Choosing versatile Bulk roll(s) - HP5, Delta, other?

[mcafeejohn]

Hi everyone,

First of all, my apologies if those two films stocks have been compared before numerous time, but here is my question:
I have been looking to buy a bulk roll of B&W film lately, for everyday photography, one that could be versatile enough to cover daytime (@400) and night time street photography (pushed to 1600),
I've settled on Ilford HP5+ (the classic) and/or Delta 400, at first i really wanted to go with the delta because of its superior sharpness and tonal range for skin tones (at least from what I've seen&read online).

However, I also read that the Delta pushes very poorly to 1600, resulting in inky blocks of shadow and blown white highlights (less latitude ?), I don't know to which extent that is true, but as much as i want the sharpness and subtle grey gradients of delta, i can't go with it if that means compromising every night shot.

I finally ordered a roll of HP5 by safety as a "do it all", but now I'm asking myself if the difference between the two is worth getting a roll of each (one for daytime sharpness, one for night time pushing) or if I'm better off just sticking to HP5 for everything.

FYI, I intend to develop all of those in D-76 because I bought a metric ton of it, either at stock or 1+1 depending on if i'm pushing or not, i guess, it seems like it would be suited for HP5, maybe not so much for delta because of its T-grain, please let me know if you have information regarding that.

Anyways, thank you in advance for any welcome advice, have a great one !

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
Before I continue, it would only be fair to mention that I am not a big fan of first under-exposing, and then over-developing (aka "pushing") film.
If I'm finding myself forced to do that, I would rather have in my camera one of the films - TMax 3200 or Delta 3200 - that minimize the severe quality compromises that "pushing" entails.
With that mentioned, I'll ask a couple of questions:
1) will you be printing your negatives optically, or will you be using a digitize and then digitally process the result? and
2) will there be prints of any sort from your negatives, and if so, how big?; and
3) is there a type of result that appeals to you - in terms of subject, contrast, grain, tonal range, dramatic effect - and do you have some examples?

 

[darkroommike]

Every black and white film on the planet is compatible, maybe even optimized, for D76. That said, Delta (and TMax) except for their 3200 variants are not really pushable. You can expose the 400 speed Delta (and TMax) at 800 but do not "push" development (much), you will have "thin" but printable negatives, if you need a little more speed process either one in Microphen or Acufine. HP5+ is "pushable" to 1600 but the real champ is Tri-X (moot since you don't have Tri-X). (And the blah blah blah about short toe vs long toe.)

Before you break the piggy bank on a bulk roll of Delta 400 buy a couple of rolls and shoot it.

Also put your pencil to the cost of bulk loading. I think the days of saving half by bulk loading are gone, even if you already have loaders and cartridges. Can you still save money? Yes, but your profit goes out the window if you blow a couple of rolls.

 

[mcafeejohn]

Welcome to Photrio.
Before I continue, it would only be fair to mention that I am not a big fan of first under-exposing, and then over-developing (aka "pushing") film.
If I'm finding myself forced to do that, I would rather have in my camera one of the films - TMax 3200 or Delta 3200 - that minimize the severe quality compromises that "pushing" entails.
With that mentioned, I'll ask a couple of questions:
1) will you be printing your negatives optically, or will you be using a digitize and then digitally process the result? and
2) will there be prints of any sort from your negatives, and if so, how big?; and
3) is there a type of result that appeals to you - in terms of subject, contrast, grain, tonal range, dramatic effect - and do you have some examples?

Thanks,
to answer your questions:
1 - Yes, i would like to print optically with an enlarger that I have not yet purchased, but no digital at all, and
2 - I surely won't do billoard-sized prints, so the grain may not be a problem for that, but i'm afraid the HP5's grain can mask some of the detail in even moderately-sized prints (up to 16x23in)
3 - I don't really like over-dramatic contrast, even in night scenes i like to keep it under control, although i am willing to accept the slightly augmented contrast from pushing, i'd like to avoid the fully B&W image with no in-between
I guess i could buy Delta 3200 in 36exp rolls when i need it, it's not available in bulk where i live, it probably is way better for the 1600iso night usecase (my camera won't go higher than that but i think it's enough for what i do).
( I like grain, i just don't like when it blurs out detail, that's why delta's grain appeals to me, being visible but not too detrimental to detail)
Thank you for the anwser !

 

[mcafeejohn]

Every black and white film on the planet is compatible, maybe even optimized, for D76. That said, Delta (and TMax) except for their 3200 variants are not really pushable. You can expose the 400 speed Delta (and TMax) at 800 but do not "push" development (much), you will have "thin" but printable negatives, if you need a little more speed process either one in Microphen or Acufine. HP5+ is "pushable" to 1600 but the real champ is Tri-X (moot since you don't have Tri-X). (And the blah blah blah about short toe vs long toe.)

Before you break the piggy bank on a bulk roll of Delta 400 buy a couple of rolls and shoot it.

