[pure-silver] Re: Kodak vs Ilford

HP5 I'm not so strong on, but generally speaking TMax films are considered to be very "modern" with an extremely linear exposure curve and little to no toe; Tri-X and HP5 have a pretty linear exposure curve but with a noticeable toe and shoulder. What this means in terms of shooting is that Tri-X and HP5 will record shadow detail that the TMax films won't necessarily (something you can correct for by mild overexposure in-camera), but if you have a wide range of brightness in your subject the older films will show much less separation in the high tones. This can be quite irritating and require extensive fiddling in the darkroom to bring those highlights back from muddiness. You can partially compensate for this by using the right paper--Forte's Polywarmtone was much beloved in my darkroom for its ability to tame XP2's absurd shoulder.
The Delta films are usually reckoned to be intermediate between the two; less tolerant of exposure errors than Tri-X or HP5, less grainy than either, and more tolerant of exposure errors than the equivalent TMax films. I haven't found Delta 400, the one I shoot the most, to be meaningfully grainy compared to TMax 400 or Tri-X, and it is generally a trooper. Delta 3200 is great when you need it but I prefer Neopan 1600 for general high speed use; the Delta film is grainier and has an odd exposure curve IMHO. I have little or no experience with Delta 100; I generally shoot FP4+ when I want something around that speed, which is a delightful film. 

Graham
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) 
and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts: