What put you off them?FP4 is conventional, Delta is a tabular grain film. I was completely put off tabular grain films after reading The Film Developing Cookbook so I've never tried any tabular grain films. So, no help from me, I'm afraid.
I have read that Fp4 is more forgiving. That alone has probably made the decision for me.From the book, they are extremely sensitive to overdevelopment, with contrast rising steeply to almost unmanageable levels if you're not careful. This is hearsay, as I said I've never bothered with tabular grain films after having read that. They apparently required less (expensive) silver to make, and Anchell and Troop said that the lower cost to the manufacturer was the only advantage to them.
N.B. The grain is finer, the resolution greater, and I don't use the smaller formats where this would matter. So the advantages aren't a draw for me. And the other thought always in the back of my mind is that the late Barry Thornton said in one of his books that most amateurs overdevelop, and should cut their development by (I think, from memory - read probably 20 years ago) 15%.
As I say, better wait for the voice of experience. In my own work, lower contrast helps (as I scan) and due to the very small degree of enlargement I use, sharpness and grain are largely irrelevant.
I think I’m sold on Fp4. It’s my favourite 120 film. I do like rollei 80s too.FP4 is a development of FP3, my favourite film, in 35mm, when I were but a lad. To me FP4 renders beautifully, except that I seem often to have to use HP5 to allow for low light.
I cut my teeth on FP4 since around 1992 and then expanded my horizons to PanF50 but I REALLY dislike HP5.FP4 is a development of FP3, my favourite film, in 35mm, when I were but a lad. To me FP4 renders beautifully, except that I seem often to have to use HP5 to allow for low light.
To be honest I choose FP4+ over Delta every time. There are a number of reasons - Cost being one, Delta 100 is usually around £2 per 36 exp cassette more than FP4+ and the grain advantage while it is noticeable on really big enlargements up to 12x16 there is little in it. FP4 and FP4+ have been around so long it is reliable and dependable and as I develop in ID11 the difference with Delta 100 will really only show if you use one of their later liquid developers.Aside from grain and iso what are the differences between Fp4 and delta 100 in 4x5? I’ve used a lot of Fp4 in 120 but I don’t think I’ve ever used delta 100. Both cost about the same.
Could not agree more.To be honest I choose FP4+ over Delta every time. There are a number of reasons - Cost being one, Delta 100 is usually around £2 per 36 exp cassette more than FP4+ and the grain advantage while it is noticeable on really big enlargements up to 12x16 there is little in it. FP4 and FP4+ have been around so long it is reliable and dependable and as I develop in ID11 the difference with Delta 100 will really only show if you use one of their later liquid developers.
As for image sharpness between the two films, unless every photograph is taken with the camera on a tripod and a remote release there will be an element of camera shake. In the old saying 'Don't buy a better lens buy a better tripod'.
These are just my old thoughts and ideas coming out, sorry.
I love the contrast you get with Delta, it's right up my street
I found delta a bit too contrasty for my taste. Didn't see much difference otherwise. I'd go for FP4 personally.
Did you ever post examples of Delta 100 in 4x5?I've just bought a box of Delta 100 in 4x5 so you'll be able to see my mistakes soon.
I've shot and developed it in 35mm and 120 with good results though, so fingers crossed!
Glad you said that. Would that be high, medium or low contrast?I love the contrast you get with Delta, it's right up my street
Did you ever post examples of Delta 100 in 4x5?
I was given a box but was wondering if it was worth wasting chemicals on it.