Kodak TMAX 400 vs Ilford Delta 400 Professional

[@eustacequinlank7418]

A search for a refresh on the subject led me back here, noticed I already thumbed up. Thanks again 3 year later!

[@HaiTran]

Glad it was helpful!

[@Richard-mz7qu]

Thank you for a really great video. For many years I shot Kodak TMAX 400. A friend gave me a roll of Ilford Delta 400 and I never looked back. Thanks again for sharing your findings on these two great films.

[@HaiTran]

Glad you enjoyed the video!

[@RichardSwift]

Great video. My personal preference is rolling my own Kodak 400tx for 35mm but after seeing this I'm probably going to give Delta 400 a try.

[@HaiTran]

I haven’t bought bulk film in a few months but if I remember correctly, Delta is typically cheaper so that’s a bonus 👍🏽

[@andre1987eph]

I completely forgot about Kodak T Max Films. Thanks for reminding. Gonna buy some today.

[@HaiTran]

Have fun 👍🏽

[@lensman5762]

When you have dialled in the exposure and the development, they are pretty much the same. Delta 400 requires more accurate exposure though. Overal, a very good review.

[@HaiTran]

Thank you!

[@tapiopitkaranta7667]

Well done, very interesting video. However, I think you will get similar results with tmax, if you just develop it a bit less. Highlight density is mostly a function of the developing time. Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights, as they say.

[@HaiTran]

Of course, playing with the development time could've yielded similar results, but not necessarily accurate results. I wasn't developing in an attempt to make the film stocks look like each other, but to see how they differ when developed normally.

[@richardsimms251]

Very enjoyable presentation

[@HaiTran]

Glad you liked it!

[@barriefrench3371]

Very Fine video....just like the films and images you shot,great food for thought on both films,really enjoyed.

[@HaiTran]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@tedcrosby9361]

A really interesting comparison. Of course film/developer combinations can make a lot of difference to your results.

[@HaiTran]

Yes, that's just life with analog photography.

[@csb65536]

I was very impressed with this video. You did a very good job of comparing, but you also added the possible variables. Yes, development may also play into it based on which chemical each film reacts too. Again, great video.

[@HaiTran]

Unfortunately, with film development, unless you own a lab with specific film developing robots that can repeat actions exactly, it's going to be impossible to not have variables and differences. Something as minor as one agitation can make a difference in the final results. There is so much at play that it is almost impossible to eliminate variables and create a truly one to one comparison.

[@csb65536]

Hai Tran oh, I agree 100% Again, I think you did everything reasonable to eliminate as many of the variables as anyone could ask for. But I noticed that some were commenting that the TMAX may react differently in a Kodak chemical.

[@HaiTran]

Thanks a lot for watching 👍🏽

[@1989Goodspeed]

Briliant video! I would say my preference would be Delta 400 for 120 roll film (because it is easier for me to get in 10 roll packs) and maybe T-MAX 400 for 35mm. Though also from my personal experience, and from what I have been told T-MAX is more developer “sensitive” so you can get different results depending on the developer (I use Tetenal ULFRAFIN)… I think Azriel Knight did a brilliant video about that a while back. Anyway, as stated grate video!

[@HaiTran]

I've developed TMAX 400 with a few different chemicals in the past and I've been happy with my current setup, at least I was happy before doing this comparison. I suppose I can go back and experiment with TMAX 400 some more, but I don't see much point in that considering that Delta 400 may give me what I want with what I have now. Who knows, I may be shooting a lot more Delta 400 in the future 👍

[@btpuppy2]

What developer was used on them?

[@HaiTran]

Chemicals were explicit shown in the video.

[@btpuppy2]

@@HaiTran please give me a time stamp, I cannot find it!

[@filmniyom]

I like kodak t-max 😊

[@HaiTran]

It's a great film 👍

[@thevalleyofdisappointment]

Simple. If you are in the states use T-MAX as its will cost less. If you are in Europe or the UK use DELTA as it will cost less.

[@HaiTran]

Whatever works for you 👍🏽

[@nathandewey1801]

Man I wish this comment held up. Now it’s $10 more for Kodak (cus 2021 price increase). Not much but enough for me to reconsider since I bulk roll and develop and scan at home. All to save some money doing something I love.

[@dirtywater5336]

Not anymore. Kodak has hiked their prices three times in the last couple years. Ilford Delta is now cheaper than T-Max here in the states

[@Glazehikes]

Great video !! Love your style. Now I need to try delta 400

[@HaiTran]

Definitely worth a try 👍🏽

[@mirrorgrain5476]

great technical breakdown. I'm gonna get 1 roll of ea

[@HaiTran]

Have fun!

