View Full Version : ? re. delta 100 vs. agfa apx 100
back alley
02-22-2007, 11:45
has anyone done a side by side comparison of these films?
or used them enough to have a comment on how they compare to each other.
this is prompted by the shot that ray g put up earlier in a thread about the dynamic range of film and digital.
joe
Joe,
These are two VERY different types of film...
APX 100 is still fairly silver rich, with good but definitely conventional grain patterns. You can get excellent sharpness via acutance developers, but nothing like a e-grain or t-grain film. Grain is always going to be higher. Of course, the toe and shoulder are conventional, too, and not as linear, resulting in what many consider to be a much more classic look and feel.
Delta 100 is an e-grain film, with very flat, uniform silver grains. The grain is incredibly fine, and you can use a strong acutance developer to get terrific sharpness yet without the cost in grain. You also get a very smooth curve - toe and shoulder are short, so you get a less traditional look. YOu also have less exposure latitude, since density increase is linear to exposure all the way up (again, because of lack of big shoulder).
They both have excellent dynamic range. Delta has less latitude for error.
I have my own comments about dynamic range from Ray's thread, none of which are confrontational and all of which are qualifying.
allan
Joe
The data sheets should be available for both. I think Delta is very red sensitive, but if you use time and temp you need a tripod to separate the films, other than for the grain, unless you are doing posters.
Allens views are really good.
Noel
back alley
02-22-2007, 13:32
looking at ray's photo made me wonder about switching films but i think i'll stick with my original plan and use the delta films exclusively.
one camera with 100 and the other with 400.
nice and simple and i like the results.
joe
bmicklea
02-22-2007, 13:43
looking at ray's photo made me wonder about switching films but i think i'll stick with my original plan and use the delta films exclusively.
one camera with 100 and the other with 400.
nice and simple and i like the results.
joe
Funny, I had the same thought and ended up in the same place. I've had great results enlarging both D100 and D400. I actually like the slightly grainy look of D400 in a big enlargement. Not quite Tri-X, but it looks more "conventional" when blown up big than T-Max does IMHO.
back alley
02-22-2007, 13:44
'great minds'...;)
Agfapan has beautiful grain and reminds me of Tri-X. Beautiful film. Cheap too. All my Paris and Belgrade shots are with Agfa apx-100. It is the easiest and most straightforward film to develop. I've just never had problems with this film, ever.
Delta is excellent, too. But finer frain.
Still, my all time favorite is Plus-x for its character.
Joe, I am sure that a wide dynamic range is not unique to any one film. I have just been using apx-100 for the past few years, so that's what I posted. In fact, my current bulk roll is running out, and I think I will try some others before opening up another 100' of Agfa.
Funny, I have a few rolls of Delta 100 to play around with in Rodinal. ;)
back alley
02-22-2007, 16:22
agreed.
and i like the look of delta quite a bit.
you're shot just turned my head for a bit:)
joe
That's a great compliment.
BTW, do you rate the D100 at iso 100?
Maybe allan would know - How about in Rodinal (not to reopen a can of worms), what is it's true speed and how would you rate it?
back alley
02-22-2007, 16:33
i rate 100 as 100 and 400 as 400, the 3200 i rated at 1000 when i used it before. i think ilford got the speeds right on the first two.
i usually use ilfosol s or ddx but this time around i will be adding rodinal and hc110 to the line up to see what i get.
Joe, Ray,
Well, I haven't developed Delta 100 in Rodinal yet, though it's one combination on my list. I feel a renewed sense of shooting and experimentation coming on. It's been a while.
Having said that, I get a good 100 out of Delta 100 in D76 1+1, which usually costs me 1/3 of a stop at least. So I wouldn't expect anything less than 64, true speed, in Rodinal.
I'll do some tests with a spot meter for the heck of it, perhaps this weekend.
allan
back alley
02-22-2007, 18:52
allan is on the case.
very cool and thanks.
joe
Yup. I might shoot a few rolls of D100 with my testing method and get speeds in Rodinal and Microphen. Same with Pan F, though only with Microphen. I have times for that with Rodinal.
