If you Hate T-Grain You'll Probably Like Ilford Delta 400
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ม.ค. 2023
- Sometimes t-grain gets a bit of hate in the photography community, but why? There are a few reasons. None the less, if you're not a fan of tabular grain films, you might still like Ilford Delta 400.
Ilford Delta 400 Purchase Links (affiliate):
Amazon (US): amzn.to/3XxsxxE
As an Amazon.com associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
![[MPD직캠] 베이비몬스터 치키타 직캠 4K 'LIKE THAT' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) | @MCOUNTDOWN_2024.6.13](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/h99J4vWm7Ew/mqdefault.jpg)
![เกิดใหม่ทั้งทีก็เป็นสไลม์ไปซะแล้ว ซีซั่น 3 - ตอนที่ 59 [ซับไทย]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GmW4a8prWUQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I understood a reason T grain was invented was to reduce the amount of silver used in making films.
You’re right. Since the t-grain crystals have a larger flat surface area given their volume compared to cubic grain less silver is needed.
I can't imagine why T-grain films are not totally relished. I use these films and enjoy the results, and sharpness.
It's not hipster enough. It's gotta look like it's a still from an early 70's porno or it's not grainy enough 😂😂
Same here!
I think young photographers today don’t know film as much as digital. I was an Army photographer and used only film at the time, I also worked in the darkroom, using multi-grade/ polycontrast paper, with color filters on the enlarger. I loved working with T-Max film.and still do. My go to films at the time were Plus-X 125 and Tri-X 400. I also liked the result I got from Agfa B&W film. We used a lot of Ilford FP4 and HP5. I didn’t like it as much as the Plus-x and Tri-X of course I used mostly Kodak developers. I shot thousands of rolls of film. Most either grip and grin or photojournalism work. I did more art type photography on my own time or special shoots for publication. I’ll have to try the Ilford Delta 400 and see how it compares.
But half of photography is done in the darkroom. The paper used also makes a big difference in the outcome of the the print. I have taken over and underexpose pictures and got a publishable print out of it.
Excellent educational video
I very much liked your reasoning about the present day tendencies of film photographers to seek the "film look". I myself along those lines prefer HP5 for my 35mm work, which is usually more rough and documentary in style, but I love Delta 400 for medium format where I usually do portraits. The gentleness of the tones and the pronounced and yet contained contrast are really beautiful.
The only downside is that in my opinion this film is less lenient than HP5 regarding exposure. You have to nail the proper exposure to reap the benefits of the film, even an overexposed negative (which may be a safe choice with other films) tends to compress its dynamic range.
i think t grain is great to try out occasionally, especially for larger formats, but i prefer the classic grain structure for most of my work
I have no problem with T-Grain films and I have been a long time film photographer. There are times that the presence of coventional cubic grain can be used to accentuate texture, but I often find the golf ball size grain unnecessary and often distracting. One point to consider is that there a couple of films, to my knowledge atleast, which are kind of Hybrid garin films. One is the Fomapan 200, and the other is the new Tri-X emulsion, although Kodak keeps tight lipped about this one. There was the usual uproar of diehard Tri-X users a few years back when Kodak ' improved ' the emulsion . They all complained about the look of the film. Nonesense from my point of view. One thing that distingunishes emulsions from one another, and is not easily overcome, is their sepcteral response. This is one of the least understood aspects of an emulsion ' look ', but then again we'd need a book to discuss this one as it is a highly complex subject. Good explanation BTW. Thank you.
One issue with T grain film seems to be stability of the latent image. Now this is all from my personal observation and not scientific tests. But I recently developed a large batch of film that's shot more than 2 years ago, and subsequently sat in the sweltering heat and humidity of Hong Kong summer. There's a mix of Ilford HP5 and Delta 400 and from my observation, pretty much all of the Delta have had their latent image whittled down to just a flat, low density shell of the original photo, to the point that I had to learn to develop with pyro developer in the hopes that I can at least salvage something useful. Whereas all of my HP5 and Kentemeres, even after sitting in the exact same condition for 2, sometimes even 3 or 4 year, still managed to come out of the development with full range of tones and great density.
