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

You can expect a film that will probably make you stop using Tri-X. Especially if you like Rodinal and want a film you can shoot from 400 - 1600.

I was really impressed with the first rolls I shot. Faster development times in Rodinal and way better looking ISO 1600. Seems sharper too, but Tri-X was fine for me too in that regard. I bought more cans of it instead of Tri-X when it was time to restock.

It actually dries without arching and flattens well when compressed under some books. The Tri-X I shot dried like the St Louis arch and after days under a pile of books was still bowed.

Yay HP5+ :D
 
HP5 is the film I keep coming back to. Here are a few recent shots,

6216599358_0be80aa66a_z.jpg


6216083227_53612b3c66_z.jpg


6216598302_54637bce7b_z.jpg
 
Used Hp5 years ago but for me it's Tri X till it's gone for good. Will decide then what to do if that comes to pass...
 
I use HP5 all the time since I started scanning my negs. Not only does it dry pretty flat, but I think the richer tones give you more to work with when scanning.

Steve
 
Hp5+ is a great all-around film to buy in bulk, for it can behave somewhat like an ISO 100 film in terms of tonality when shot @200, as well as a grittier/contastier Tri-X film when pushed. It is the swiss-army knife of films.
When Arista Premium 400 (Tri-X for $2.50 ea.) is gone, I will switch to Hp5+.
 
Last edited:
One of the two best classic grain 400 ISO films (with Tri-X), and the differences with Tri-X are very hard to find if any when exposed at 400 and properly processed in D76 1+1 or 1+3.

Both have a colour tint base (the Tri-X being slightly more pink but not for much, but the HP5+ is not as neutral as, say, the late Neopan 400, actually it's pearl grey-brown) and both dry 100% flat* and scan well.

So as for choosing between the two, price at the time of buying decides for me.

This week-end I'm enlarging (wet dark room, 24x24cm FB prints) some HP5+ and Tri-X 120 shots, can't see any actual difference, was it for grain, contrast, tonal range, midtones, etc.

*curl may happen with films which driy at too high a temperature, HP5+ which quietly dries at living-room temperature over the bath tube won't curl.
 
FalseDigital said:
Can someone explain to me the major difference between Ilford Pan 400 and Illford HP5+?
Click to expand...

Pan 400 seems to be an old emulsion -- I've heard some people swear it's HP4. I don't know about that, but there's a definite difference between the two films.

I got hold of a few bricks of Pan400 (from a friend in Bangkok, interesetingly) and the grain is definitely different than HP5+ -- more noticeable and just seems like an older film. I like it, but it's different.

Not quite sure about this film - some stunningly gorgeous negs to print when I pushed it in DD-X but average when I shot it at 400 in Rodinal...YMMV of course.
 
I wasn't happy with the shadow detail I was getting out of HP5+ until I started shooting it at ie 250. I was accustom to Tri Xs toe and HP5 at 400 just didn't look 'right' to me.

I'd love to figure out how to be happy with the results I get shooting it at a higher speed as I'd like to use the same film in all formats I shoot (35mm, 120, 4x5) but its tough to give up that little bit of extra speed I get out of Tri X as I'm usually short on light.

I need to go back and try HP5 with some other developers (maybe XTOL?) to see if I can get results I'm more happy with. Or who knows, maybe I'd be more happy with it pushed than I am shooting at 400. ;)
 
Colin Corneau said:
Pan 400 seems to be an old emulsion -- I've heard some people swear it's HP4. I don't know about that, but there's a definite difference between the two films.

I got hold of a few bricks of Pan400 (from a friend in Bangkok, interesetingly) and the grain is definitely different than HP5+ -- more noticeable and just seems like an older film. I like it, but it's different.

Not quite sure about this film - some stunningly gorgeous negs to print when I pushed it in DD-X but average when I shot it at 400 in Rodinal...YMMV of course.
Click to expand...

If it is indeed HP4, I will pick some up. I switched back to Tri-X when HP5 replaced HP4; I had loved HP4. I have been shooting some HP5+ lately, but haven't processed it yet.

Truth be told, I think I like TMY-2 the best of the lot, but may give Delta 400 a try if it looks like Kodak closes shop on TMY-2 ... or film in general.
 
HP5 is the film of films for a large format shooter. Unless I'm messing around with Line Film (ISO 6) or such, I'll never need anything else. This is HP5 pushed two stops to ISO1600 in undiluted D76 developer, on a 12x16in darkroom print:

twice_bitten__not_shy_by_philosomatographer-d3hky2o.jpg

(1950s Schneider Convertible Symmar 150mm at f/5.6, Linhof Technika V)
​
 
philosomatographer said:
HP5 is the film of films for a large format shooter. Unless I'm messing around with Line Film (ISO 6) or such, I'll never need anything else. This is HP5 pushed two stops to ISO1600 in undiluted D76 developer, on a 12x16in darkroom print:

twice_bitten__not_shy_by_philosomatographer-d3hky2o.jpg

(1950s Schneider Convertible Symmar 150mm at f/5.6, Linhof Technika V)
​
Click to expand...


Wow ... that's really beautiful. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom