Fp4 vs delta 100

N

Nebular89

Messages
235
Edit My Images
No
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.
 
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.
 
StephenM said:
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.
Click to expand...
What put you off them?
 
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.
 
StephenM said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have read that Fp4 is more forgiving. That alone has probably made the decision for me.
I’m using fomapan 100 at the moment. I don’t dislike it as such but it seems to have an odd glow to some of the highlights that I don’t like.
 
PeterSpencer said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think I’m sold on Fp4. It’s my favourite 120 film. I do like rollei 80s too.
I am tempted by hp5 for the 4x5 though. I’m going away to Cornwall in late October. The weather could be a pain, it can be pretty windy where I like to go, the extra shutter speed might be handy
 
PeterSpencer said:
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.
Click to expand...
I cut my teeth on FP4 since around 1992 and then expanded my horizons to PanF50 but I REALLY dislike HP5.

So, to try and stay in line with the OP’s question, I personally try to limit my film to the bare minimum. I have yet to shoot more FP4 in 4x5 but in all from 35 to 120 to 4x5 I have always been very happy with FP4…
 
Nebular89 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rodinal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Could not agree more.

I started out with FP4 in the early 90’s and I have never been disappointed with my results. Technique often but never the film.

Given how I operate I will quickly end up with 10+ film variants and 4 or more developers…so…for B&W I limit myself to FP4, PanF and Tri-X400 with ID-11 and Perceptol.

One day when I’m brave enough I will try Adox’s CMS20 II.

FP4 will always be my go-to first choice for general use…
 
I found delta a bit too contrasty for my taste. Didn't see much difference otherwise. I'd go for FP4 personally.
 
TheTimeChamber said:
I love the contrast you get with Delta, it's right up my street
Click to expand...

swanseamale47 said:
I found delta a bit too contrasty for my taste. Didn't see much difference otherwise. I'd go for FP4 personally.
Click to expand...


As with many things, it's down to personal taste. I'd put a roll or 2 of each through the camera and see which set of results you prefer. Might even be worth getting a second opinion if there's a valued one available.
 
I go FP4 and HP5 over Delta films with the exception of Delta 3200. Even then I'd probably push HP5...

I found I got better results with the non T grain films. Nothing I can really quantify except to say that they were easier to develop (i.e. more forgiving to my mistakes), had better dynamic range (to my perception), and looked more like film. Delta 100 is so perfect that I might as well shoot digital and convert. Obviously that might be a selling point for you!

I found that the same went for Kodak TMAX 400 vs Tri-X.
 
FishyFish said:
I've just bought a box of Delta 100 in 4x5 so you'll be able to see my mistakes soon. :LOL:

I've shot and developed it in 35mm and 120 with good results though, so fingers crossed!
Click to expand...
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.
 
I don't get on too well with snow, winter and the cold so I will take my hat off to you for this one. You may think the contrast is high, I would say just about spot on the highlights are full of detail and the shadows likewise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top