Of course developing as soon as possible is best but for those who shoot and development infrequently and don't have a dedicated film fridge, this is one thing to take into account.
i really like the look of 100 delta/tmax for landscapes.
I've been using the Ilford Delta range almost exclusively since Delta first came out in the early nineties, It's superb, the blacks are gorgeous and the images are really silver when darkroom printed or digitally scanned. The silver effect shows up even on Instagram!
T Max is good but is best with its own slightly more expensive developer.
Delta can be developed in just about anything.
On medium format Delta 400 is virtually indistinguishable from Delta 100, the two extra stops are useful on medium format smaller apertures for equivalent depth of field.
Grain doesn't even begin to show until Delta 3200 which is best exposed at 1600. If I want grain I shoot 35mm and HP5 at 800 or above.
Try Delta 3200 at 1200. Excellent grain. I agree wholeheartedly, the silver effect and rich blacks are perfect for my work. Sharpness is spot on, and even @+2 development (an accident: Delta 100 exposed at 400) actually looks fine and works well.
Scanned, they look similar to others. Printed in a darkroom, they have a flatter 2 dimensional look, rather than 3. Delta responds the same.
T grain films were an advance in film science to reduce grain and use less silver. Hate was just the usual people who don't like new things. Remember film was used for commercial and industrial purposes, even military, so what you call bland or whatever were characteristics that were useful for commercial reasons. Many young people using film today have no idea about the recent uses of film and why products were developed. Different developers will alter the way the film responds anyway, so these points are kind of moot. I love T grain film personally.
Good point, that kind of what I was driving at. It’s not the technical abilities of t-grain that people tend to dislike, it’s just that they’re chasing a different look that t-grain doesn’t give.
When T-Max films came out I was excited by all the press coverage and shot several rolls. I didn't like them at all and went back to Tri-X, which still seems to have the most personality and soul.
Tri-x has what I call that "grungy" look. Developed in HC-110 dil. b it's contrasty, it's punchy and sharp where it needs to be.
However I still like delta 400.
I think that the lack of "personality/soul" that you perceive can be an attraction to other image makers because that retro film look is NOT present, and it can override the effect of the image. No personality allows the image to sit in itself, although T grain has some personality I guess. The sharpness is great, but you need good exposure control and development. I don't like the classic film look for my own work. Its just a creative choice. All films are great really.
Aperture Dundee I appreciate your videos. I hope to see a video where you talk about open topics like relevance of B&W film photography these days when digital photography is present everywhere even on phones. Or just any open topic. Take care
I primarily shoot digital but ive just shot my first roll film which was a XP2 400 and your videos really motivate me to dive further into film, both black and white and colour too
Your production quality and insight into film is really impressive! Im quite surprised about your small subscriber count, but defiantly going to recommend your channel to my mates who shoot film
What has surprised me, and made me shoot less film (also because of insane price increases), was noticing that my Leica Monochrom CCD looks very much like Delta 100 and Delta 400 (at maybe ISO 1000 and ISO 4000). I know it is not real film and does not look the same, but it has made me shoot more than I would with my film cameras. The price and (non)availability is part of the issue, another is the time required for developing films - which I unfortunately do not have.
The Leica CCD sensors sure are something else, there's something special about them.
I pretty soon moved to T-Grain-Film, well Delta for 135. Now Delta 400 is even cheaper than HP5+ at times, since this was hyped, so I even use it for 120 and love it. Just this Pop as you mentioned it. I love its contrast.
Interesting also, that you fix for so long with rapid fixer. Nevertheless I also never had any problems developing T-Grain films compared to traditional film - and I am almost exclusively using Caffenol.
Nice video. Nostalgic for me.
