The Ilford range is bewildering

L

lrochfort

Well-known
Local time
5:03 AM
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
239
View My Gallery
Hello all,

My goto film for black and white is Tri-X. I've dabbled with HP5 and possibly Delta, XP2 and FP4, but couldn't be sure without digging out my negs. I've never pursued Ilford further because I find the array of films a bit daunting and shy away.

The descriptions on the Ilford website are of course not really helpful, because a picture is worth a 1000 words!

Is there anywhere a good set of comparison pictures of the same subject for Ilford's films?

Thanks all as ever. I'm sure in a few years time I'll be able to answer questions on here rather than just ask!
 
lrochfort said:
Hello all,

My goto film for black and white is Tri-X. I've dabbled with HP5 and possibly Delta, XP2 and FP4, but couldn't be sure without digging out my negs. I've never pursued Ilford further because I find the array of films a bit daunting and shy away.

The descriptions on the Ilford website are of course not really helpful, because a picture is worth a 1000 words!

Is there anywhere a good set of comparison pictures of the same subject for Ilford's films?

Thanks all as ever. I'm sure in a few years time I'll be able to answer questions on here rather than just ask!
Click to expand...
Not really on screen, it isn't. Or with different developers. Or printed on different papers...

Cheers,

R.
 
That's a valid point.

Given that, do people think that Ilford's descriptions are indicative of the film, or will I just have to bite the bullet and buy a load of film and try it out?
 
Like you, I have more experience with Tri-X, but I like Delta 400 for its tonality but not the price point. HP5+ is similar to TRI-X but I like its grain structure less. FP4+ is just amazing and a great all rounder.
 
Ilford film are similar to corresponding Kodak films. FP is similar to Plus X, HP to Tri X
Delta 100 and 400 to the T Max 's. Buy a couple of rolls of the film that's simiar to what you usually shoot and have fun. It "aint rocket science".
 
As has always been the case, there are objective and subjective aspects to comparing film types between different brands (and even within a single brand's line...years ago I went a little nuts listening to people's preference for Tri-X over T-Max and vice-versa). And when you're souping your own film, the waters obviously get murkier.

What Ilford (or Kodak or Fuji or Adox* or....) have to say about their respective films can be helpful, but only to a degree: like a car dealer trying to describe the handling and performance of a particular model, it won't mean Jack unless she throws me the keys and lets me take it for a spin. And in the case of a particular film, you'll likely need to work with it for a while before you get its nuances, know where you can (and can't) push and tweak it, both in-camera and in development. That's what's so vexing, and beautiful, about the medium.

Tri-X, by the way, is one film that's been used in so many ways by so many people for so many years: I can think of several somewhat-known photographers for whom it's been their solitary film choice. Because, depending on what developer (and regimen) you choose, you can shoot in crazy-low light, seriously-bright light, tweak grain fine or coarse, manage contrast, et cetera. You could do worse than stick with just one good film and play with its possibilities.

Just one guy's opinion.

(* "...adding the grey to black and white?" That's a head-scratcher of a slogan.)


- Barrett
 
amateriat said:
As has always been the case, there are objective and subjective aspects to comparing film types between different brands (and even within a single brand's line...years ago I went a little nuts listening to people's preference for Tri-X over T-Max and vice-versa). And when you're souping your own film, the waters obviously get murkier.

What Ilford (or Kodak or Fuji or Adox* or....) have to say about their respective films can be helpful, but only to a degree: like a car dealer trying to describe the handling and performance of a particular model, it won't mean Jack unless she throws me the keys and lets me take it for a spin. And in the case of a particular film, you'll likely need to work with it for a while before you get its nuances, know where you can (and can't) push and tweak it, both in-camera and in development. That's what's so vexing, and beautiful, about the medium.

Tri-X, by the way, is one film that's been used in so many ways by so many people for so many years: I can think of several somewhat-known photographers for whom it's been their solitary film choice. Because, depending on what developer (and regimen) you choose, you can shoot in crazy-low light, seriously-bright light, tweak grain fine or coarse, manage contrast, et cetera. You could do worse than stick with just one good film and play with its possibilities.

(Just one guy's opinion.)


- Barrett
Click to expand...

That's a very good counterpoint.

In many ways, I have no real reason for trying all these films only that for some reason I feel I should. Perhaps because I'm British, perhaps because I was so blown away by my first roll of 120 Tr-X and so underwhelmed by my first roll of Delta that I feel I must have missed something. Perhaps because I feel like I will gain some great experience or transformative insight as an emergent property of the process.

Or perhaps not.

I love Tri-X, I love Portra. Thus far, I don't like Fuji (why can't I get prints on Kodak paper in the UK?!) and I'm on the fence about Ilford.

I could well gain far more by sticking to Tri-X and finally stop using my shoebox-size toddler-toy-filled house as an excuse for not processing my own film.