Also put your pencil to the cost of bulk loading. I think the days of saving half by bulk loading are gone, even if you already have loaders and cartridges. Can you still save money? Yes, but your profit goes out the window if you blow a couple of rolls.

thanks for the answer, for me, not accounting for the price of the loader but including the price of cartridges, bulk loading illford film can save me at least 30% which is nice, not a huge saving but better than nothing,
when you say "blow a couple of rolls", do you mean screwing up in the loading process ? I've never done it before so i need to be pretty careful, any tips ? i got the AP bulk loader BTW.

And you're right about getting a couple rolls of delta 400 before committing to the bulk roll, i'll probably do that to test it out a little, at box speed.

 

[mcafeejohn]

thanks for the answer, for me, not accounting for the price of the loader but including the price of cartridges, bulk loading illford film can save me at least 30% which is nice, not a huge saving but better than nothing,
when you say "blow a couple of rolls", do you mean screwing up in the loading process ? I've never done it before so i need to be pretty careful, any tips ? i got the AP bulk loader BTW.

And you're right about getting a couple rolls of delta 400 before committing to the bulk roll, i'll probably do that to test it out a little, at box speed.

and unfortunately, Tri-X is really expensive for me ! I hope HP5's result when pushed is still okay (or else i just wasted my money on the bulk roll of it), maybe i should've just bought the delta in bulk for daylight and bought 3200's for night time

 

[thinkbrown]

I'll just throw it out there, I really like kentmere 400 anywhere between 400-1600 iso, and the price can't be beat by anything other than fomapan (which according to what I've heard, does not push well).

That being said, I'm not aware of any 35mm 400 iso film that's going to give you fine looking grain at 16x20.

 

[xkaes]

There aren't any 800 or 1600 B&W films, so you're stuck with pushing a 400 speed film or pulling a 3200 film -- or getting a faster lens. Trade in your f2.0 for an f1.4 to address the issue. Sounds like you need two cameras anyway -- if you don't already do that. And film cameras are CHEAP!!! Cheaper than film!!!

 

[mcafeejohn]

I'll just throw it out there, I really like kentmere 400 anywhere between 400-1600 iso, and the price can't be beat by anything other than fomapan (which according to what I've heard, does not push well).

That being said, I'm not aware of any 35mm 400 iso film that's going to give you fine looking grain at 16x20.

I heard kentmere is quite good too, but a little under the hp5 in terms of silver quantity and overall quality, and yes 35mm has its limitations in terms of resolution that's one reason why i wanted to make the most out of it with sharp film, even tho it will never compete directly with bigger formats

 

[retina_restoration]

If you need a 1600 ASA film, buy a 1600 ASA film, rather than overdeveloping a 400 ASA film.
That said, I love Delta 400 in 35mm format, and dislike HP5 (it’s fine in sheet film sizes, I just don’t like how it looks in small formats) but HP5 handles underexposure/overdevelopment better.

 

[mcafeejohn]

There aren't any 800 or 1600 B&W films, so you're stuck with pushing a 400 speed film or pulling a 3200 film -- or getting a faster lens. Trade in your f2.0 for an f1.4 to address the issue. Sounds like you need two cameras anyway -- if you don't already do that. And film cameras are CHEAP!!! Cheaper than film!!!

I currently own a f1.4 (50mm) on my OM-2n, and i like it very much, started film on olympus OMs and have always been very happy with them, the OM-4ti seems like the next logical step in terms of accurate metering and upgrade of shutter speeds but im afraid it won't be as reliable because of the quantity of electronics in it, i prefer to keep it as simple as possible for reliability and cost of potential repairs

 

[mcafeejohn]

If you need a 1600 ASA film, buy a 1600 ASA film, rather than overdeveloping a 400 ASA film.
That said, I love Delta 400 in 35mm format, and dislike HP5 (it’s fine in sheet film sizes, I just don’t like how it looks in small formats) but HP5 handles underexposure/overdevelopment better.

So my best bet is probably delta 3200 pulled to 1600, ill try and cancel the hp5 order to replace it with delta 400, hopefully its not too late, if it is i'll just exeriment with the hp5 for a while and shoot a couple delta 400s to make up my mind, shurely the hp5 can't be that blurry, but in 35mm the sharpness of the delta could make a significant difference, i heard a lot of people say like you that they prefer hp5 in bigger formats

 

[GregY]

If you need a 1600 ASA film, buy a 1600 ASA film, rather than overdeveloping a 400 ASA film.
That said, I love Delta 400 in 35mm format, and dislike HP5 (it’s fine in sheet film sizes, I just don’t like how it looks in small formats) but HP5 handles underexposure/overdevelopment better.

Absolutely agree. If you're doing static shots with long exposures .....tripod etc. I'd look at reciprocity characteristics & use TMY2 or Acros. If handheld buy a few rolls of 3200... or a fast lens.
No film can do it all. I'ver never got great results with HP5 (others have).....but i'm testing out Delta 400 just now... but not pushing,

 

[MattKing]

There aren't any 800 or 1600 B&W films, so you're stuck with pushing a 400 speed film or pulling a 3200 film -- or getting a faster lens

This is a bit pedantic, but the films labelled as "3200" are actually 800-1000 ISO. They have just been designed to minimize the quality reduction if one "pushes" them to EIs of 1250, 1600 or 3200. Using an EI of 1600 with them and developing for that is still a "push", just not as much a "push" as using the EI of 3200 and developing for that.