Nice to see interest in film again. Glad I kept my SLR’s & 5x4 camera.
Unused for about 15-20 years…? Getting old.
Used to be a Pro Lab printer for 25yrs. All types of film/paper & processes etc..)
I haven’t used 35mm T-Max BW since the late 70’s early 80’s…?
Mainly 5x4 or 10x8 Transparency… Alas, not so much these days. Digital everything.
I was half expecting to see BW enlarged prints to examine the grain etc… Printed in darkroom of course.
Keep up the good work.
May the Force
be with you.🌀
Jim🌀
(-: :-)
Very good well thought out video, thank you.
Nice review on T grain films. Thank you 👍🏻
Really excellent video. Thanks.
I'm a fan of delta 400, when I can provide accurate exposure. I would agree with all said about contrast and pop when we compare to hp5.
I always take dd-x with t-grain films for best results (as adviced by ilford) and where never disappointed.
When I miss light, and know I will push +1/+2 I take hp5 which handle underexposure just much better.
Thank you for sharing your foughts, and great video. Cheers :)
That's neat I didn't know about T-Grain, my favourite B&W is by far Delta 3200 :D closely followed by HP5. In my head when I take photo's I want to replicate the real life look so aren't bothered by no grain. Although I do like it when its there :)
Wonderful video, glad it came up on my reccomended!
PS. I have some feedback about the video, I hope you take this kindly since its intended as such; I love the real-time typed text, its a lovely touch and im glad you put in the extra effort! The grainydays-esque cuts to photos are also lovely. There are a couple of janky cuts, eg. at 5:05 there are two errand frames after the cut back to you, and in the same cut the camera starts off out of focus (I'm not sure if this is deliberate, I found it to be more distracting than anything).
Im glad you like the video. The focus glitches were accidental. My camera just decided to focus on the background in those takes, and I didn't have a better option. I'm going to be switching to manual focus on my Fujifilm XT from now on to combat this.
Great video
At 400 ISO I probably prefer Tri-X or HP5, although I like HP5 pushed to 800 even more. But choosing the fastest speed films it is Delta 3200 all the way for me. I remember when tabular grain films were first introduced, and we loved switching to the higher ISO versions, and even back then, Delta was liked more than T-Max.
It is hard to describe manufacturers as better than, or worse than, they are just different to each other, but Ilford has always managed to get films just right for my likes. They make good films.
Under most circumstances I think I belong in the camp that likes very smooth black and white film, I have neither a preference for tabular grain films or those that are non tabular. Personally I don't want to see grain in my black and white photos, none is best, but less or non existent is by choice. Now I don't know if any of the following films belongs where in the giant 'tabula-rassa' , but these are the films that get me the results I'm after, and maybe why I tend to shoot more with these films - Ferrania P30, Rollei retro 80s, Rollei Ortho 25 Plus, Rollei Superpan 200, Adox Scala 50, Adox Silvermax 100, and Fujifilm Neopan Acros (the first one, although Acros II isn't bad) And yes I know the last 2 are no longer made... but I have a good stash of them tucked in my freezer. As far as B&W film go most films today will offer good results, but when B&W film is shot poorly and the grain is so large and granular it seems to take away from the image, unless this is the aesthetic one is after, as I said for me I don't want the headliner of my photos to be the grain, I want the image, the photo to be star of the show.
Try Ilford XP2 for low contrast and low grain. Its actually a chromogenic film like colour negative, scans well, is great for high contrast scenes, is very flexible with exposure and looks excellent in medium format.
This is how I cam to peace with T-Max 100 - shoot at 80 ASA then use Rodinal developer, concentration 1:50 (effective ASA ~ 80) - develop 8.5 min @ 68° F or 20° C, normal agitation.
However, depending on my mood and situation, I still prefer something like Rollei RPX 100 or any of their Retro films.
