Anybody using Ilford 400 iso films?

[wamjam]

hi, i'm sure some of us here use Ilford 400 films. which kind?

 

[jonasv]

I've been trying to settle on one film to use in every situation. Lately I have used a lot of Delta 400 and must say the results are better than anything I've seen previously. 200 ISO, 400 ISO, 800 or 1600 ISO doesn't matter, the outcome is always gorgeous (well, technically at least!). I use ID-11 for 200-400 ISO and Microphen for 800-1600 ISO.

There's only one thing holding me back (from settling on Delta 400 as my only film) and that's the price, it's a tad more expensive than HP5+ or Tri-X and the costs quickly add up. As a student that's an important factor to me...

 

[Diggin99]

Ilford Delta 400

Ilford Delta 400

I just ordered some Delta 400 from Freestyle. I decided to get the rollls they roll themselves in order to save money...Have not been able to try it out yet but I have liked Ilford in the past so I look forward to testing it!

Nancy

 

[Ash]

I used Pan-400 almost exclusively for a year, as it was £2 a roll at college. I quite loved the grain on it. Pity the college ran out of it a few months back, so i bought 100iso 120 instead 😛

I've used a couple other Ilford films a few times and I didnt really take note of any difference, as their film is great regardless 🙂

 

[IGMeanwell]

I've used Ilford XP2 Super films just to try them out ... pretty nice for C-41 .. contrasty .. smooth grain

some mini-labs can really screw this film up in development, I have had prints come out a light pink or orange (entire rolls not just 1 print) ... of course you can fix them in photoshop if you have a scanner

its good only if you want the convenience of 1 hour photo and don't mind the negatives to be mediocre ... and you can still get stunning photos from this film

 

[jonasv]

Some quick pics... Small jpg's don't say a lot about image quality of course, but I can assure you that large prints look great!

Delta 400 at 1600-3200 (shot at 1600, accidentally overdeveloped nearly a stop), in Microphen stock. Minolta Hi-Matic 7s fixed-lens rangefinder.

 

[Socke]

I use HP5+ a lot, very flexible and robust, hard to mess it up in developing.

 

[Richard Black]

I've use Delta 400, HP5, and XP2 and I like HP5 best. XP2 is convenient for processing, but my experience taught me that HP5 matches my images best. Your results may vary...

 

[wlewisiii]

I use Diafine for developing, so if I use an Ilford 400, I only use HP5+ @ EI800 as Delta, like all the modern grain emulsions I've tried, comes out looking icky. But mostly I find myself shooting much more Foma than Ilford.

William

 

[nmdgr]

I second Socke on HP5+. It is my favorite film (together with Pan F+ for large enlargements, easier to mess up and ISO 50). If you find the contrast is too high, give it about 1/3-2/3 stops more exposure. Personally don't like the Delta's too much (don't know why though...) and have yet to try XP2.

 

[fluffthecat]

I think Ilford HP5 plus is a wonderful film, can cope with most lighting conditions. XP2 is also good but photo labs tend to be a bit rough with handling, I don't trust many of them so stick to home developing. Fluff
http://leica-m4-2.blogspot.com/

 

[f/stopblues]

I've been using HP5+ almost exclusively for a little while now and have been very happy, in 35mm, 6x6/7 and 4x5. I was previously using a lot of the Delta films. It has very nice contrast and is forgiving of exposure. It can be comfortably pushed to 800 or 1600. It has more of a bite than Delta 400. If you like smoother, more buttery tones and grain, Delta may be a better choice.

Keep in mind that developer will have a large impact on your final product. I've had my best results with HC-110 developer, although I had to play with the times and dilutions for a while to get a good result. ID-11 and D-76 are sure bets, as well as the other ones mentioned in this thread.

 

[didotcicero]

I've been using Ilford XP2 Super 400 asa B/W for a while now and I really like it although I have the same experience as IGMeanwell, prints turning orange/pink. Some turned orange only after a while.

I like really the convenience of 1 hour photo, I scan from the negative mostly

 

[Uncle Bill]

I am a fan of HP5, a no mess up film like Tri-x.

Bill

 

[titrisol]

I have used all of them, and I prefer HP5
I like the smooth tones I get developing in Rodinal+C and DDX, there is some grain but it is just a part of the package. Highlights are quite hard to blow, even when you over expose it by 3 stops and develop normally (too much wine one Xmas)
XP2 is conveninet and gives great results as EI200
Delta400 is an excellent film, great results with DDX and interesting results with Rodinal. But the results just didn't feel great

 

[Michael I.]

the delta 400 is nice - i like tmax 400 better - the hp5 is fabulous

 

[danwilly]

I use hp5+ 400 exclusively. Cheaper than Delta and gives just as good results. Developer is critical. I use my own homemade mix which occupies the sweet spot between contrast and fine grain. You can abuse HP5+ and still salvage an image of some kind. Very pushable and pullable.

 

[Dougg]

For B&W I've been very pleased to use XP2 Super (at EI=250) and its predecessor versions almost exclusively for about 25 years, though I like FP3/4 and Pan F too, in preference to Plus-X and Panatomic-X. I have used HP5 but prefer the look of Tri-X in a conventional 400-speed film.

 

[Zack]

I have used Delta 400 and HP5+ but i still prefer Tri-x

 

[markinlondon]

I've been using Ilford HP since it was HP4. I've tried Delta 400 a couple of times but have now given up on it as I couldn't get good results when pulled. HP5+ is great in ID-11 (stock) up to 400. I switch to Microphen (stock) for 1600 or 3200. DDX is nice too, but I prefer the "classic" look of ID-11. XP2 needs commercial processing so is too expensive for me apart from looking somehow "wrong".

Mark