5 Frames with Ilford Delta 100

I’ve adopted stand growth in Rodinal 100:1 as my developer and course of – simple, low cost, dependable, not fussy about temperature, and producing excessive acutance (sturdy edge distinction) negatives. This prices just a few cents per movie, and I take advantage of a plain water cease shaving a tiny bit extra off the associated fee. However prior to now my goto movie was FP4 and I used to be somewhat involved by the extra distinguished grain (due to the excessive acutance of Rodinal) in for instance clouds and sky. I used to be to search out out if I most popular a finer grain movie like Delta 100.

Exposing at field pace in my Leica MP with Zeiss 50mm Planar and Voigtlander 15mm lenses with yellow and purple filters, I took a group of sky pictures and some constructing pictures attempting to discover the traits of the movie in numerous lighting conditions and distinction ranges. The featured picture was shot in shiny daylight. Some adjustment to the distinction curve to darken the picture as a complete however elevate the highlights on the wall was wanted to supply a picture to go well with my tastes, in all probability no less than nearly as good as could possibly be produced on FP4.

The second picture was shot at about the identical time however in open shade. Even with appreciable curve changes I discover the rendition much less satisfying than I get from FP4 or another conventional movies.

The next picture exhibits shiny sky subsequent to the solar (which is hidden by the pillar) and the very darkish inside of the perspective constructing. The straight scan confirmed the inside as black and the sky burnt out close to the pillar. Curve changes recovered a satisfying quantity of knowledge contained in the constructing and revealed clouds close to the solar. Would FP4 have carried out higher? I believe it might however I’ll retake this shot to make certain.

Now a sky shot to verify the grain. Sure, its finer, however I can get a punchier picture utilizing FP4 so in a method glad however one other not.

Lastly low mild efficiency, sky after sundown. Wanting on the different sky pictures I took I’d say whereas correct renditions they by some means appear to lack one thing I get from FP4.

So what’s my conclusion? Primarily based on outcomes to this point I’d say I nonetheless favour FP4 regardless of the extra obvious grain, however it’s early days, I clearly must retake the excessive distinction shot on FP4 whereas for the others I’ve very comparable pictures on FP4 which I desire. I’ve 4 extra movies which I’ll use over time earlier than lastly deciding. One query is ‘do I like FP4 just because I’m used to it?’ I feel there is just one movie I’ve fallen in love with after just a few rolls, and its not FP4, however Fomapan Traditional 100! Technical accuracy is one factor – nice for scientific or file conserving work – however character is one other.