Another thought on any of the T-Max films - I seem to remember a blue dye that comes off the film in the first bath - I tend to do stand development so I often wash the film with cold distilled water first before I develop it.
Good luck!
Great video! I've never tried a t-grain stock but this might just be the push I needed.
Another point against t-grain film is that it has a narrower exposure latitude than regular film, and sometimes that it doesn't push as well. Perhaps this could be in a part two?
Perhaps, I've got more of the film on hand.
When you shoot outside in daylight, try Delta 400 pulled to 250. You´ll love it.
I'll give a shot shot as soon as I get a few fresh rolls in. Thanks for the tip.
I like the drama of T grain films (TMax 100-400 and Ilford Delta 100-400) when used in combination with a medium yellow filter. However, I do give the edge to Delta for one reason, the film base does not curl as much as TMax when I'm trying to scan the negatives on my flat bed scanner. Note: I do shoot mostly 120 film.
I've only used so far only delta 3200 in both medium format and 35mm, and it's an excellent film, it's very grainy, but it's normal from a film of native ISO that's about 1250. But I always used D3200 for necessity, not because it's a TGrain film. I have to try at least once Delta 400 in 35mm, I've seen very nice portraits done with it. As you said it's well suited for pretty much everything but I think could be a very excellent film for portraits.
I used DDX to develop Delta 3200 and was very pleased with the results. I was expecting to be super grainy but it wasn't that bad. I really enjoyed the results. Maybe DDX really brings the best out of Delta.
All the T-grain films typically have a specific manufacturer-recommended developer that brings out the best in them. For Ilford films it's DD-X and for the Kodak films it's (not surprisingly) T-Max developer. Often the recommended agitation procedure is slightly different from traditional technique as well. One of the reasons film photography newcomers complain about T-grain films is that instead of using the recommended developer they use whatever they have lying around from last time or whatever their photo buddy (also probably a noob) recommended, and agitate it any old way. Then when their results don't look like they want, they blame the T-grains because they've seen so many posts saying T-grain is no good. The other joker in the deck is whether (and how) you're scanning your film, or making traditional wet prints; that adds a whole batch of additional variables that nobody wants to acknowledge; easier to blame the film...
Now I won’t be able to afford delta :(
I had no idea that apperantly so many people hate t-grain, ive never heard of anything like that.
Now that's a name I haven't heard I. Along time, along time. The first time I heard the term T-Grain film was when APS film came out. Because they said the grain was supposed to be finer than regular grain film.
My absolute favorite b&w is 100 speed fuji acros ii.... im pretty sure its tgrain.... right? Either way I love the look
I love ilford delta 400, it’s so smooth on Ilfotec DDX 😩. You made me wanna develop on my own again so I can choose the developer too 😂
You can do at home using a changing bag. Prints you could do somewhere else, like a community or shared darkroom. The figital revolution (Stephen Schaub) has a great video on variating ISO with DD-X 45 minute stand development.
I have used t grained film for more than 35 years and love it. I think younger people who are shooting film are not used to the qualities of film. However the classic TriX film is better than all of the modern films.
I wonder if the backlash against T-Max is from people only shooting 35mm. Once you go up to 120 and above, grain gets much less noticeable anyway, and you get people shooting film for the higher print resolution than digital 😅
I’ve mostly been an HP5+ in Rodinol or Acufine kind of guy, but I like the Delta 400 look. Nice texture in the snowflake and leaves shot at 3:00
I've used this film, along with the iso 100 version... And I like both... I also use ID-11... and get good results... But I've never fixed it for more than 4 minutes... Looks ok though. Fine ilford film.
Film choice, and developer choice, our personal things. The results are all highly subjective. I personally like a film that I can make an image on and I can make anything work in the dark room when I print it.
