HP5+ vs Delta 400

Has anyone done extenisve testing of HP5+ and Delta 400 (in 35mm

preferrably)? I must say my testing so far has not revealed huge

differences. All I can see is a very little bit better edge sharpness

in the Delta 400 along with about 1/3 stop less speed. Developer is

Acutol.

 

I'm going to try FX-39 next to see if it reveals more differences.

I find that Delta 400 has a richer, more appealing tonal range

than hp5+ , slightly finer grain and at least half a stop more

speed in d-76. I like the film best when rated at around EI:

200-250 and processed in either Perceptol or Calbe A49 both

diluted 1:1

Mike,

I have shot tons of both.

It is all in the Developer and what you are looking for in a film.

 

If you want less grain....Delta 400 in Xtol or Ilfotec DDX

Delta 400 gets REALLY weird when pushed or when developed in Rodinal.

Delta does a good job at making cheap lenses look sharper.

 

HP5 is more fun to print than Delta.

 

HP5 is arguably one of the best films out there.

Developed in Pyro PMK it is amazing.

I have also run it in D76, Xtol and Rodinal and they all work fine (they all have the

look you would expect from each).

 

I know that you aren't a 'pusher' :)

But it should be mentioned that HP5 doesn't push as well as Tri X.

 

jmp

Hi Mike, can't say I've done extentsive testing and I'm more of a Tmax400 and tri-x user, mainly down to the prices I can get film at and I also like the thinner base of the Kodak films. If you like sharpness try the Delta in Ilfosol S, should come out pin sharp with pretty darn fine grain.

I would give Xtol 1+2 a try.

 

OK, I'm biased...

I ran some tests with 35mm Delta 400 in Calbe R09 the other day with the new Canon EOS.

 

Outdoors in full sun with incident meter/sunny sixteen rule required 4/3-stop extra exposure (ASA 160) to get Zone I at 0.1 density above bd+f of 0.25.

 

Diluted 1:100 @ 68 degrees, 10ml developer/ 1L distilled water in a Kindermann tank. Five quick inversions in five seconds at the top of each minute, for 15 minutes.

 

Printed beautifully with Omega D5 condenser head. Absolutely undetectable grain.

I'm not going to use developers other than Paterson's, but I'm curious as to whether any of you, using whatever developer you prefer, have found significant differences. I don't see significant differences between them in Acutol, only very subtle ones, which makes me wonder whether there is much difference between them. When I test them in FX-39 maybe there'll be more in favour of Delta 400.

"matthew stanton , oct 19, 2003; 02:13 a.m.

I find that Delta 400 has a richer, more appealing tonal range than hp5+ , slightly finer grain and at least half a stop more speed in d-76. I like the film best when rated at around EI: 200-250 and processed in either Perceptol or Calbe A49 both diluted 1:1"

 

In Acutol, Delta 400 seems to be about 200-250, HP5+ about 250-320.

Hi Mike...

I use a lot of HP5 plus in 220 size and some Delta 400 in 120 size and rate them both at 320. Both are great films! I develop both in ID-11 @1:1, and I have determined developing time for each by comparing neg contrast and by looking at the the information in the shadow areas. Delta 400 has a somewhat smoother grain structure but sharpness seems to be equal. HP5 plus grain is definitely not a problem and I use much more of it because Delta 400 is not available in 220.

bob

Well, I've shot a fair amount of both. Generally I develop in Rodinal 1:50 or Ilfotec DD-X. If I could only shoot one type of black & white film for the rest of my life, it would be HP-5+. It can hold detail in just about any reasonably exposed area, and it has a certain glow in the mid-tones.

Delta 400 is kind of OK, but the grain is mushy in 35mm. Edge detail and acutance are pretty non-existent on this film. That's true of nearly all tabular grain films, and it's just not my thing. Don't mistake mushy grained film for fine grain. The old Kodak Panatomic X was fine grain, and Efke 25 is fine grain. Both are around 25 ISO....you get the picture.

I do like Delta 400 in 120 size though. It's really nice for portraits and has smooth quality for skin tones.

My favourite is D400 in XTOL.

Try this site for a qualified oppinion..www.bjphoto.co.uk/cms/materials-reviews

The article is by Geoffrey Crawley who is more knowlagable than most on Ilford films.

I have run some initial tests of Delta 400 in Perceptol and liked the results. I'm about to run a test in Rodinal, 1:50. I'd be interested to know what dev times people are using - I have condenser head enlargers.

"

melvin bramley , oct 20, 2003; 12:56 a.m.

My favourite is D400 in XTOL. Try this site for a qualified oppinion..www.bjphoto.co.uk/cms/materials-reviews The article is by Geoffrey Crawley who is more knowlagable than most on Ilford films."

 

I found it here:

 

 

http://www.bjphoto.co.uk/cms/materials_reviews/bw_films/

Funny,I've just done the same myself.I found the Delta had the edge I wanted.Alot smoother with better tonal qualitys.

 

I think alot depends on what you want to photograph.maybe for ahard portrait I would use HP5.

 

I developed mine in ID11.

In the February issue of B/W Photography. They did a subjective review of the 7 400 speed B/W films in 35mm format. Neopan 400 came out on top, with Delta 400 a close second. Great article, check it out.