Ilford DELTA 400 VS. Ilford HP5

[ARS]

What would you prefer for the portraits DELTA or HP5? What developer would you use? Any examples...

Thanks in advance!

 

[pdx138]

I've been shooting alot of both lately and developing in D76 1:1. I think the Delta is smoother and less contrasty, so if I was going for a flatering portrait, I'd use the Delta.

That said, I generally like the results of HP5 better. It seems to have a snappier quality that I like.

 

[ARS]

I've been shooting alot of both lately and developing in D76 1:1. I think the Delta is smoother and less contrasty, so if I was going for a flatering portrait, I'd use the Delta.

That said, I generally like the results of HP5 better. It seems to have a snappier quality that I like.

I like HP5 much and i had never shot DELTA before

 

[trittium]

delta is like butta'

 

[boarini2003]

Both are great, however I find that the blacks in HP5 are very charcoal-like, because of the "feel" of the film's grain. That's why I love that film, and I prefer it to Delta, even for portraits. I generally develop it in ID-11 or Ilfotec HC. I've even had great results developing it in Microphen at EI 400 (look at the example!)

 

[Ash]

henri cartier-bresson! pretty much the reason I bought a rangefinder!

I prefer HP5, but Delta is usually cheaper, and for amateur photography, I dont find it makes too much difference. I prefer HP5 for 'classy' shots, if that makes any sense.

 

[markinlondon]

I like HP5 for its tonality usually developing in ID-11 stock. The grain is more pronounced than Delta's but is somehow "nicer" (this is highly subjective). HP5 is also more tolerant of careless handling. For instance, yesterday I developed a roll of 120 HP5 but for some reason only put 300ml of developer (Ilfosol-S) in the tank. I suddenly came to my senses, very quickly made up another 200ml and poured it in. The negatives show no signs of uneven development. Bomb-proof is the word many have used.

Delta on the other hand seems to react badly to overexposure (a problem in bright conditions when you would want to overexpose and underdevelop) and has (IMO) a nasty, gritty grain.

I'll take HP5 every time. BTW where is Delta cheaper than HP5?

Mark

 

[Ash]

Delta is cheaper than HP5 because while I'm still in college, I can get it for £2 per roll (36exp)

 

[mr_phillip]

Ash, try 7dayshop.com for cheap HP5+ (£1.89) or Delta (£2.05).

Oh, and I'd go HP5 or Pan F every time. Or Neopan...

 

[Avotius]

I use hp5 a lot more now because its harder and harder to find a lot film around here, but before when I was using delta you would find that it was a lot more smooth. What I was doing was shooting delta 100 and pushing it to 400 and using ilford LC29 developer on it developing it as 800 speed. I got some very nice results I think from that.

 

[Gid]

I've got a few test shots on the second page of my gallery made with the Bronica RF645 using HP5 and Delta 400. Both developed in DDX. I prefer the Delta results, at least from a scanning viewpoint - less grainy, but that may be because I'm used to digital. Also, I'm a film and developing newbie so my skills (lack of) probably have a significant impact.

 

[ARS]

Thanks everybody!
<p>I can see that mostly people prefer HP5 to Delta. Either do I. I have made some GRAIN tests today and they showed up that delta has "ordered" grain while HP5 has some kind of "porridge": a messy look of its grain. As for colors I belive DELTA to be more contrasty, HP5 has incredable gray tones. And I use Kodak TMAX dev and Microdol-X the later is my favourite one for HP5. In Canada HP5 is cheaper than Delta, BTW...

 

[pesphoto]

Have you tried TriX. Seems a lot of people are using HP5, Delta, Neopan and not as much are using TriX these days. Is it just me or do others notice this? I recently started using Neopan in Sprint Developer and like it a lot.

 

[titrisol]

You sad it ARS, it is just a matter of personal taste.
HP5+ will give a more random grain, while delta will have a more "tchnical look"

Both can be used for portraiture, just sacrifice a roll each with the same model, same light and similar development and compare.

 

[ARS]

Have you tried TriX. Seems a lot of people are using HP5, Delta, Neopan and not as much are using TriX these days. Is it just me or do others notice this? I recently started using Neopan in Sprint Developer and like it a lot.

I use 120 TRI-X 400 with Rolleiflex (Xenotar). GREAT Results!!! I develop it in TMAX developer! My second favourite B/W film.

 

[RObert Budding]

I'm not sure what people mean when they say a film is more "contrasty." I control contrast through exposure and development time. I can get blacks with no detail by underexposing and over developing. Or not.

 

[f/stopblues]

I just went through and found a couple shots from each film, Delta 400 and HP5+. I'll post the examples but I'm not really sure you can see a difference A) because of my scanner (cheapo!) and B) because its sized for the web. In a print, especially going up to 11x14, the Delta seems to have a creaminess to it, where HP5+ has more grit. It's like describing a wine though.. its so subjective. I personally prefer HP5+ and use it exclusively now, but for portraits the Delta surely won't do you wrong.

First one is Delta 400
Second is Delta 400
Third is HP5+

 

[kully]

I only use HP5 because that's what I'm used to (in the short time that I've been shooting B&W).

However, I got a free roll of Delta 400 attached to AP last month and stupidly underdeveloped it by at least a minute.

However, I was suprised by just how well it coped:

(light leakage because I had to take it out of the tank and keep it in a changing bag for a few days when I realised I'd run out of fixer)

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

I have not used Delta films for portraits but I have used T-max films which are similar. I do like HP-5 for portraits and Tri-X also.

Here is an HP-5 portrait:

Wayne