I prefer T-grain films, Tmax 100 is incredible. Wanting more grain kinda flies in the face of the wants of photographers who were actually shooting in the film era, and the goals that the chemists had in place when developing the Tmax or Delta emulsions. TLDR wanting a “film look” is a very “new school” line of thinking
Who in the world would hate TMax
T-Max 400 is an almost perfect film. Grain is smooth and beautiful with plenty of sharpness when developed in D-76 1:1. I think where people run into problems is when they overexpose. That is such a common mistake by new and old film photographers alike because, for years, that was the mantra drummed into people by sloppy photographers that weren't careful. It's not designed for that. Meter carefully and expose at the recommended ISO because you will still have plenty of shadow detail without muddying up the negative by overexposing. Because there is so much information in the negative, you will usually want to raise the contrast by one grade compared to conventional films. When scanning, the results will look flat but it's comparable to working with a high quality digital camera that delivers huge exposure latitude. You always need to edit them and adjust contrast to suit your tastes.
t-grain films were made for professionals who needed a perfect image. Today, when analog photography is mainly done by hobbyists who associate imperfection with old age (which is complete nonsense, just compare an old photo taken by professionals) they are looking for "worse" films.the second thing is that a professional can remove grain, contrast, etc. even from perfect film
What about colour T-Grain. Which I don’t mind about T-Grain and conventional.
I've used TMax 400, about twenty years ago. I thought it was fine film. I used the original Acros a couple times -- with its incredible reciprocity characteristics, it was the fastest film you could buy for a pinhole camera in poor light. Never tried Ilford Delta emulsions.
I don't use silver-image tabular grain any more, not because I dislike it, but because conventional grain will make the images I want -- and do it for half the price. I use a lot of Fomapan 100 and 400. I do use XP2 Super, which is probably tabular grain but also chromogenic, which lets me do things with it that can't be done with silver-image films, conventional or T-grain.
One film that's reputed to be t-grain that I haven't tried, but that is within my comfort zone for price, is Fomapan 200. Even in the thinned market of today, though, there are too many films and more so too many film/developer combinations -- and too little time and money to experiment with everything when I have dependable materials in the lowest price tier.
Price is such a big consideration, now more then ever I think. Fomopan looks interesting, I haven't tried it yet, maybe in the future.
@@noahvonhatten I've used Fomapan in 35 mm, 120, recut to 127, and sheet sizes 9x12 cm and 4x5, since the early 2000s. I've read about quality issues many times over that period, but never seen them myself. I've read that Foma 400 is really about a true ISO 200 film, and I disagree -- I've always shot at box speed and gotten good shadow detail even with Parodinal and Caffenol, neither one of which is a speed enhancing developer (it does even better in Xtol or DD-X).
FWIW, you sound American -- the cheapest way to buy Fomapan to try is to order a bulk roll of .EDU Ultra from B&H. Despite being Freestyle's house rebrand of Fomapan, this film is actually a few cents a roll cheaper at B&H than on Freestyle's web store, and a bulk roll gets free shipping from B&H.
Recently, I've also seen good results form Shanghai GP3 and Catlabs X320 -- the latter seems to have reached a consensus as being Aviphot 200 mislabeled as faster than it is. Both can give excellent results, and at least in 120, are price competitive with Fomapan. Plus, if you have a 220 camera or film back gathering dust, Shanghai is the only current source for fresh 220 film.
I love delta 3200
It`s always best to nail exposure with what ever film your using, always ere on overexposure + 1 or 2 from standard film speed. Slide film however or some call it transparency is best with slight under exposure as it`s a positive image, I don`t shoot slide anymore as it`s way to expensive. I shoot HP5 or Tri x deved in Rodinal. I tend to find t grain films similar to digital, dare i say it ! a bit plastic. Sorry for the rant.
Ilford HP5+ is an outlier when it comes to dynamic range, and especially regarding highlight retention. Never saw so flexible a film stock in handling highlights and shadows … but I don't like the results, and I can't point out why …
I shoot HP5 every once in a while but I don't really like it either. I find Tri-X and Fomapan to be what I'm looking for.
Price.
