Anybody using Ilford 400 iso films?

Using HP5 for a while and pushed it to 1600 a bunch of times. Very reliable results and there are some examples in my gallery. Never got into the Delta films all that much. I tried a couple of rolls of each but the look made me go "Blah". To develop I use what Ilford recommends which is DDX. Consistent and reliable results.
 
I have always hated any film made by Ilford.

I do however love Fuji Neopan 400. Excellent grain, tones and contrast control.
 
As an aside, has anyone tried HP5+ in Pyrocat HD? I picked some up and am having trouble finding dilutions and times. Heaven forbid I do my own experiments with it ;)
 
Do you mean pushed?
The shoulder (highlights) accepts a couple of stops of pulling, so exposing as 200 or so should give decent results.


telenous said:
I use XP2 all the time and I like it a lot. Likewise for Delta 100. I haven't made my mind up yet about Delta 400; I tend to agree that it is not one to be pulled.
Click to expand...
 
I've used both Delta 400 and Hp5/Hp5+ over a number of years. HP5 has coarser more noticeable grain on even-toned areas but is much more forgiving. Delta 400 is wonderful for it's sharpness and fine grain but it requires much more care in exposure (a thin neg just doesn't print). Probably linked to this it doesn't push as well either.

Neither is quite as good as FP4+ for me, but that may just be habit?
 
I'm new at this game but I'm currently using Ilford HP5+ and HC-110. I can't comment if it's good or bad but I like it.
 
I use XP2 for the ease of getting it processed fast. Also, it is quite forgiving, and I tend to go out without a meter (using a Leica IIIf) and just more or less eyeball the exposure, based on my rough reciprocal of the ISO exposure guide: of course that gets a wee bit tricky in low light. By sticking to one ISO most of the time, I am trying to get to the point where a meter will be more or less unecessary.
 
thanks everyone for your thoughts...so HP5+ is grainier compared to Delta 400, but what about contrast? which has more? i know developing and printing has a lot to do with it, but given the same circumstances?.......

i've only tried Delta 400 but i'm really curious about HP5+. i really have to be careful for the reason that, it's hard to find ilford films here in the philippines, and if it is available, it's kinda pricey. sometimes i have to ask my mom to get them in the u.s. but with bulk buying, price and quality really matters.

thanks again in advance for your replies.
 
HP5+ has less contrast than Delta which explains some of why it's easier to use. If you push film (underexpose/overdevelop) you increase contrast, shadow detail (toe of characteristic curve) is improved but highlights (shoulder) may go beyond the printable range. Start with a less contrasty film (flatter characteristic curve) & you can push more. FWIW also explains why I prefer fp4+ which has a bit more contrast and sparkle & which you can push to 250ASA. Get a summilux and use slower film!!
 
For the bulk of my b/w work, it's a 60/40 mix of XP2 and HP5: in XP2's favor, of course, is the convenience factor in terms of processing (bring to any place that handles C41, but try and be a bit choosy with your labs), and, since I do all my own printing (digitally, with the occasional wet print thrown in), I don't have to worry about color casts in my prints since, in my workflow, there aren't any. The film also posesses a fairly elastic exposure index (expose from as low as EI 50 to as high as EI 800, without altering processing times; depending on whom you ask, the "sweet spot" seems to be anywhere from EI 200-320). I've shot a lot of this stuff for a number of years, and it is one of my three "go-to" emulsions (the other two being Kodak Portra 160NC and Fuji Press 400/800).

As conventional b/w emulsions go, it's really hard to fault HP5: depending on your confort level with using different developers, this film can do just about anything you ask of it. There are exceptions, of course, but these depend on your expectations and experience (and, in some cases, how fast your lanses are). I rate exposure at EI 320 and process in HC-110.

And, of course, there's always Tri-X, which also has its strengths. A fellow photographer I know, who has used HP5 as his mainstay for at least a decade, recently switched to Tri-X; for what it's worth, he did this after having abandoned film entirely for digital, learned a lot in the process, then ditched the digital gear a year later and returned to film. You can draw your own conclusions from this.:)


- Barrett
 
In an effort to get comfortable with non-Kodak films (just in case, you know), I tried HP5 for a while. I eventually decided I preferred Tri-X, but the differences between the two are subtle.

HP5 is less contrasty, in my experience, which is good and bad. On a bright day with contrasty subjects, it tends to smooth out the image in a very pleasing way. For most of my shooting, though, HP5 looked a little too much like middle grey for my tastes.

It also has a more noticeable grain pattern. Not much more so, but the grain is especially prominent in areas of a negative with light, even appearance (a blank wall, cloudless sky, etc.).

If you develop your own B&W, one quirk of HP5 can be annoying. I found that HP5 had strong film curl under certain weather conditions. I don't know if others have noticed this, but I did.
 
I used Delta (and Delta Pro) 400 and 100 for a couple of years. However much I tried to love it, it still didn't give me the same "snap and sparkle" of FP4 & HP5, so I went back to FP4 and HP5 (and Pan F) for special situations.

All of them get developed in Barry Thornton's two bath developer for about 4 minutes 15 seconds in each bath.

Consistent and repeatable results every time.
 
I have not used any C41 Ilford films so cannot comment 'too' much on home use. However from the results that I have seen from my college courses is that it does have a reduced grain but somehow lack the edge definition compared to the more traditional emultions.

From personal use I love FP4+ @ISO125, lets me selectively focus much better than using a faster film. My mainstay has to be HP5+ @ISO400 which I bulk load. For me a good balance between speed/contrast/grain. FP4 and HP5 I dev in Rodinal (love the stuff) and TMAX. I have a bottle of DD-X as my next soup.


I've also used Delta 400 and really like the smoothness of contrast (developed in TMAX, not tried in Rodinal) with slightly higher contrast.

For general use either Delta 400 or HP5+ works for me. For my RF it's a tie between FP4 and HP5. Sometimes there are too many decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom