Ilford film, opinions, experience

[melvin_bressler1]

Hi: I just got several rolls of short dated Ilford HP5 (400) and Pro 400.

 

Any tips? What's the difference between them? Can they be developed in D

76, and if so, what is 'normal' time at say 68 deg?

 

Outdoors, I shoot tri x at 320, not 400. Should I do the same with these?

 

Thanks.

[steve g]

Hp5 is to trix what delta is to tmax. This is the traditional grain vs tabular grain deal. I like delta better than tmax as I feel it is a bit smoother, less 'salt n pepper' look to it, and also more tolerant of exposure/development error.

<br><br>I prefer Hp5 more in general anyway, but that is my personal taste in 400 speed film, as I feel whatever 400 speed you use, you are going to see the grain, and I like the traditional grain structure better. However, on 100 speed films I prefer tabular grain as it doesn't show up in the print as much as traditional does. Hope that makes sense<br><br>As for exposure and development, I have little trouble with Hp5 at its rated speed and suggested dev time, and I use D76. If I am going to push I use Microphen.

[dsquires]

hp5 rocks my socks.

<br><br>

I'm not sure about rating it at 320, but you can easily push it to 1600 with good results.

<br><br>

use <a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html">this</a> to find development times for all of your favorite films.

<br><br>

alternatively, you can find the hp5 tech sheet <a href="http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/HP5_Plus.pdf">here.</a>

[olivier_reichenbach]

HP5 is not unlike Kodak's Tri-X, Curiously, I've never heard of Pro 400. But then maybe

it's just me. Yes, you could overexpose a tiny bit.

 

While on the Ilford subject, may I encourage all b&w shooters to buy Ilford films? They're

going through rough times and they need all the support they can gather. After all, they

have provided us with the finest b&w films for a long time. They're all good or excellent. I,

for one, am going to shoot almost exclusively Ilford b&w from now on.

[graham_morriss2]

HP5 is wonderful film i use it pretty much exclusivly I rate at 320 and develop it in id-11 1:1 for 11.5 mins

[jeff_lu]

i love hp5+, too, and i always rate it at 320 and develop it at 400 in d76 1:1 for whatever

time the temperature and ilford chart dictates

 

i'm annoyed that b&h has been out of it for the past few days...

[huw_finney]

I use Ilford all the time, usualy at it's rated speed, the only exception being delta3200 (rate at 1600 and develop for 3200). FP4 for 5x4 and the Deltas for 35mm.

[nathan_dandar]

HP5 is actually very close to Tri-X.. a slightly different tonality but if you shot a frame with each film and developed them the same, you'd have a hard time figuring out which is which by simply looking at them. I simply like the grain structure of Tri-X more, myself.

<p>

Here's an old shot someone posted here long ago showing two identical shots he shot with Tri-X and HP5 and developed both rolls in the same tank with the same developer for the same amount of time. These are 100% crops out of the frame.

<p>

<img src=http://www.pbase.com/chiapuke/image/35220307.jpg>

<p>

I personally love Ilford FP4+. I've been very very impressed with it. I also love Ilford PanF+ and plan on collecting as much of both of those films as possible. I believe my next film order will be a 100' roll of Tri-X, a 100' roll of PanF+ and a 100' roll of FP4+.

[scott_eaton]

HP5 blows TMAX 400 *away*.

 

You can debate Tri-X vs HP5, but the Ilford film is great. Easy to process, shoot, etc. You'll have a harder time getting 'bad' negs combined with D-76 than good negs.

[lee_shively]

I love HP5. I've used it and Pan F almost exclusively for the past couple of years. Compared to Tri-X, HP5 has tones that resemble Tri-X if you shot it with a #8 yellow filter. I shoot it at 400 and process it in D76 1:3 for about 16 minutes @ 68 degrees. It has great latitude in exposure and processing. I'm not familiar with Pro 400 film.

