FP4 v Delta 100 / HP5 v Delta 400

[steve_robb1]

G'day everyone,

 

I'm getting back into B&W portraiture a lot lately, planning on doing a lot

more (mostly for display at home, and for family/friends. I'll be developing

my own negs, and at this stage probably getting the prints made down at a local

pro-lab. It's been a good ten years or so since I've developed my own, or been

in a dark room regularly, so I'm really looking forward to it.

 

The question I have is about films, I've seemed to have always had the best B&W

experience with Ilford films, but like I said, it's been a while since using

true black and white. I'm just wondering how people think the Delta's compare

with the older films? Is there a noticable difference? For better or worse?

I'll be using 120 (in 6x4.5 format), indoors with natural light, would anyone

recommend any one of these films over the others for that situation, and why

(other than the obvious, that I'd probably need the extra speed of the

HP5/Delta 400)?

 

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate your input. Of course, I know this is

another 'personal preferance' area, but I'd love to hear what those preferances

are.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Cheers,

Steve

[yann1]

About Delta 400, I don't like it, too contrasty, it's said to be sharper than HP5 with less apparent grain, but I disagree with that. Personally I love HP5, and can't find any better B&W iso400 film, (except for tri x). For the two iso100 films you mention, they're both good... Try both.

[steve_robb1]

Thanks for the insights Yann. What is it you like about Tri-X over HP5?

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

Steve,

 

I use all these films and really all I can say is that there is a more traditional look with FP4 and HP5 when compared to the Delta films. Doesnt mean one is better than the other so it probably means you need to shoot a mix until you see/feel the difference; or as an easier start, maybe a search on Flickr for examples of these films will begin to give you a feel. Technically, I do find HP5 to be of a lower contrast than Delta 400.

[yann1]

To answer your question: I like trix for street photos for its old look, but prefer HP5 for portraits, HP5 is more versatile I think and i use it in HC110, fine for me.

[spanky]

A lot depends on how the films are developed. Any film can come out too contrasty if it's developed too long or agitated to much. If you are having your film develped and printed in a lab ask to see some examples of finished work. The delta films are supposed to be finer grained then traditional films of the same speed. This does not mean the resulting prints will be sharper. I find traditional films to look sharper because of their grain which are like pebbles as opposed to T-grain films where the grains are flat and therefore softer looking.

[rustys pics]

There is no doubt that the Delta films are finer grained than the older tech films. They also

do not seperate highlights as well unless you're using a highly dilute developer.

Generally I prefer FP-4 and HP-5 because they are so easy to use under contrasty light. A

studio photographer might prefer the Delta films.

I think if you learn to use any of those films you'll be happy with the results.

[chris_waller]

FP4 and HP5 are 'old' type emulsions but more tolerant of exposure and development, within reason. Personally, I prefer Delta 100 for portraiture because it is finer-grained - I use Rodinal so grain is a consideration. For portraiture I would recommend a fine grain developer (e.g. ID11, D76) or ultra fine grain developer (e.g. Perceptol).

[User_502260]

Of the four films, FP4+ is probably the easiest to work with. It looks good in almost any developer, has good lattitude and nice tonality. The fact that you're shooting in the 6X45 format helps because FP4+ isn't as fine grained as Delta 100 but even up to 11X14 I think you'll find the grain of FP4+ more than acceptable. Some of my favorite developers for FP4+ include PC-TEA, AMALOCO AM 74, D-76and Clayton F60.

[mikeseb]

I've used them all with excellent results. Can't add much to the advice you've been given

here, except for two things:

 

1. Pick up Anchell and Troop's "film development cookbook";

2. consider buying the raw chemicals and a scale so you can make your own developers.

easy, cheap, and they're always fresh if you make your own;

3. try all of the above films in Xtol from 1+0 to 1+2. Fabulous results.

[steve_robb1]

Thankyou very much for the great responses guys, some very helpful information, especially about the developers. I have to admit, I don't remember exactly what chemicals I used to use, other that I'm pretty sure they were Ilford (I think I remember seeing the logo on everything). I had a rummage through my workroom last night and dug out all of my old prints that still had the negs grouped with them, so I could tell what films they were. I had a close look at them all under my big working magnifying lamp, and the FP4 looked noticably smoother than the other films (was also the only ISO125, the rest were all 400, which explains that!).

 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to refreshing my memory first hand and running a few films.

 

Thanks again for the advise. If you've got any other tips, recommendations, or other film preferances to compare with these, I'd still love to hear them.

 

Cheers,

Steve

[dave_redmann]

<I>Delta 400, I don't like it, too contrasty</I><P>

 

As others have alluded to, this statement is significantly lacking in context, and at most may be true in some standardized commercial film processing that somebody uses. If you don't want to get into real detail, suffice it to say that Delta 400 can have more <B>old less</B> contrast than HP5+, depending on how it is exposed and developed. If you want less contrast, exposure a bit more (say, rate it at EI 200 instead of EI 400) and develop for less time.<P>

 

That said, in truth the situation is more complex. "Contrast" covers several related but distinct issues: the shape of the "toe", or shadow areas; the slope of the main (usually but not universally relatively linear) mid-range; and the shape of the "shoulder" or highlight areas; etc. If you look at the Ilford data sheets (downloadable from their web site), you will get some ideas of this.<P>

 

Note also that the chosen developer, developer's temperature, and development time all affect contrast.<P>

 

All that said, when I shot 35mm B&W regularly, Delta 400 was my 'standard' film, usually developed in HC-110. I liked it a lot. Now I use a DSLR 95% of the time, and film only comes out for special reasons. For portraits, I'd probably go with Tri-X in DD-X in a 6x6 (really like the tonality, but a tad grainy in 35mm); for 35mm, I've used Delta 400, but I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer something else--try several and see what you like.

[chris_waller]

Following on from Dave's comment, I have shot Delta 400 (rated at 160 for bight conditions) and devved it in Rodinal 1:50, finding the shadows to be very open and the highlights well controlled.

[mattalofs]

I recently wrote about this on my blog. See <a href="http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/choosing-a-bw-film/">Choosing a B&W Film</a> for a discussion of the various merits and shortcomings of Delta 400, HP, Tri X and Tmax 400.

[rich815]

This is an amazingly subjective thing. We can all give opinions but in the end it's what you desire in the look you want from your B&W portraits. Some people, for example, love Tmax, I personally do not. I really like HP5+, FP4+, Plus-X, Delta 100 and Tri-X. But for different reasons. I happen to think Tri-X and Delta 100 can both look great for portraits but they have a very different look. Best you shoot some of each, experiment with different developers and see what you get and what you like. It's part of the fun, and part of evolvoing as a B&W photographer.

 

(my only suggestion to forget HP5+ in Rodinal, some like it, I certainly do not; but love Tri-X, FP4+ and Plus-X in Rodinal! And I love Delta 100 in D-76; have not been able to get myself to really like Delta 400 much in anything but have a few shots that look ok with it....see? Too much subjective opinion let alone differences in developers, techniques (development and exposure), lighting, subject matter, etc.)

[poah]

I like fp4 and plus-x for portrait work