I've developed 2 rolls of Delta 100: first in R09 @ 1+100; and the second in Perceptol 1+3 The first was much better than expected with a full range of tones. Exposure had to be correct or detail was lost in the shadows. In Perceptol there is a fine grain, a full range of tones with plenty of detail in the highlights and more detail in the shadows than with R09. This is my favourite film for landscape.

I had been very keen to try this professional quality film, so what would I load it into? Canon A-1? Minolta XG-M? I decided to give it a go in my 1960s Balda Super Matic with a broken, built-in Selenium Cell meter. Sunny 16s in a woodland park with dark shadows and bright highlights isn't easy or always successful, but the latitude of this film saved a few shots. Contrast, tonality and lack of grain make for very pleasing results and this film has all of that.

Quite contrasty, which I guess you either like or you don't. Depending whether contrast floats your boat.

This was pretty evenly-lit, from memory but the sky's blown.

Nice gritty feel to a set of pics shot as part of an ongoing project.

This has everything I'm looking for in a medium speed film. It has wonderful tonality and bags of detail. I'm not keen on very high contrast, so developed in Ilfotec DD-X I love the results. If you need more punch in your negs, you may have to push your development a little, but I like a neutral starting point.

This has been on my go on then - I'll try it list for a while. One too many Pinots, clicked the wrong button and ordered this instead of FP4.

But is it better than some of the other slow-speed films like FP or Kentmere..?

It's made by the same people, but badged as a 'professional' film - whatever that means these days.

So what's the difference..?

I gave it go on a couple of ongoing projects and was impressed by the lack of grain and sharpness of the scans after the Wondies got their hands on it.

And the usual tweaks you might perform like DR, contrast and a bit of clarity (posh word for sharpening, yah...) made them sing without throwing too much extra noise in.

It's just under a tenner a pop, so slightly more expensive than its stablemates.

Both have also delivered consistently good results for a few less beer tokens.

So like the shampoo commercial (for people who still have hair...) is it worth it..?

Maybe this has a slight edge, that little bit extra quality-wise when it comes to the end result.