Ilford Hp5 Plus 400 ISO - can we get some love?

[kshapero]

Freestyle had a great price on this film, so I picked 12 rolls. But I have never used HP5 before. What can I expect? Differences from Tri-X? This is 35mm film.:angel:

 

[Ljós]

You can expect great tonality, slightly more noticeable grain than the current Tri-X, since the current Tri-X was changed/improved over 5063 TX.
For a developer, many love Kodak HC-110 Dil. B., a starting point could be 5:30 minutes at 20 deg. Celsius/68 deg. Fahrenheit.

The film dries with less curl (for me) than Tri-X oder TMY2, and will have no color stain after drying like the current Tri-X.

A great film, I am pondering returning to HP5 after a longish stint with TMY2, also an amazing film. Unfortunately there has now opened a larger and larger price gap between Hp5 and Tri-x/TMY2 here in Europe. Funny that a film made in England should be more expensive than one that has to be shipped overseas, sigh...

All the best,
Ljós

 

[paulfish4570]

i much like hp5. longer tonality than tri-x, and it dries so much flatter. i run hp5 in tmax developer 1+9. mucho samples in my gallery.

 

[oftheherd]

...

The film dries with less curl (for me) than Tri-X oder TMY2, and will have no color stain after drying like the current Tri-X.
...

I don't have much experience with the newer Ilford films except their chromogenic. But I do remember when I used to use them that they did dry pretty much flatter. More importantly to me, you just couldn't make them dry with water spots.

 

[semrich]

I'm close to a decision to use only HP5 once I run through my current stock of assorted B&W film. I like everything about HP5, it pushes nice, great tones, comes in 135 and 120, as others have commented it dries flat without water marks, and the intention of backing a company dedicated to preserving film and papers.

 

[kshapero]

i much like hp5. longer tonality than tri-x, and it dries so much flatter. i run hp5 in tmax developer 1+9. mucho samples in my gallery.

Love your gallery, thanks

 

[Keith]

I think part of the reason for using HP5 is in knowing it should be around for the long haul ... I have my doubts about Neopan and who knows where Kodak is going!

Like Richard I'm thinking of making it my 'go to' black and white film when what I'm currently using runs out.

 

[zauhar]

I just started using HP5 and I was surprised by the greater contrast in shadows - Tri-X looks "blocky" by comparison.

I looked at HP5 as a replacement for Tri-X, but I think it is more than that.

Randy

 

[Austerby]

HP5+ and FP4+ are by far my most used films.

 

[andredossantos]

Differences from Tri-X?

Yes. Its better 😀

 

[Turtle]

I dont think it is 'better' than TriX so much as different. I think TriX is finer grained, while HP5+ has more sparkle at times. TriX has more mid tone separation, HP5+ may have more shadow separation (not that I have noticed).

I have used this film in DDX, Aculux 2, Xtol 1+1 etc and all appear 'HP5 ish', but I would give the edge to Aculux 2 for good detail and lovely sparkle. You lose speed tho.

I know Roger Hicks likes it in DDX, which will also give lots of speed.

 

[bobby_novatron]

I really enjoy using HP5+, it's a versatile and consistent performer. It has nice tones overall, decent grain, and flexible exposure latitude.

I'm starting to use it more and more now as a replacement for Neopan 400, which seems to have been discontinued.

+1 for HP5 in HC-110, I've used it in dilution B or dilution H with excellent results.

Drying flat? Maybe it's the climate I live in (always a relative humidity of 30% or less around here) but HP5+ tends to dry with moderate curl. A few days in a calculus textbook cures that problem. In my experience FP4+ dries much flatter than HP5+, but I prefer the 'look' of HP5+.

I'm also a fan of Tri-X, but I find (to my eyes) that HP5+ has smoother separation of tones, especially in the dark areas / shadows (as Turtle mentioned). Maybe it's that I've never gotten the hang of Tri-X, I dunno. I just like HP5+ a little better.

Good luck with your HP5+, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

 

[shadowfox]

I even like it in Rodinal.
Yes, I can see the grain, that's part of the charm 🙂

 

[Chuck Albertson]

Good stuff, very similar to Tri-X; they're both bulletproof in terms of absorbing your mistakes in exposure/processing and still producing a decent negative. I used to process it in Rodinal (expose it at EI 250 if you're going to do that), but now soup it in Xtol 1:1 (expose it at EI 500 if you're going to do that).

 

[semilog]

Yes. Its better 😀

I don't know if the current versions are better, but when I shot both in the 80's and 90's, I always preferred the results with HP5 vs. Tri-X.

 

[paulfish4570]

here is one i just put up on the gallery (tmax 1+9):

 

[sepiareverb]

Incredibly versatile film. I shoot it at 400 the most, but also at 800 a fair bit and 50 on occasion. Perhaps my most used film.

 

[f16sunshine]

Bob, Paul and Will Nice sample pics.
Hey more samples please folks! 😀

I love the stuff. Wish there were some deals on 120 this past year as there were on 135. I have about 100 rolls of 35mm. I find it works great in Tmax dev from 100-1600 or in Rodinal for more grain.

@200 in tmax dev 6min @20c

@1600 in tmax dev 9.5 @20c

@100 Rodinal 1:50 (lots nice grain)

 

[jpa66]

I dont think it is 'better' than TriX so much as different. I think TriX is finer grained, while HP5+ has more sparkle at times. TriX has more mid tone separation, HP5+ may have more shadow separation (not that I have noticed).

I agree. To me, it seems that HP5+ is "creamier", as well. My preferred developer was a cocktail of HC-100/Rodinal ( 8ml/3ml + the rest water ), but lately I've been liking the results in Pyrocat.

I would add that I prefer Tri-x, but that's just me.

 

[paulfish4570]

that bottom shot has a nice 3d effect; all fine shots.