Or I could buy a roll of XP2 or FP4 just for giggles.

Interesting............
 
Last edited:
HP5, TX, Delta 400 and TMY are not only very different: the choice is also intensely personal. Also, people often base their opinions on earlier generations of the emulsions in question.

My wife prefers TX and gets better pics with it than she does with HP5. I prefer HP5 and get better pics with it than I do with HP5. Neither of us liked the original Delta 400 or TMY, but the current versions are infinitely better and if we weren't already hooked on our respective films, we'd probably be very happy with either.

So yes, the only answer is to bite the bullet and buy a load of film and try it out. On the other hand, I'd say that in well over 45 years of trying films, often for a living, I can generally tell with one film, or perhaps two, whether I'm going to like a film or not. See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/choosing bw films.html for further development (as it were) of this argument.

Cheers,

R.
 
HP5+ can do most anything that Tri-X can, though of course it will respond somewhat differently to different developers and time/dilution/temp regimes. Until TMAX400 (second version) came along it was my all-time favorite and even now I've probably shot more HP5 and HP5+ than anything else. I love Neopan 400 as well.
 
semilog said:
HP5+ can do most anything that Tri-X can, though of course it will respond somewhat differently to different developers and time/dilution/temp regimes. Until TMAX400 (second version) came along it was my all-time favorite and even now I've probably shot more HP5 and HP5+ than anything else. I love Neopan 400 as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, but with different grain structure and tonality.

Cheers,

R.
 
I feel that I know of what you speak.In the last 3 or 4 years I've tried numerous rolls of pretty well every B&W emulsion available and most possible commonly available developers. Last week,a single negative of Ilford Pan F(50asa) in HC110 and now I'm finally hooked! I can thank Mr Hicks web site suggestion about trying as many types as possible,and hopefully finding what you like after a couple of rolls of that film. I think it was closer to 100 different rolls etc,but just 1 near perfect(to me) negative and I'm finished searching. Good Luck to you sir!
Regards,Peter
 
IMO, shooting the Deltas is similar to shooting with a orange/red-filter, they are more sensetive to red than the TMax-films and the Hp5/FP4 films.
- They are also sensitive in the blue spectrum, so it's not totally like shooting with a orange/red filter, but I don't like pale/white reds, I like them dark and/or black and snappy.

So I normally shoot Neopan 400 and Tri-X and Acros/Tmax when I can.

(I do like FP4 and HP5, I just don't shoot much of it, got a fair bunch frozen though )

Sorry Ilford 🙂

I'll say that the deltas can be fairly fine-grained, although I feel Neopan 400 has the least and more natural looking grain of the whole bunch.....but that may vary with developers used etc.
 
IMO there is no substitute for shooting a few rolls and agree with Roger that it does not require a ten rolls and a methodology that would intimidate NASA scientists to find out (thankfully).

I wanted to like HP5+ in 35mm, but found TriX (400) so much better to my eye for my needs with my developers and methodology.

I far prefer Delta 100 to Tmax in all formats.

I prefer Tmax 400 to Delta 400....

I equally like Tmax 3200 and D3200, although they are very different films. Perhaps this is why.

FP4+ has no Kodak counterpart anymore. Its a great all rounder, but perhaps master of none.

Personally I can happily shoot with any of the Ilford B&W films and most of the Kodak. If I had to pick a favourite it would be Foma 100, which neither Ilford nor Kodak makes!

FWIW preferences vary considerably by format. Just try some, have fun and go with your heart.

PS I've shot a lot of many of these films in recent years, developing in Xtol 1+1/1+2, Rodinal or D76/ID11 so if you want more opinion, I am happy to help. You can look through images on my website and I will tell you the film and developer, but its not the same as looking at real prints of course. Just PM.
 
When I was shooting 35mm and medium format I'd say my ratio of Kodak to Ilford flim was about 4/1 with Tri-X being my main film as I like the results it provides up to ISO 800 for 35mm and ISO 1600 for medium format.
When I started shooting 4x5 HP5+ became my go to film mainly due to the cost difference between it and Tri-X 320 and TMAX-400.
 
I hate HP5. Never had any good results with it. Delta 400 is nice which I like.

Right now im preferring Tri-X over most. Should get some FP4 though which I like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

8
Struggling with 35mm Colour Neg Choice
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
das
das
B
Working with outdated Delta 400
2
Replies
30
Views
855
Freakscene
Freakscene
F
Ernst Leitz yellow / orange / yellow-green filter compensations with Ilford FP4 and HP5
Replies
18
Views
1K
Rob-F
Rob-F
dave lackey
Adox HR-50 - Post your Images!
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
davidswiss
D
T
Proper film Chemistry for PET based films-from a Lab-Box with D96 user
Replies
7
Views
668
agentlossing
agentlossing
Back
Top Bottom