers -- and enjoy the beautiful spring Toronto weather!!!
One of my favorite films.
Love Delta - started BW development / BW Reversal with it, and keep shooting BW slides since. It really excels in metal textures, contrast and sharpness, and the base isn't too dark too - good for those popping highlights in projection. Haven't touched it for some years, though - out exploring and reversing many, many other films : )
Amazing! I'm really interested in doing some reversal stuff myself eventually and am curious about which films work best for it!
BW reversal isn't something that's widely covered and I'm interested to see how that would work!
"You should be more careful with exposure"
Lol, I bought a roll of Delta 100 once to see if an old 6x6 camera we had at school worked. The settings on the camera are very finicky (the shutter speed and aperture are two small levers around the lens) so I completely forgot about them. I ended up shooting the whole roll at f/3.5 and 1/125 in very bright daylight. How many stops of overexposure is that? The entire roll came out so dense that even the 160W bulb on my enlarger can barely shine through it. Despite that, I actually got somewhat usable, albeit light prints out of it. I also asked a lab to scan the roll, and some of the photos ended up with bars on them because the lab had to improvise with a light that could shine through such a dense negative. And even then, the photos were usable, though very grainy.
Very impressed with the film. At some point I'll buy a 35mm roll and try it out properly.
I'd love to see you do a comparison test of Delta 100 vs. TMAX 100. Also it's hilarious the way Ilford insists their technology is completely different from Kodak's T-Grain... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
i think your comparison beetween the fluffier and friendlier FP4 and a more perfect and demanding delta 100 is bang on. I love fp4+ and kentmere 100 for putting it casually in a camera, walking around, documenting life. But i think i was going on a more serious project, maybe i'd tend to go for the delta ... although there is also panF+ which i think i like better .... hum. though choice :D
I think I've got some Pan F in the fridge to shoot soon!
I've liked delta films more than tmax films. I've felt weird about fp4, since its fluffy and casual, but is also a pretty slow film for the "walking around" film thing. I just pull hp5 instead. I don't know. I really want to like fp4.
I guess when I'm doing b/w i look for hp5 or tri x and pick whichever one is cheaper at the time for walking around stuff. For more serious "I'm going to do landscapes or shoot a portrait session" I think about delta 100 and pan f. I think pan f is better for the way I do portraits, and delta 100 is better for the way I do landscapes. Creamy and human and emotional for pan f, stark and bleak and moody for delta 100. Those two films are always something that I end up having in a camera not wanting to "waste" the film on bad shots for whatever reason. There's a punch to the frames that feels good. I have similar feeling about expired double x I found at an estate sale.
My girlfriend dramatically prefers stuff I've shot with delta over any other black and white film. Probably the contrast.
I don't know if its my lab doing a good job with the noise and grain reduction, but I think I'd put delta 100 and xp2 in the same ballpark for "feel" and sharpness. I say this of course only having shot two rolls of each.
Anyways, thanks for the video. I think the fluffy cloud fp4 metaphor is apt. Give pan f a try, I really like it a lot more than fp4.
I’ve got some Pan F in the fridge!
Ahhh, the HTV theme!
awesome! Can you do provia 100f? I really wanna know your thoughts on that
Provia is such an interesting slide film. I've seen examples of it pushed to 400 and still look really good. Sadly fuji discontinued the 400f variant which would've been perfect in a market with only 50-100 iso slide films.
For what it's worth, Acros II is $0.33 a frame (using BH prices here). 35mm granted and I really really want to see it back in sheets honestly - though CHS ii is also orthochromatic (though uses a classical grain). Anyways point is, relative to, say, how much a stick of gum costs, $0.33 isn't bad when you consider the memories you make with it - or at least how much long a photo you take - on film - is meant to last. Some of those memories could be priceless too.
So I know Acros is expensive but relatively speaking, there's a case to be made that maybe it's not so bad. Adox has mentioned (granted their not always tactful about it) that film prices need to go up to fund new research and development. As I recall, they were spot on for the last 2 price increases across all the vendors (raw material prices going up).
I do think having a cheap entry-level film is also important though. So overall I'd say the market has some healthy options, but I do think Adox is right here that the advancement of film will require rolls costing more than a pack of gum at the drugstore. You chew a piece of gum for what like an hour? Film, and the prints made with it, can last a lifetime. From that standpoint, what's $0.33?