Very well reasoned discussion of Delta 400 and T-grain films generally. Disclosure: I've never shot a frame of any Delta film. I use FP-4 and HP-5 because those are the films I have calibrated to my whole B&W process. Not long after they were introduced, I used quite a bit of T-Max, both 100 and 400. I found it somewhat flat in its normal processing. More importantly, I found T-Max resistant to zone system expansions and contractions, whereas traditional grain films were more responsive to such and relatively easy to calibrate. I abandoned T-Max as a result. Also shifted to Ilford. With a freezer with enough Ilford conventional films, I have no incentive to explore Delta now.
Technically Delta doesn't have T-grain it has 'Core Shell Technology.' Which I understand is basically the same idea but has slightly different grain structure
The concept of flat grain is nearly the same. T-Grain is technically a Kodak brand name, but has become somewhat synonymous with this concept.
You missed out Foma’s tabular grain film 😘 Ilford sell more than four 400 speed films. 6? Ilford Pan 400 for example. Silberra claim U200 is tabular grain and is being actively produced… I’m suspicious.
I've been ranting and raving about how much I dislike T-grain films for years, so it was nice to see a video on the subject! I'm a grain junkie, I want the authentic texture that comes from shooting on film, rather than something that could be mistaken for digital. I even prefer the look of a conventional-grained 400 film pushed +3 to 3200 over the look of Delta 3200 @ 3200, which has an odd sort of digital look to its grain, in my opinion. One of my all-time favorites is Foma 400 @ 1600, gorgeous grain and contrasty.
I'll be honest I didn't really like Delta 400 the couple rolls I tried but I loved TMax400. I certainly didn't find TMax low contrast especially compared to Delta 400.
I honestly much preferred Delta 400, but TMax is an excellent Film stock too.
edited: grammar and spelling
Were these images that you showed unedited ?
In what sense do you mean? I did some work to develop the raw scan, that’s more or less unavoidable. A touch of dust removal here and there too. Nothing major overall.
@@noahvonhatten referring to a curve or contrast . I am curious to know if this was how this stock looks out the box
@@michaelalejandro6056 I didn’t apply an contest curves to the images. What you’re seeing is what Negative LAB pro returned after converting the RAW scan down with my Fuji XT2.
@@noahvonhatten awesome thanks
I think a lot of people don't like TMax for other reasons and blame the T-Grain. I hate it with a passion for its characteristic curve and I can't stand Delta's (any speed) spectral sensitivity/color rendition.
I love T grain films for all the reasons you listed as why you hate them 😂
I don’t hate them at all, that wasn’t my point in the least. I was only reporting on common reasons why people dislike t-grain films. I believe they’re misunderstood, I certainly don’t hate them.
@@noahvonhatten agreed, I meant to say, I like them for reasons you listed why people dislike t-grains, didnt mean that as "you" specifically!
Imo t grain just looks like digital colour photo turned black and white in post processing. Don't quite like the way it looks but ey film is film
It can look that way sometimes.
“All of the film stocks in Kodak’s color line of films”…man Pro Image gets ignored again (still T-grain but left it off the list…)
Yeah, sorry about that. It’s not commonly available locally for me, so it’s wasn’t too of mind. A worthy inclusion nonetheless.
@@noahvonhatten yeah I thought it was disco’d but it’s around, just more common in certain markets. In US B&H seems to stock it though. My 10 year old unrefrigerated rolls still shoot nicely too. It was made for hotter climates so actually stores really nicely at my moderate climate room temps.
I thought hipsters were out fashionable by now 😂
People hate t grain? I feel like TMax 400 is the black and white film ever
I hate HP5 and I love Tri-X
love them both❤
No such thing as a silver crystal.
TMX-100 is superb. If you know how to use it. I also use traditional grain films. .. and various processing methods. .. I don't 'hate' anything much, except for the horrible clipped editing you are doing.
I am racing to finish this so I can get out of here. ... yuk. 😖