[jorge]

90% of my photography is done with HP5+. it's a fabulous film; very forgiving, easily pushed to 1600 and works with a dozen developers. generally, I get the best results with Xtol 1:1 but HC-110-B works perfectly also. D-76 should be a no-brainer too.

 

One caveat; while HP5+ is very tolerant of underexposure and pushes easily, it's not very well suited to overexposure/underdeveloping. You risk blocking the highlights. Use 400 as your lowest rating.

 

Ilford expiration dates are usually very conservative. Recently I found some HP5+ 120 rolls dated 2001 that were left behind among more recent batches. They're giving me perfect results.

[peter_williams2]

Before I gave up film based photography I had pretty much standardised on HP5 developed in Rodinal as my high speed film. It gave excellent tones with a real glow to the prints.

[stuart_richardson]

I love Delta 100 -- it has an incredible tonal range and super fine grain. Here is an

example of it developed in Xtol, 1:1. <P><img src="http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/

~srichardson/rose.jpg">

[jakub 1664876965]

Another vote for HP5+. I use it almost exclusively. I am the perfectionist, but I'm absolutely satisfied with results. I know that many people here don't like combination of HP5 with Rodinal, but I love it. It gives unbeatable sharpness , great tonality and beatiful grain structure. I like enlargements 30 x 40 cm and have no problems with grain size. I use 1+50, 11min., agitation 2x every minute, condenser head enlarger.

[Robin Smith]

I shoot Delta 400 and Delta 100 - superb modern films. HP5 and FP4 are also excellent, but I prefer the finer grain of the Deltas myself. The Deltas develop very nicely in D76 or ID-11 although they are probably less forgiving of exposure or development time errors than the traditional FP4 and HP5.

[jan_brittenson]

Delta100 works well in just about anything from Rodinal to Microdol-X or Xtol. Delta400 in FX-39. D100 is good in FX-39 also. 1+9 5min 68F is a good starting point for either. I like D400 (FX-39 1+4/1+9/1+14, EI320) indoors, D100 (Microdol-X 1+1, EI 50) outdoors. If you shoot 120 I'd check out Efke R25 for outdoor use. It's a bit grainy for 35mm, but stunning in 6x7 and up. If I have nothing else to do I like to grab a fistful of R25, the Mamiya 7, 43mm lens, a few filters (#11, #25) and hop on the bike for a ride around town. Actually, if I didn't have the Ma7 I'd probably try loading KB25 into the Bessa T with a 15 or 21mm -- and then see how it works with Xtol.

[steve_swinehart]

Love the Ilford films. I really like both HP-5 and Delta 400 developed in Photgrapher's Formulary MCM-100. I like the Delta 400 a bit better because of the grain structure. Both films will give shadow detail and highlight detail with a ton of greys between. Expensive developer per roll - but the results are well worth the cost.

[fp1]

Opinion? Ok. Here's mine:

 

Ilford make the absolute best black and white film. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.

 

All Ilford films, when exposed and developed properly, are beautiful. Delta 100 made

me sell my digtal cameras. Really.

 

Ilford films smell good! I love the smell of FP4 in the morning. Seriously, I like the

smell of a fresh roll wafting out from my GA645.

 

Ilford films practically GLIDE onto reels for developing! This is more important than

you might think, unless you've spit, cursed and cried all the while bending and

creasing the hell out of TriX or Tmax while trying to get that ghastly stuff on a reel.

What a nightmare.

 

My favorites:

Delta 100--incredibly "round" film; phenomenal tonality. Softly sharp. The film

equivalent of an excellent Merlot.

 

Delta 3200--I expose this at 800, smooth, consistent, pleasing grain. A truly

beautiful film.

 

Delta 400--Pushed to 800, resembles 3200 @ 800, soft, impressionistic quality.

 

Pan F 50--Delta 100 on steroids. (See Delta 100). Film equivalent of a hearty

Cabernet Sauvignon.

 

FP4--Best all around shooting black and white film.

[aa2000]

Cool, F Stopme. Glad to hear that somebody else loves how the film smells. :)