Ever since Acros ll released I've just found it cheaper to buy the original Acros on eBay. I feel it'll be the same situation with Fuji pro400h if it ever gets rereleased. That film has been discontinued so many more times than Acros and I'm almost sure fuji will bring it back
I don't know if this is because I developed Delta 100 and 400 with Ilford DD-X, but in my experience these films have had very low contrast and required lots of digital processing so they look good (unlike HP5 or PanF to a lesser degree). However, something I have noticed is that Delta 100 and 400 have greater dinamic range. I once took some landscape pictures with Delta100 and my F6 decided to meter some shots at the shadows instead of the highlights and I was able to recover the completely blown out highlights. Also, these films really shine with color filters (I'd say they are the best B&W film for filter use). Regarding Delta 3200, the grain on that film is just like sandpaper. I honestly find more pleasing HP5 pushed to 3200.
Totally agree with this, I have used D3200 and much prefer pushed HP5 or Tri-X compared to the horrible grain of D3200.
Eventually (and I totally get this would be a while down the road since 16mm is expensive as hell), but a cool video idea might be comparing Tri-X motion picture film to Eastman Double X. I haven’t seen very many videos directly comparing the two, which is a shame
I mostly use Delta 100 35mm and 120.
Did you heard about Polaroid's "instant" slide film Polachrome? I'd love to see your video about it!
Have you shot Kodak Double-X film before? Look from this film remind me of that.
Definitely want to talk about DoubleX in the future!
If you ever get some, I would love to see a roll review on xp2 super
My favorite film is Delta 100, unfortunately Delta 400 is not easily available here for a reason unknown to me so I have not tried it so far
the only ilford film i’ve used so far is an XP2 but idk if that considers as a black & white film or not... like can i go out and tell people that “i shoot black and white films”
i would love to see a review of fomapan 400 medium format
One question: do you ever use photoshop filters on the prints you show on the videos? You probably don't, but I still ask because the images I get from my negatives don't seem to look that much sharp as yours. It's probably something with the scanner from my local lab.
Actually I suspect that the scans are done on flatbed - I see them lacking in sharpness and detail. That or YT compression butchers it.
My stuff is done on a flatbed so there's of course just a level of softness on 35 with that thing. I throw a very smallll unsharp mask on to sharpen things up a little bit, but never so much that it oversharpens and messes things up. The quality loss with RUclips can be a concern of course as well
Suggest you try a dedicated film scanner rather than a flatbed. I have a V750 but now only use it for 120 films, reason being that it cannot fully resolve the grain of 135 films. This doesn't matter with 120 because you're not going to see the grain anyway but with 135 the grain looks like mush. Would also point out that your comments on 'flat' and 'contrasty' films are not entirely accurate since any film can look flat or contrasty depending on development.
Ilford Delta 100 is an amazing film, but I never shoot it at 100. I always pull it one stop to control the contrast you are mentioning. But really, which Ilford-film is not amazing? Thank you for making these videos.
Good tip for some more forgiving contrast!
This is the first Ilford film I tried when I started shooting film again. It did not disappoint.
So Delta 100 sounds more like a fairly accurate light meter film vs. a Sunny 16 estimation type film like FP4 perhaps?
I'm needing to develop my Ilford Delta 100 with Ilfosol 3 can I develope a roll of HP5 in this developer in the same Patterson tank.?
next review about shanghai films pls :)
Thanks for this video. I really appreciate the straight forward facts and the sample images right from the get-go. No wasted time. In so many of these film reviews, the host goes into their life story and what they did well and what didn't work. Stupid music plays. Uggghhhh! I have to stop watching. I don't care about all that. I come onto these videos for a reason: THE TITLE OF THE VIDEO. That is what I want to see. So thanks. Keep up the good reviews.
Can You do a video of ilford xp2 super 400 pls :D
Chloe Valley
Bartell Mountain
Lucinda Roads
Craig Center
That drawing of the Core Shell grain looks suspiciously.....tabular.
I've shot a lot of T-Max 400 but I'm about out. The price of this film is absurd. Over $170 per 100' roll. It was about $90 15 years ago. That's WAY more than the inflation rate.
Ilford Delta 400 is a little over $130 a roll. And having watched a few videos, it appears to be a film that sidesteps the downsides of TMY. Well, who wouldn't want that...and at a lower price?
first
Give me back my LIGHT METER
@@AnalogResurgence no