Ilford film, what to buy

[zachariah_edwardson]

Hi,

 

I have recently bought a 35mm SLR and was planning to eventully do

some of my own B+W development. I do not have a darkroom right now,

but with Ilford films finacial issues, I wanted to go ahead and

stock up on their films, put them in the freezer, and know that if i

want to use there quality films, I will have access to them. What

would be a good "sample pack" of Black and white films that they

produce that would be worth keeping in a freezer for a year or so.

I have a Canon Elan 7 and do mostly landscapes, people, or when no

other subjects are around, flowers and other plants. I will go

ahead and get their c-41 film, so I am refering to there more

traditional b+w.

 

Thanks

[scott_eaton]

XP2 is a great film, but it doesn't differentiate itself from other C-41 materials to bother stocking it up.

 

I'll think you'll get a concensus that HP5 is Ilford's premiere B/W film, followed by FP4.

[ronald_moravec1]

My favorite is Ilford Delta 100 or delta 400. These developed in ID11 full strength one shot produce outstanding results. You need to work out the proper times with your equipment. My time is 10-15% less than the recommended time and I use a condenser enlarger.

[ronald_moravec1]

Woops, now we have a difference of opinion. That what happens when you ask a question like this. Everybody appreciates some particular quality more than others. I like the sharpness and fine grain of Delta films. Others may appreciate the more old fashoned look of HP5 and FP4, and I must admit they are nice too.

 

Try a few test shots with a partial roll, work our your times of development, and shoot some static repeatable subjects with your choices. This will tell you what you like. Some like Fords. Some Chevys.

[matt_pearson]

I happen to really enjoy PanF and Delta 3200 (talk about opposites). I tend to like really slow or really fast films. I, too, am building a 'sample pack' of ilfords that I haven't tried yet.

 

Delta 3200 is kind of strange to develop-- if done according to the instructions, it's a little shabby (IMHO). I learned from the forum and looking at examples that developing +1 yields much better results. If you happen to check my portfolio, there is a 'single image' that is done with 3200 in a lab. It is much worse than other examples that are lingering in others' 'folios. I just developed my very first batch of 3200 last night... they make me MUCH more happy than the rolls I've had done at labs.

 

Lessee... I guess I don't have as much experience with the middle speed films. PanF can make very purtty images.

[andy_piper2]

I use 2 Ilford films because they stand out:

 

Pan F because a) it provides fine grain with less highlight/contrast headaches than 100TMax or the late Tech Pan, and b) because it gives me the widest range of shutter speed/aperture combinations in sunlight, where faster films leave me stuck with f/16 and 1/500-1/1000 or thereabouts. Pan F in DDX does wonderful things with tonal range in the whites, even in harsh light.

 

Delta 400 because it has a bit more "real" speed in the shadows than either HP5 or Tri-X - if I bother to shoot 400 at all (actually, 640 with Delta and normal processing), it's in low light, and I might as well get the most image, or a higher shutter speed, for my grain.

[lee_shively]

Pan F and HP5. Good old traditional films with tonalities that will bring a tear to your eye. Just thinking about them makes me want to buy a couple of hundred more rolls.

[jack paradise]

I dont think it's worth stocking up on Ilford film. First, there's no immediate plan to cease film production. Second, even if it would happen, there's a film mfg somewhere in the world that would buy the licence to mfg ilford films.

 

A good general purpose, medium speed and fine grain film is Ilford FP4+. Easy to work with and to develop enlarges to 15x without any problem.

[rich815]

I considered this recently when I decided I should "stock up" in case their emulsions were no longer available. I went to B&H and started adding 50 roll orders into my cart. A bit of XP2 (I simply love the stuff and like the way it scans, even though I could do desaturated color), a bit of HP5, some Delta 400, and so on, both 35mm and 120. Then I looked at the cart and the price for all my choices. Ouch. So, I decided that as much as I do *like* Ilford's emulsions with the proper exposure, handling, development, and scanning technique I can get great results from Tri-X, Neopan 400 and even the occasioanal Tmax 100 and 400. So in the end I just loaded up on XP2. Kodak has C-41 equivalents but I do not like them nearly as much. While I do like Neopan 400 and Tri-X a lot and can live in a world without HP5 and the others if I have to. But that's just me.

[emp]

You can't go wrong with FP4+. It's got great tonality and fine grain for 35mm. I've shot some of my favorite images on FP4+, both 35mm and 120.<br><br>

And I wouldn't start panicking just yet about Ilford going under. Clearly, there's still a market for traditional black & white. It's just smaller now. The industry will adjust and the best products (many of which are made by Ilford) will survive. Of course no one can predict the future, but I don't think I'm alone in my thinking.

[nathan_dandar]

If you're going all-Ilford, here's MY take on it:

 

-Low speed (ISO 50): Pan F Plus.