I also have 2 boxes of FX-50 I want to try...
allan
I really like both, and find them quite different. In a pinch I'd describe APX100 as a bit more "gritty" though it has a gorgeous tonality that is very unique, almost more "glittery" than Delta 100. I absolutely love Delta 100 in D-76 1:1 especially for outdoor portraits. Delta 100 has a more smooth tonality that still has some "bite" to it (compared to Tmax 100, which I'm still trying to like).
The comment about Delta 100 in Rodinal had me wondering as I think I've tried just about everything. I searched my database and had just one roll developed that way, but it's MF and mostly with a flash. I attached one here done with flash, another without but with some sepia and other PS treatment.
A couple of APX100 examples (or ones I think really show it's character). In Rodinal 1:50.
Delta 100 and Rodinal is one of my favorite combinations. It's become my standard bearer at 100iso.
These are all rated at 100iso and developed with Rodinal 1+50 @ 20deg.C for 14 min.
back alley
02-22-2007, 21:06
rich & robert, very, very nice.
it seems it would be hard to go wrong with either of these films.
delta is plentiful locally and the agfa can be had but in smaller numbers.
the agfa can be had on the net and at a pretty good price - better than i can get delta locally.
Robert, nice shots. Is that the stairway behind Cordonices Park in Berkeley?
bmicklea
02-23-2007, 05:34
Sorry all, but I've got a newbie question.
I'm just about to start developing my own film and at first it'll be D100 and D400 (got bulk rolls of both). I love the results with Rodinal but I have already got DDX and was planning on picking up some Perceptol, the idea being to use D400 with DDX and D100 with Perceptol. But I love the look you've gotten with Rodinal Robert - could I completely skip Perceptol and just use DDX and Rodinal or are they somehow similar?
Brad, be aware that D100 and D400 seem to behave very differently in Rodinal. The 400 with normal (1:25 to 1:50) dilutions looks, let's just say, unconventional. Stand development with 1:100+ tames it, but Rodinal and D400 wasn't the match made in Heaven.
bmicklea
02-23-2007, 05:58
Makes sense - so maybe I need all three, here's my thinking:
D100 @ 100 with Rodinal 1:50 for high acutance
D400 @ 400 or 800 with DDX 1:4 for speed
D3200 @1600 with Perceptol at stock for better grain
Does that make some sense? This plan is only coming out of reading and I know that I'll have to make the final decisions based on what I like or don't like but does that seem like a decent starting approach?
Just to put another option out there, I have a question for Rich or anyone with Fuji Acros experience. I just joined the Acros group over at Flickr, and noticed that you have a few posted also. Can you compare the merits of Fuji Acros and Delta 100? I don't have a lot of experience with either film, but my favorite feature of Acros is that it scans easily.
How do the Deltas work with pyro (PMK) or diafine?
I've heard that APX+pyro isn't such a good idea (emulsion hardener?)
D100 @ 100 with Rodinal 1:50 for high acutance
D400 @ 400 or 800 with DDX 1:4 for speed
D3200 @1600 with Perceptol at stock for better grain
Does that make some sense?
Well, it kinda makes sense. First, you mentioned earlier using Perceptol with D3200. This is not a good idea. The point of D3200 is to shoot it at high speeds - 1600+. You can achieve 1250 or so with a speed-increasing developer. But Perceptol is a speed-decreasing one. Which means you're down at, say, 1000 or 800. That means that shooting it at 3200 will have fine grain, but it'll have no shadow detail at all.
Also, Rodinal is an acutance developer, but it's not a "high acutance" one. Just fyi. You want acutance, go pyro, FX-2, or something like that. _That_ is acutance. However, your logic overall in that regard is sound - using an acutance developer with a fine grain film is the way to go. Low grain lets you go for sharpness.
allan
Just to put another option out there, I have a question for Rich or anyone with Fuji Acros experience. I just joined the Acros group over at Flickr, and noticed that you have a few posted also. Can you compare the merits of Fuji Acros and Delta 100? I don't have a lot of experience with either film, but my favorite feature of Acros is that it scans easily.
