When I returned to film photography, I have to confess that I came back as a traditional emulsion snob. By traditional, I mean the old stuff: Tri-X, Fomapan, HP5, and so on. What I wanted was authenticity, and I didn’t think that some engineered emulsion, with its controlled formation of silver halide salts (that means you, Delta and T-Max) was something I wanted to have anything to do with. Oh, I tried the modern stuff — and was disappointed by its overly pure, overly perfect contrast, tone and grain. It looked… digital. And the entire reason I was shooting film was to not be digital. All that may be how the story begins, but it’s not how it ends.
My initial opinions about modern emulsions (and again, by that, I mean specifically Ilford’s Delta series of films, and Kodak’s T-Max series of films) were formed by shooting them in medium format, 120 roll film. Medium format was why I came back to film, in part; I wanted those big, beautiful negatives with their incredible detail.
Much later on, I became fascinated with Kodak Retina cameras (like this one and this one among many others). And then other midcentury 135 cameras like the Ihagee Exakta, and the Graflex Graphic 35. I can tell you from experience that shooting 135 film will do nothing if not reveal the shortcomings of traditional emulsions with their chunky grain structures. Even the stuff I shot back in high school so many years ago and was so happy with then, notably Kodak Tri-X, didn’t jazz me.
I had, I found out, been spoiled by medium format and the fact that those big grains are spread out across a much greater surface area, hiding their mass under the sheer size of the image frame. Even the smallest medium format frame, 6×4.5 nominal centimeters, is significantly bigger than a 35mm film frame, so candidly, the film just doesn’t have to be that great to still perform well in terms of grain.
That led me to try modern emulsions again to see if I couldn’t get a better result.
What’s a “Modern Emulsion?”
As I write this review, I’m working on an in-depth article on this subject, so I’ll save the details for that. But in short, black and white film emulsions are made by dissolving pure silver in nitric acid, creating silver nitrate. Separately, a mixture of gelatin, along with other chemicals called alkali metal halides, is prepared. That’s then combined with the silver nitrate, forming silver halide salt crystals that are suspended in that gelatin, which is then applied to a film base, usually polyester, but sometimes triacetate. Once dry, you’ve got photographic film.
The formation of the silver halide salts is a natural process — a byproduct of temperature, time, and chemical reactions, and the crystals normally have a chunky and irregular structure and size.
Both Kodak and Ilford years ago created proprietary processes to carefully control and tailor the growth of those crystals, although the methods are different, and produce different results. Kodak’s T-Max has what the company calls a T-grain structure to the crystals, meaning they are tabular (that’s the “T” in T-grain, in other words they’re flat and elongated) in shape.
While many refer to Ilford’s Delta films as T-grain, they’re not. Ilford uses their “controlled crystal growth” technology to create silver halide salt crystals in a more consistent, less chunky manner. The results are different structurally than T-Max, but what they have in common is that they provide a film that has better contrast properties, better tonality, and finer perceptible grain structure.
With that out of the way, let’s evaluate the film.
What I Like
- Exceptionally Fine Grain (120 and 135)
This is really the primary selling point of the Delta film family, and Delta 100 truly delivers. The engineered nature of the film provides a nearly imperceptible grain, even in the 135 (35mm) version of the film, and if you’re shooting medium format (120), then it’s just that much better. It might even be too good (see what I don’t like, below). - Performs Well with a Range of Developers (120 and 135)
With lab-developed Delta 100, I’ve never been disappointed. I mostly process my own film, however, and I generally use Kodak HC-110 for most of it. For me, HC-110 and Delta 100 make an excellent pairing, providing outstanding results in Dilution B for 6:00 minutes, or Dilution H for 12:00. (You can see side-by-side examples of that here.) Ilford recommends their own Ilfotec DD-X for best grain, and for best overall quality. But I’ve tried DD-X with Delta 100, and using the recommended times, my negatives are always overly dense, without offering any notable quality improvements over HC-110. They still scan perfectly well, however. Sticking with Ilford, however, I’ve also found that Ilfosol also works well with Delta 100. My point is that there’s no particular magic here; you’ll likely get good results with most developers. - Excellent Tonality and Contrast (120 and 135)
The outstanding contrast characteristics and overall tonality of Delta 100 is hard to overstate; it’s a beautiful film with beautifully balanced, rich, and satisfying results. Unless I completely screw-up exposure, I’ve not once been disappointed with the results I’ve gotten from Delta 100. - Available (and Economical) in Bulk Rolls (135)
Ilford Delta 100 is readily available in 35mm 100 foot bulk rolls for old school bulk film loaders. I have several vintage Burke & James “Watson” 35mm film loaders, and one of the film stocks I keep in them is Ilford Delta 100 — primarily because it’s the lowest cost option for shooting Delta 100, if you shoot a lot of it. As I write this review (Summer 2021), a 24-exposure roll of Delta 100 is about US$6.00, while a 36-exposure roll is about US$9.00 — depending on where you purchase, of course. The bulk 100 foot roll is roughly US$85.00, but allows you to load about 25 rolls at 24-exposures, and about 18 rolls at 36-exposures, making them about US$3.50 and US$4.75 respectively — almost half price of factory rolls, and an excellent reason to invest in a bulk loader.
What I Don’t Like
This is a very short list — one item long:
- It May Look Too Good
My first reaction to Delta 100, and the reason I initially didn’t like it, is what I opened this review with: The images don’t really look convincingly like they were shot on film. Properly exposed and properly developed, a medium format photograph shot on Delta 100, once scanned, looks like it was shot digitally. Even with 35mm Delta 100, the images are incredibly crisp with a tonal range that looks almost too good. Almost. I have warmed-up to Delta 100 in medium format, but with all that surface area, even conventional emulsions can look superb, so I don’t see a compelling reason to shoot it in anything other than 135 format. (I’ve never tried Delta 100 in large format; I might well do so someday, but I would imagine this “too good” effect would only be more pronounced.)
The Proof
Here’s a selection of some of my current favorite images as shot on Ilford Delta 100. The vast majority of these are from 135 format film, not medium format. See if you agree with my assessment of this film.
The Verdict
As already summarized in the narrative, I’m a huge fan of Ilford Delta 100. The results are stunning, consistent, and provide detail and tonality that’s hard to beat. In Summer 2021, I intend to try shooting some in a 4×5, and will update this review once some images are in-hand.
Processing Notes and Development Times
- HC-110 Dilution B, 6:00 minutes at 20°C.
- HC-110 Dilution H, 12:00 minutes at 20°C.
- Ilfotec DD-X 1+4, 10:30 minutes at 20°C.
- Ilfosol 1+9, 5:00 minutes at 20°C.
- Stop, fix, rinse, hypo clear, wash and surfactant as normal / desired.
As noted previously, with my darkroom technique, DD-X delivers overly dense negatives. I have not tested it with develop times shorter than the data sheet from Ilford recommends, but may in the future. For now, HC-110 will continue to be my developer of choice with Delta 100.
