Identify this Film Can?

[filmtwit]

I purchased this can of B&W film probably a decade ago and stuck it in my freezer till last weekend, where I found it and thought it was time to shoot it. Thing is, I can't find any old records of it nor can I find this tag online to figure out what Harmon film this most likely is.... since a few of you were shooting and loading film back in the day I'm hoping someone remember can tag and let me know what film this is likely to be:

So, would this be HP5?
or maybe ilford delta 400
What about Ilford Pan 400?

 

[p.giannakis]

I have a few rolls of pan400 and none says "professional". I don't think Hp5+ says "professional" either. My guess is that it is Delta but let's wait for others to comment.

 

[Coldkennels]

I don't think that's Delta. Simple reasoning: Delta was introduced in 1992, and we'd already moved from ASA to ISO at that point.

The typeface makes me think it's even earlier than that, too; something about this screams 1970s to me. If you look at the boxes for 36exp rolls of HP5 (not HP5+) - which was introduced in 1976 - they're marked in ASA, and the design language matches this can pretty closely. I'd bet my hat this is what's in the can.

 

[titrisol]

It's probably HP5 of some type
Shoot a few frames and check

 

[Freakscene]

I don't think that's Delta. Simple reasoning: Delta was introduced in 1992, and we'd already moved from ASA to ISO at that point.

The typeface makes me think it's even earlier than that, too; something about this screams 1970s to me. If you look at the boxes for 36exp rolls of HP5 (not HP5+) - which was introduced in 1976 - they're marked in ASA, and the design language matches this can pretty closely. I'd bet my hat this is what's in the can.

View attachment 4847916

72 frame HP5! I loved 72 frame HP5 even though getting it onto reels was hard.

 

[sojournerphoto]

72 frame HP5! I loved 72 frame HP5 even though getting it onto reels was hard.

Oh that’s brilliant🙂 thin polyester base to get more on a spool. Does it mess with focus accuracy?

 

[DownUnder]

A nice find. HP5 is an old classic. Many pro photographers still use it, now that the original Tri-X is no longer manufactured.

Do you do your own processing? A few additives to your film developer could help with any age-related fog. depending on how it was stored and if the can is still sealed as it originally was, it may still be good. Last year I used the last of my Tri-X from 1982. At ISO 200 and with normal processing, it had very little fog (usual for Kodak emulsions of that era) and the negatives were good for scanning.

I'm thinking benzo(triazole) and pot-brom (potassium bromide), which I've used in my film days, now sadly 99.5% past history.

 

[Freakscene]

Oh that’s brilliant🙂 thin polyester base to get more on a spool. Does it mess with focus accuracy?

I didn’t find any difference. It would make the most difference with ultrawide lenses, and I think when I used the 72 frame rolls my widest lens was a 28mm.

Film emulsion, even very thin emulsions, are 200 microns thick. It covers a litany of woes and errors.

 

[Coldkennels]

72 frame HP5! I loved 72 frame HP5 even though getting it onto reels was hard.

I never used thin-base HP5 but I got through a bunch of bulk rolls of Ilford Surveillance P3 that - I believe - was on the same base.

Very, very easy to accidentally crinkle the film if your reels weren't clean and it stuck. Other than that, lovely film. I found it responded well to pushing one stop in Rodinal, oddly. That became my go-to method for processing it, and it was actually my favourite high-speed film for a long time.

 

[filmtwit]

A nice find. HP5 is an old classic. Many pro photographers still use it, now that the original Tri-X is no longer manufactured.

Do you do your own processing? A few additives to your film developer could help with any age-related fog. depending on how it was stored and if the can is still sealed as it originally was, it may still be good. Last year I used the last of my Tri-X from 1982. At ISO 200 and with normal processing, it had very little fog (usual for Kodak emulsions of that era) and the negatives were good for scanning.

I'm thinking benzo(triazole) and pot-brom (potassium bromide), which I've used in my film days, now sadly 99.5% past history.

I do my own B&W processing, mainly Rodenil for slower speed film (200iso or slower) and HC110 for quicker films (400iso or higher).
On the Digital Truth massive Development page, I don't see a listing for HP5, just HP5+ which I know are not the same films. Any idea where I might HP5 with HC110?

Thanks

 

[DownUnder]

I do my own B&W processing, mainly Rodenil for slower speed film (200iso or slower) and HC110 for quicker films (400iso or higher).
On the Digital Truth massive Development page, I don't see a listing for HP5, just HP5+ which I know are not the same films. Any idea where I might HP5 with HC110?

Thanks

Ordinal and HP5 = grain. Heaps of it. Not a bad pattern, but this combo ruined an extensive photo shoot I did in Indonesia in the late 1980s. I had publishing in mind, back then photo buyers like the Economist were still keen to buy B&W stock images for one- and two-column fillers and I was doing pretty good business with my monochromes. Anyway, I got back home and quickly processed all my HP5 (about 30 rolls) in fresh Rodinal (I think you meant this when you wrote "Rodinil" the connotations of which which I quite enjoyed) and the grain was such that I had to scrap all those images.

A few decades later I returned to those films and I found they scanned quite well, but alas, those once lucrative photo sale markets are now long past.

