rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
I am more of a 80-125 film-shooter, but reviewing my images shot with 400 emulsions, HP5 produced the results that best match what I saw and wanted to end up with.
(And yet: since I started scanning this year, the flatness of XP2s is simply divine. It also plays well, measured by image results, with my Klasse S, Contax G, and OM4t.)
OTOH, if Erik likes TM400, and I (like many others here) like Erik's images, I can foresee a spell of shooting TM400....
(And yet: since I started scanning this year, the flatness of XP2s is simply divine. It also plays well, measured by image results, with my Klasse S, Contax G, and OM4t.)
OTOH, if Erik likes TM400, and I (like many others here) like Erik's images, I can foresee a spell of shooting TM400....
ABrosig
Well-known
Used to be Tri-X in D76 1:1 before formulation changed. Now I prefer Ilford Delta 400, but I usually rate it at 200 and develop in HC110, typically 1:63. Grain and structure amazing with that combination, images both print and scan wonderfully.
Fotohuis
Well-known
If you like the old Tri-X 400 try the Kodak 5222 Double-X instead. You can shoot it at E.I. 400 too. However available in 35mm only ....
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
I am tired of the purple/pink curly stuff and am swearing off it, for now anyway.
I have a few rolls of Neopan 400 left, and I just bought a brick of Ilford HP5+.
Chris
I have a few rolls of Neopan 400 left, and I just bought a brick of Ilford HP5+.
Chris
gb hill
Veteran
Bought several rolls of Kentmere 400 I need to try out.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
Personally, i love the tones that i get from Tri-X in HC-110. It has an old-fashioned feeling to it.
Jackle
Newbie
I still find HP5+ to be my favourite and most versatile film. It seems to agree with everything I throw at it, from Pyro, Rodinal, Johnsons Super Fine Grain (1950's recipe) to H110; each producing pleasantly different results depending upon what I've wanted. I've had some stunning results shooting at 3200 (compared even to Delta 3200, the HP5 had less problematic grain imo). It also doesn't seem to scratch or damage easily, the opposite to what I experienced with foma films (their Retropan and 400 films have no scratch resistance when wet from the wash) . It does help that its a native film for me (UK- Cheshire), so I can get it for far cheaper than the alternatives.
As for grain, the staining developers (pyro or metol based formula) work really well for cubic grained films. You don't get the same grain (I would say far less) as with modern developers and it produces really nice prints. I don't scan, so I couldn't tell you what effect the staining would have for scanning. The stain does change the colour of the neg into ranges which affect VC papers, which is something I like (although it can get in the way for certain types of print). This effect can be used to produce extremely fine grained and high quality prints which are hard to produce with just a filter alone, but this does require some trial and error (and can be extremely frustrating). I did try a Johnsons metol developer with a delta film once and it didn't work out, although it may of just been a one off mistake. As for different developer types and different grains, I have noticed some differences, but I don't know any magic formula or method that would make HP5+ less grainy than Delta 400 (or TMax etc) with the same development routine. The biggest help for low grain in film is being diligent and putting the work in, although I have never had problems with my films being grainy except if I'm doing a stupidly overambitious enlargement (like using only 3mm of a 35mm neg for my print) or if I've underexposed badly. That said, there is only so much which can be done about grain and there are some films which are inherently more grainy than others, although (other than deliberately grainy films like Retropan) modern films all have extremely fine grain and great characteristics. Its amazing how little you get, especially if you compare how much grain you get from plates and what old films above ISO 80 used to produce. A 35 neg will be far less grainy and better for enlargement on a modern fast film than my grandfathers 1930's and WW2 ISO 25 4 x 5 negs ever where. Even comparing prints and negs from the 1970's and 80's to what's being produced now shows an amazing leap in quality and standards for film and paper.
As for grain, the staining developers (pyro or metol based formula) work really well for cubic grained films. You don't get the same grain (I would say far less) as with modern developers and it produces really nice prints. I don't scan, so I couldn't tell you what effect the staining would have for scanning. The stain does change the colour of the neg into ranges which affect VC papers, which is something I like (although it can get in the way for certain types of print). This effect can be used to produce extremely fine grained and high quality prints which are hard to produce with just a filter alone, but this does require some trial and error (and can be extremely frustrating). I did try a Johnsons metol developer with a delta film once and it didn't work out, although it may of just been a one off mistake. As for different developer types and different grains, I have noticed some differences, but I don't know any magic formula or method that would make HP5+ less grainy than Delta 400 (or TMax etc) with the same development routine. The biggest help for low grain in film is being diligent and putting the work in, although I have never had problems with my films being grainy except if I'm doing a stupidly overambitious enlargement (like using only 3mm of a 35mm neg for my print) or if I've underexposed badly. That said, there is only so much which can be done about grain and there are some films which are inherently more grainy than others, although (other than deliberately grainy films like Retropan) modern films all have extremely fine grain and great characteristics. Its amazing how little you get, especially if you compare how much grain you get from plates and what old films above ISO 80 used to produce. A 35 neg will be far less grainy and better for enlargement on a modern fast film than my grandfathers 1930's and WW2 ISO 25 4 x 5 negs ever where. Even comparing prints and negs from the 1970's and 80's to what's being produced now shows an amazing leap in quality and standards for film and paper.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
Hi,
I also live in UK but the prices of HP5+ seem to be more expensive. Where do you buy it from? I used HP5 in the past and i quite liked it but now i can get TMax 400 cheaper.