-Medium speed (ISO 125): FP4+

-High speed (ISO 400): HP5+

-Ultra high speed (ISO 3200): only one choice.. Delta 3200

 

PanF Plus has incredibly small grain and superb tonality that I think is wonderful for people. Many will recommend Delta 100 in place of both PanF AND FP4+ because it has similar grain to PanF but has the higher speed of FP4+. I personally dislike Delta 100 when compared to standard B&W films but it's a great film on its own! What I'm finding with these "tabular grain" films like Ilford's Delta line and Kodak's TMax line is that exposure and development is very picky and that latitude is slightly compromised all of which seems to cancel out half of the reason to shoot B&W film in the first place. On top of that, the tonality of those films is different than standard-grain B&W films like FP4+ and some hate it.. I don't love it, don't hate it but certainly don't like it. The tonality of Delta 100 seems to be a bit nicer than Kodak 100TMX while having a bit larger grain (100TMX seriously has almost *invisible* grain). FP4+ seems more pleasant to look at and easier to work with as well as being more flexible, to me.

 

Then there's HP5+ for ISO 400.. I've had mixed results and ended up giving up on it and going for Kodak Tri-X (Kodak's ISO 400 traditional B&W film) instead. I purchased a 100' roll of it and have since used it up and loved every roll. Very pushable. Very good tonality. Excellent film. HP5+ seemed too murky to me for some reason even though most say they can't tell the two films apart side by side... So it was probably my mistake in development that caused the differences. Grain also seemed larger with HP5+ even though some say the opposite is true when compared to Tri-X. They're so similar, it's probably best to just choose one, figure out the subtle aspects of processing it and just go for it. (One day, I decided to develop HP5+ in HC110 instead of my usual Xtol and was blown away at how much better it looked. Unexplainable but true in my case. I still go through liters of Xtol for Tri-X though)

 

Delta 3200 is their only ultra speed film and it works. Grainy, as you'd expect. The tabular grain structure helps keep grain to a minimum (for a 3200 speed film that is). The other contenders out there are Fuji Neopan 1600 or Kodak TMax 3200... or even HP5+ pushed to 1600 or 3200 really.

 

Ok this is getting too long. In the end, the next time I order film, it will be a 100' roll of Ilford PanF Plus, a 100' roll of Ilford FP4+ and a 100' roll of Kodak Tri-X. PanF was just so impressive to me... aughghgh.. making me drool.

[25asa]

If I had a pick I'd get a small amount of FP4+, then get larger amounts of Pan F and HP5+. This is in all formats. Especially with 4x5 getting harder to get, I'd stock up on it first. They have a sale on Ilford 35mm in one store here, so I'm hitting it up first.

[frank.schifano]

I'd go with some FP4+ and HP5+. You'll cover most of your needs with those two films. They are both good. Pan F+ is very fine grained and very sharp but it can be tricky, more tricky than TMX which some say is even sharper and finer grained. If you are not careful with it, the contrast goes too high making it difficult to print. Pan F+ and TMX do look different though, so a lot depends on your taste and the subject matter. A few rolls of Delta 3200 will fill in at those times when you just have to have the speed and the grain be damned. I can't say anything about the other Delta films, since I don't use them. For my personal use I stock up on either Tri-X or HP5+ (whichever is cheaper when I need it), FP4+, TMX, and TMY in bulk. For ultra fast films, I use TMZ. I don't think it's really any better or worse than Delta 3200, just a bit different and I've grown comfortable with it.

[robert_marvin]

I like HP 5 and FP 4 and just bought 100 (120 size) rolls of each to ease the

pain if Ilford were to cease production. My wife is rather upset about the

amount of space this takes in our freezer, so I wouldn't dream of buying a

lifetime supply--if the worst happens, there are other B & W films I could be

happy with and I'm sure at least a few will remain in production for the rest of

my photographic life (I'm 59 now, so I'm most oncerned about the next 15--20

years).

 

Although I seldom use chromogenic B & W films, I disagree with the person

who said that XP 2 doesn't distinguish itself from other c-41 B & W films. It

certainly does, by virtue of having NO orange mask--in my experience, it

prints quite easily on conventional paper. I use it in 35 mm when I need a

quick set of prints(without adding to my VAST printing backlog), with the

option of making "real" prints later.

[andrew_oneill]

They're all good....especially HP5+...sorry, had to say that.

[phillip_p._dimor]

I like Ilford Delta 400. I don't think you could go wrong with any of their films but HP5 is practically failproof.

[frank.schifano]

Nathan:

 

I too have found that HP5+ can be a bit flat compared to Tri-X, but it's nothing that can't be remedied. HP5+ is a particularly developer hungry film, so much so that I think we may be seeing some subltle effects of developer exhaustion if using the minimum amount of developer in dilute solutions. Bumping the minimum amount of stock for XTOL or D-76 up from 100 to 150 ml/roll and increasing my development times by about 5% to 10% (dependent upon the lighting conditions) gives me negatives that print almost the same as Tri-X when both are rated at box speed. And while I don't particularly like Tri-X developed in Rodinal, HP5+ in Rodinal is a disaster.

[gregg_cook]

Yeah, Frank said it right...

 

HP5 is failproof in xtol when you get the routine down real similar to what he

said.fear no overdevelopment when close. It is failproof when you know it ,

even pushed to 800 or 1600. (I use a lot of the stuff at 800 and with about 14

and a half or 15 minutes at 70 to 68 degrees F respectiviely it never fails me.

Even when I'm way off I get stuff I can print. When Ilford gave the stuff away

with photo paper 25 apcks a few years ago they hooked me in.

 

I'm about to order 2 100' rolls of hp5 and one of fp4.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

The Ilford Delta's and Fuji Neopan films are excellent emulsions.

 

Russ