theHUN
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Rolls 154, 155, 156, and 157: Evaluating Delta 400, T-max 400, HP5, and Tri-X for ISO 400.
Summary: HP5 wins this round.
Details:
In the interest of resolution (with fine grain films) I switched over (from DD-X) to Rodinal last year. Results with slower speed films were great, and even though I liked the results with Delta 400, some people had commented that Rodinal was perhaps not the best choice for films with ISO400 and faster. But I really wanted to simplify my inventory, so DD-X had to go (in the long term), and I therefore had to characterize ISO400 films in Rodinal to see just what the tradeoffs were. In addition to simplifying my inventory of chemistry, I also wanted to explore the possibility of simplifying my film stock inventory. Specifically, I have shot Delta 3200 with good results, but I use it so infrequently, that it might be simpler to just use an ISO400 film and push it two stops. Once again, perhaps Rodinal is not the best choice for this, but I was curious enough to try it out.
The first step was to pick a few ISO400 film stocks. I am a lazy snob, so I only considered Delta 400, T-max 400 (TMY-2), HP5, and Tri-X 400 (400TX). Next I picked a recipe that seemed like it should give me something close enough for ISO400: Rodinal, 1+60 [15 mL + 900 mL], 20 min, 20 C. Finally, I characterized the film curve for each stock. The goal was to measure the actual film speed (defined as film density 4 stops below normal exposure = 0.1) and contrast. I was hoping to find one film that was not only fast but also had a low/normal enough contrast, so that push processing to ISO1600 would still keep the film density of highlights reasonable.
Sample image of how data were collected
Curves (Rodinal, 1+60 [15 mL + 900 mL], 20 min, 20 C). Rolls were developed one at a time.
Film: Speed/contrast
Delta 400: 280/0.9
T-max 400 (TMY-2):320/1.11
HP5: 400/0.57
Tri-X 400 (400TX): 200/0.66
Well, HP5 wins this round, although I should add:
- This is only Step 1 where I am looking at speed and contrast. I am not considering grain or performance on actual subjects.
- Delta 400 is a known-good performer. I like the grain I get with my scanner though the scanner probably does not actually resolve the grain.
- T-max 400 gave physically flatter negatives making them easier to load into the scanner right after they have dried.
- Tri-X 400 smells pretty bad.
The next step is to compare HP5 and Delta 3200 in Rodinal, 1+25 [20 mL + 500 mL], 20 min, 20 C. If they are close enough in speed, I might do a comparison on actual subjects. If Delta 3200 is at least a full stop faster than HP5 I will probably give up on simplifying my film stock and instead continue using Delta 3200 for low light situations. But if Delta 3200 does not even reach ISO1000, I will perhaps just stick to my Q2M. Stay tuned.
|
