[Leica] Tri-X vs Delta 3200 test results

[Christer Almqvist <chris@almqvist.net>]

<fontfamily><param>New_York</param>Benefitting from having  two M6s and
being able to shoot two films under identical circumstances, I recently
compared Delta 3200 to Tri-X. Both films were exposed at an e.i of.
1600 because the French magazine R=E9ponses Photo found there was a loss
of shadow details if Delta 3200 was exposed at 3200 or higher.


The M6 light meter was used, and I took care not to include any direct
light sources when metering. There was one exposure as metered and two
underexposed (by one and by two steps) and two overexposed (ditto). The
scenes photographed included people at an outdoor caf=E9 at around
midnight, the opening night at a photo exhibition (very contrasty
light), a young man in his kitchen lit by a mixture of natural light
and fluorescent tubes as well as a few other scenes.


The films were developed in Xtol diluted 1+1 for 13 minutes at 20=B0/68=B0
with very gentle agitation for 10 secs every minute. Kodak's
recommended time for Tri-X would be 11.75 minutes, but I have always
found it necessary  to  increase their times by about ten percent
(capacity???). The Delta 3200 time is in line with what R=E9ponses Photo
used, although I had to convert their 'undiluted' times to 1+1 times.


The unadjusted exposures came out just fine, and both films had about
the same densities. The print exposure times (as measured by an RH
Analyser) were within one-fifth stop of each other and the paper grades
for a specific scene were the same  for both films,  except for the
caf=E9 scenes where Delta needed a harder grade paper.


The prints made were 9.5 x 12"  (24 x 30 cm) but some of them were of
parts of the negative and enlarged 16 times; that is the maximum for my
Leica V35 enlarger.


Good ol' Tri-X came out very well in the comparison. I looked for
grain, sharpness (as I define it) and shadow details when viewing the
prints.


Delta 3200 had more shadow detail than Tri-x (dark trousers of the
young man in the kitchen, black T-shirts worn by some people at the
caf=E9), but Tri-X had more 'punch' in  some other areas. Given a choice,
I prefer 'punch' to shadow details in trousers and T-shirts. A brick
wall painted white has some more  grey shades on the Delta print than
on the Tri-X print. The prints were both made on the same grade paper
as this was what RH Analyser said, but the negative seems to have the
same amount of details, so I guess this is a result of how the Analyser
reacts to different film bases.


Looking at underexposed negatives, Tri-X comes out on top. I guess this
is because the development time increase for Tri-X at 3200 is just
under two minutes (as per Kodak), but it is six minutes for Delta (as
per R=E9ponses Photo).


I guess that with an e.i. of 6400 the results will be different, but
for 1600 I am sticking to Tri-X.</fontfamily>

- --

christer almqvist

eichenstrasse 57, d-20255 hamburg, fon +49-40-407111 fax
+49-40-4908440

14 rue de la hauteur, f-50590 regn=E9ville-sur-mer, fon+fax +33-233 45 35
58