[@Bigfarmer8]

Yep! Really enjoyed that!

[@HaiTran]

Glad to hear it 👍🏽

[@JP1050x]

Great review! I also find Tmax to be on the high contrast side, and a little clinical for my taste. My preference is Tri-X 400 for BW, for the higher grain, stronger mid tones, and more of the traditional film look. Did you find your results to be the same when looking at the physical negatives? Do the densities look different? Often times it’s the scanner that blows out highlights, because it can have a hard time reading density and film base.

[@HaiTran]

I actually like TMAX because of the higher contrast. This is the same reason that I like Tri-X. This seems to be a thing for Kodak films. Also to answer your question, the negatives do confirm the results.

[@JP1050x]

Hai Tran oh cool, thanks! Yep, Kodak tends to have higher contrast, at box speed. I tend to over expose 1 stop, or at box speed depending on how much contrast I want for their film. I haven’t tested out Ilford yet, but from what I understand, most Ilford film typically needs to be pushed to achieve the same contrast level as Kodak.

[@HaiTran]

I've always thought of Ilford as having less contrast and being flatter until doing this comparison. Seeing images side by side really puts things into perspective.

[@palesmichael]

Nice. I would use the tmax dev for such comparison, but I like generally delta better. :)

[@ekin4566]

Hi!! How did you turn your film into a digital?

[@HaiTran]

You scan the film.

[@Walkercolt1]

Kodak T-Max 400 needs to be developed in Kodak T-Max developer for the best results. With careful control of development time/ temperature, it gives very, very good results and probably supports Kodak's claims of the "sharpest" (highest resolution) 400 speed film made. Ilford Delta 400, I like to use the very old Kodak D-23 formula 1:1 in my JOBO processor @75*F/25* C in 645 format. It makes grainless 16"x 20" enlargements and even 18" x 24", and I tend to like Delta 400's tonality a little better. It's a subtle difference, but visible in larger prints. The sharpness difference takes a 25-50 power microscope (I have one) and a HEAVY tripod and a top-end lens to see the difference. In medium format, I wouldn't have a "fit" if I couldn't get one or the other. I honestly haven't used enough of either in 35mm to offer an intelligent evaluation. My 35mm's usually are "fed" 'Chomes.

[@HaiTran]

Whatever works 👍🏽

[@mamiyapress]

Can I suggest D76 or ID11 as a more appropriate developer next time. The developer used has an enormous impact on the resulting negatives. One roll of film cut into three strips developed at 1+0, 1+1 and 1+3. Thanks for posting.

[@HaiTran]

Thanks for the suggestion but I probably will not be switching to/back to D76 or ID11. I prefer the Ilford developers that I currently use and get what I'm looking for. Also, what is appropriate for one film stock may not be for another. D76/ID11 may work better for TMAX but probably not Delta. The Ilford DD-X used in this video was made to complement Delta films. There will always be a give and take with this kind of comparisons.

[@mamiyapress]

@@HaiTran I think that I may take my own advice and do my own experiments, I do have DDX but I have not used it as yet.

[@HaiTran]

Definitely, do your own experiments and find out what works for you 👍

[@Notmy00000]

🙏🙏🙏🙏👍👍👍

[@HaiTran]

🤘🏽

[@vinny3908]

Well done and nice shots for comprising. personally i think its give and take, i love the contrast and information you get with Delta, but the whites of the TMAX like the wall shots look more natural. Thanks for sharing, and greetings from the Netherlands!

[@HaiTran]

Thanks for commenting! I would agree that it is a give and take. Some images look better with TMAX just because the highlights are more towards the white and not grey like with Delta. However, for most uses, I would probably lean towards Delta because it does allow for more adjustments in post. You can get a Delta shot to look more like TMAX, but those blown highlights that some TMAX images exhibit cannot be brought back. Purely from my results, I think that Delta provides easier to work with results for most applications.

[@lignesbois6768]

Thanks for this test. As you said, it is not perfect because you can't control some parameters : the SLR lightmeter calibration may vary a little between your two bodies The processing of the film is probably a little different too. But if I look at my own photos, it seems I obtain similar results. Particulary for the "over exposure" of the sky (I use mainy Pentax série M bodies, so the lightmeter calibration could be a little different)

[@HaiTran]

Thanks for the comment and I'm glad to know that others get similar results 👍