In some phone conversations with Allan lately I was expressing to him that although the adage of "find one film and developer and stick to it" certainly has merits I've been on a tear recently (last few years) of many kinds of films and developers as I've found some great deals on expired 100' foot rolls of everything from Delta 100, HP5+, FP4+, Tmax 100, Neopan 400, Tri-X, APX400 and even some old Eastman Plus-x movie stock film that is looking great. And I've been developing in Rodinal, D-76, HC-110, Xtol, Microdol-X, Perceptol, DiXactol, Exactol Lux and Diafine. Know what I'm finding out? It can ALL look great. The subject, lighting and my scanning and post-processing skills I'm finding are MUCH more important than the film or developer I use.
That all said I am finding some combinations I prefer over others, though in all honesty only slightly and not based on any real empirical evidence per se. (Part of my problem is I'm lazy and hate taking notes and such.) For example other than with APX25 and sometimes Tri-X I'm not all that fond of HC-110. Why? Cannot really tell you with certainty. I feel that perhaps the negs seem a bit more mushy and not all that "clean" and sharp as I'd like. But then I've seen AMAZING results from others with HC-110 with Tri-X and other films. I also do not like HP5+ in Rodinal or D-76 that much. Again, cannot tell you exactly, and sometimes I fear my emotions and feeling about some combinations might be I simply had lighting or subjects that were not all that great and so I may have been wrongly influenced by that and not being thrilled with any particular images on those rolls rather than true dissatisfaction with the film or developer or combo. I imagine I'll migrate to only a couple films and developers some day but I'm having fun now as is and like I said seem to get very good, if not great results from almost any combo.
Ok, but you asked what is the difference between Acros and Delta 100? In standard lighting and such I'd say not a whole heck of a lot. Either compared to say APX100 or Plus-X is a much stronger difference. For night shots though Acros has MUCH better reciprocity characteristics for longer exposure vs. Delta 100 so for night it's always Acros.
Lastly, I just scanned a new image from a roll of Delta 100 developed in Rodinal. A hand-held shot just after dusk a couple nights ago taken with a newly acquired Olympus XA (only $20 from a swap meet!):
http://shootingonthefly.blogspot.com/2007/02/polk-and-pine-streets-san-francisco.html
(click on the image to see full size and with better tonality and clarity)
Nice shot Rich. To answer your earlier question, it's a path connecting Yorkshire Dr. and Romany Rd. in Oakland.
I like Fuji Acros a lot as well, but if I had to choose only one 100 iso film, it would be Delta 100.
Wow, so many combinatiions. Like you, I think I'd like to standardize to a couple of films, but then I'm tempted to try something new. And like you, I like almost everything I try. So far I've liked Acros in Rodinal and HC-110. In HC-110, my Acros shots look a little creamier, but it just may be the light. I haven't experimented with Delta 100 much, and this thread is convincing me to give it an honest go, particularly in Rodinal.
Here are two shots I posted to the Acros group in Flickr. The first is in HC-110, the second i Rodinal.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/184/386256085_600c4fcc40_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/147/395822611_239fbdfac1_o.jpg
bmicklea
02-23-2007, 11:09
Well, it kinda makes sense. First, you mentioned earlier using Perceptol with D3200. This is not a good idea. The point of D3200 is to shoot it at high speeds - 1600+. You can achieve 1250 or so with a speed-increasing developer. But Perceptol is a speed-decreasing one. Which means you're down at, say, 1000 or 800. That means that shooting it at 3200 will have fine grain, but it'll have no shadow detail at all.
Also, Rodinal is an acutance developer, but it's not a "high acutance" one. Just fyi. You want acutance, go pyro, FX-2, or something like that. _That_ is acutance. However, your logic overall in that regard is sound - using an acutance developer with a fine grain film is the way to go. Low grain lets you go for sharpness.
allan
Thanks for the clarification Allan, I guess I'll do D3200 in DDX then - that seems to be the standard developer for Delta films. Or are there any other suggestions?
DDX or Microphen, it's powder equivalent, are the usual recommendations. I can't think of another really great developer for D3200. Rodinal produces interesting results, with tighter but stronger grain. But interesting nonetheless.
allan
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.