HC110 with HP5 could be a winner. I used this briefly in Australia about 20 years ago, but then the supplies vanished and I went elsewhere for my developers and never did return to it. Not sure how HC handles 'additives' like benzo and pot-brom tho', the small mix concentrations may mean minute batches of added chemistry which would be too much pain in the pooter for a home darkroom, or at least mine.

I find this thread interesting as after a few years of non-interest in films, I'm now pondering a return to using film and reviving my darkroom, mostly to use up my remaining stocks of long-expired 35 and 120 languishing in my film fridge at home, during another extensive SEAsia trip next year. So I will be watching this and other similar threads with interest. Nice to be back into film...

And BTW, be careful (I was tempted to write "wary" but this may be an unfair term) of Digital Truth processing times. Many are meant as 'averages' and it's best when you want to develop a new brand of film, to do a test roll at various ISOs and then even a clip test of the best result. Especially with your long-expired HP5.

Can I say, I'm envious of your big-can acquisition of 'vintage' HP5. If it's still fit for use, you are on to a super good find.

 

[filmtwit]

Ordinal and HP5 = grain. Heaps of it. Not a bad pattern, but this combo ruined an extensive photo shoot I did in Indonesia in the late 1980s. I had publishing in mind, back then photo buyers like the Economist were still keen to buy B&W stock images for one- and two-column fillers and I was doing pretty good business with my monochromes. Anyway, I got back home and quickly processed all my HP5 (about 30 rolls) in fresh Rodinal (I think you meant this when you wrote "Rodinil" the connotations of which which I quite enjoyed) and the grain was such that I had to scrap all those images.

A few decades later I returned to those films and I found they scanned quite well, but alas, those once lucrative photo sale markets are now long past.

HC110 with HP5 could be a winner. I used this briefly in Australia about 20 years ago, but then the supplies vanished and I went elsewhere for my developers and never did return to it. Not sure how HC handles 'additives' like benzo and pot-brom tho', the small mix concentrations may mean minute batches of added chemistry which would be too much pain in the pooter for a home darkroom, or at least mine.

I find this thread interesting as after a few years of non-interest in films, I'm now pondering a return to using film and reviving my darkroom, mostly to use up my remaining stocks of long-expired 35 and 120 languishing in my film fridge at home, during another extensive SEAsia trip next year. So I will be watching this and other similar threads with interest. Nice to be back into film...

And BTW, be careful (I was tempted to write "wary" but this may be an unfair term) of Digital Truth processing times. Many are meant as 'averages' and it's best when you want to develop a new brand of film, to do a test roll at various ISOs and then even a clip test of the best result. Especially with your long-expired HP5.

Can I say, I'm envious of your big-can acquisition of 'vintage' HP5. If it's still fit for use, you are on to a super good find.

I avoid Adox because I know when it's mixed with quicker films it all starts to look like Ilford3200 (which I like, but I don't always want everything to look like).

I still need times for Hp5 and HC100 as starting times to get started here.... or hope it's really Delta or the times are similar enough.

I originally started to use Iford in the early 2000's because 100' rolls were about 2/3rds the price of Kodak's B&W 100' films. Loved what I shot, but by 2010 or so Ilford was more expensive then Kodak was (Kodak going broke during era was partially why). From about 2008-2012 I regularly scowled ebay and craiglist for 100' B&W rolls of film. I don't think I ever payed more than $30 including shipping for any of them I also didn't care what it was and ended up with some now rare stuff (Neopan 1600 100's roll for instance). i also used to hit local used photo shows and would always pick up 20-50 rolls of B&W for usually about $20... oh the old days. Anyway my freezer is still about half full and that's mainly because I slowed down shooting film due to covid times iin the last few years, and more recently (2 years ago) because my Tx1 stopped working. I'm now back, starting to shoot film a little bit more again since the Tx1 is fixed (I currently have about 30+ rolls of Pan F that just begging to shot on that camera) and because I've been playing around with ICM & street photography and find I like the look of the film more than digital when I do. This specific roll of Ilford is from the tail end of cheap days of B&W ebay. I do remember getting it and simply baggin it up and plopping it in my freezer (in a freezer bag first) for probably 10-12 years now (the can and label still look new btw). It's my only roll of it, but since it's Ilford I'm fine with shooting it and need something in Tri-x range to shoot for what street I shoot and because we're also now out of summer and don't want to shoot double X. So we'll see.

 

[Freakscene]

Not sure how HC handles 'additives' like benzo and pot-brom tho', the small mix concentrations may mean minute batches of added chemistry which would be too much pain in the pooter for a home darkroom, or at least mine.

HC-110 has a lot of restrainers in it already. It is basically a supercharged hydroquinone-catechol-dimezone-s developer with a lot of restrainers to hold it back. No need to add any.

 

[titrisol]

HP5 would benefit a lot from MIcrophen or DDX
Speed enhancement and tiny grain

 

[Freakscene]

HP5 would benefit a lot from MIcrophen or DDX
Speed enhancement and tiny grain

Not sure about HP5, but HP5+ is EI 640 with a normal curve in DD-X. You get a real and very useful speed bump.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I miss old/original Ilford HP5. It was my favorite fast BW film.

Chris