Regards,
Pan
ashfaque
Learning
lxmike
M2 fan.
Always has been HP5 have been using it since the early 1980's
agoglanian
Reconnected.
In my relatively short time as a photographer (17 years) I have found that I wound up using whatever was most affordable to me, for a while it was Neopan 400, which I came to love dearly, but I was also quite familiar with Tri-X and HP5+ as well. When neopan was discontinued I found myself looking for a replacement so I naturally tried the t-grain films and just didn't like them, they were missing something to me. So it was back to Tri-X and HP5.
Every so often I switch between the two, but sometimes I get the urge to try something different!
This year I've been pretty much all HP5, last year it was Tri-X; now that the prices here in the US have evened out again and my stock is thinning out, I'm trying to decide which one to buy, though this time I'm just going to do smaller batches of 10-20 rolls. I don't use a darkroom anymore so I just have my lab process for me (though that may possibly change) but I can't say I've had any trouble scanning either film with my Nikon Coolscan, perhaps I'm just lucky?
The way I look at it, I'm just happy that I have a choice at all, I'm thankful that there are at least still multiple film stocks to choose from.
Every so often I switch between the two, but sometimes I get the urge to try something different!
This year I've been pretty much all HP5, last year it was Tri-X; now that the prices here in the US have evened out again and my stock is thinning out, I'm trying to decide which one to buy, though this time I'm just going to do smaller batches of 10-20 rolls. I don't use a darkroom anymore so I just have my lab process for me (though that may possibly change) but I can't say I've had any trouble scanning either film with my Nikon Coolscan, perhaps I'm just lucky?
The way I look at it, I'm just happy that I have a choice at all, I'm thankful that there are at least still multiple film stocks to choose from.
sara
Well-known
Have always used HP5.
Thinking of trying out Tri-X...
Edit: I might have replied to this thread but I can't remember lol.
Thinking of trying out Tri-X...
Edit: I might have replied to this thread but I can't remember lol.
Ronald M
Veteran
My fav would be Delta 400, as all previous iterations were wonderful. It was reformulated around 10 years ago and it no longer works well with D76. Xtol or Ilford DDX must be to get the beautiful results and they are beautiful. I have issues with both these and will compound D76 as always.
So my film is Kodak TMax 400. It is made to work with D76.
BTW several noted photogs have come to the same conclusion regarding Delta 400.
I will cite Roger Hicks for one when he first reviewed the new film.
But now Kodak is robbing us over film pricing including 100 foot bulk rolls. We will see when I run out. Bergger was nice as a 200 speed, real nice.
So my film is Kodak TMax 400. It is made to work with D76.
BTW several noted photogs have come to the same conclusion regarding Delta 400.
I will cite Roger Hicks for one when he first reviewed the new film.
But now Kodak is robbing us over film pricing including 100 foot bulk rolls. We will see when I run out. Bergger was nice as a 200 speed, real nice.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Bergger400 seems to be exactly the same stuff as APX400. What do you guys think?
Erik.
Erik.
Chris101
summicronia
Well, when this thread started, it was 'around 10 years ago'. Delta 400 was a high speed version of Delta 100 then, with its beautifuly structured, yet very fine - and uniform - grain. That is why I voted that way, then.
It's not the reformulation, but rather the price and 'brick & morter' availability that has put me off it. Now I shoot trix almost exclusively. I develop with hc110, and use precisely the same procedure every time. It's different, but I like it.
michaelwj
----------------
Taking everything into account; look, ease of use, availablity, versatility, etc. I'd have to go with HP5+, followed closely by Foma400. Both in 1+50 Rodinal.
borge
Established
I mostly use HP5+ either at 400, 800 or 1600 speed.
The reason is that it's fairly priced.
But my favorite film, by far, is not on this list: Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 pushed to 400. I just absolutely love how this film looks. It's very unique, but also pricey and less flexible than HP5+ or TriX.
The reason is that it's fairly priced.
But my favorite film, by far, is not on this list: Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 pushed to 400. I just absolutely love how this film looks. It's very unique, but also pricey and less flexible than HP5+ or TriX.
infrequent
Well-known
Do you always push it to 400 or is that just for specific scenes/shoot?
Highway 61
Revisited
Erik, do you mean the APX 400 "New emulsion" ? In this case it would be exactly the same stuff as Kentmere 400 (made by Ilford-Harman) too.
Or do you mean the APX 400 "old' (when still made by Agfa) ?