 

[MattKing]

I currently own a f1.4 (50mm) on my OM-2n, and i like it very much, started film on olympus OMs and have always been very happy with them, the OM-4ti seems like the next logical step in terms of accurate metering and upgrade of shutter speeds but im afraid it won't be as reliable because of the quantity of electronics in it, i prefer to keep it as simple as possible for reliability and cost of potential repairs

I am down to 3 OM bodies now - OM-20, OM-2S and OM-4T. I recently sold my OM-2N.
I've been using OM bodies since 1975 - a non-MD OM-1.
They all give the same quality results. Each has different advantages due to their feature sets.
The OM-2S was my workhorse for years, starting in the 1980s.
Don't worry about the reliability and accuracy differences - they should be similar.

And as for film, my all time favorite is T-Max 400, but unless and until you have done a fair amount of printing from negatives exposed and developed by you, you probably won't be limited by the subtle differences between the films you are considering.

 

[mcafeejohn]

I am down to 3 OM bodies now - OM-20, OM-2S and OM-4T. I recently sold my OM-2N.
I've been using OM bodies since 1975 - a non-MD OM-1.
They all give the same quality results. Each has different advantages due to their feature sets.
The OM-2S was my workhorse for years, starting in the 1980s.
Don't worry about the reliability and accuracy differences - they should be similar.

And as for film, my all time favorite is T-Max 400, but unless and until you have done a fair amount of printing from negatives exposed and developed by you, you probably won't be limited by the subtle differences between the films you are considering.

Happy to see a fellow Olympus enjoyer ! From their compact form-factor to their robustness, I truly love everything about them ! Maybe one day if i find a good deal for a CLA'd OM-4 i'll get one, right now i'm more than happy with what i have. Also, the Zuiko lenses have a very good reputation, so i'm happy with that too, not that i have anything to compare them against tho.

And yes, about the film, if they can change my order for the delta i'll get it instead, if not, i'll enjoy the HP5 either way, sticking to delta 3200 for night time street photo, (i'll still try pushing the HP5 on a roll if i have it handy, just to see how it reacts)

Edit: The reason i was worried about the pure sharpness of it was more to be "future-proof", meaning if in a few years when i am all geared up i decide to do some prints of my old negatives, i don't want to be limited by the film used, but as you said i hope it wont be too much of a problem

 

[mcafeejohn]

I am down to 3 OM bodies now - OM-20, OM-2S and OM-4T. I recently sold my OM-2N.
I've been using OM bodies since 1975 - a non-MD OM-1.
They all give the same quality results. Each has different advantages due to their feature sets.
The OM-2S was my workhorse for years, starting in the 1980s.
Don't worry about the reliability and accuracy differences - they should be similar.

And as for film, my all time favorite is T-Max 400, but unless and until you have done a fair amount of printing from negatives exposed and developed by you, you probably won't be limited by the subtle differences between the films you are considering.

By the way being still in my early 20s, I just discovered this forum and it is a treasure for learning ! Happy to see that people keep this hobby alive ! Cheers !

 

[MattKing]

By the way being still in my early 20s, I just discovered this forum and it is a treasure for learning ! Happy to see that people keep this hobby alive ! Cheers !

Glad you are here!
One warning though, the desire to acquire additional OM lenses is something that you need to be warned about - it can become addictive! This is from slightly earlier than your camera.

And then when you consider all the accessories! You should probably just avoid all those fascinating pages near the end of the manuals

 

[mcafeejohn]

Glad you are here!
One warning though, the desire to acquire additional OM lenses is something that you need to be warned about - it can become addictive! This is from slightly earlier than your camera.
View attachment 401417
And then when you consider all the accessories! You should probably just avoid all those fascinating pages near the end of the manuals

Haha this image made my wallet lighter just by looking at it, I'll try to keep it slow on the lens collecting but i can't promise you anything!
I chased the MC version of my 1.4 and i love it, also have the 135mm and 24, that covers a lot of usecases for now but those super telephotos are really attractive ! (their prices not so much)
The macros and fisheyes could also be nice, ill keep them in mind for later

 

[AZD]

Given your options, I think HP5 is a great choice. Pushing film seems to elicit strong reactions, but if you’re gonna do it anyway, HP5 is probably better than most. It’s my first choice when I need 1600-3200, and it’s understood that fine grain and shadow detail are not what I’m after. It allows me to make the most of light, portable cameras in weird lighting.

Every year I shoot a demolition derby or two. By 10pm the camera is set to f3.5 and 1/60th second, a combination just good enough to sharpen up an f1.4 lens and keep motion blur mostly under control. Develop at 1600 or 3200 based on a little intuition and don’t worry too much, HP5 always handles it.

Related to pushing film: 30 years ago I got a copy of a book called Sweet Swing Blues on the Road by musician Wynton Marsalis and photographer Frank Stewart. Many pictures on dark stages and in dark rooms. Prior to its printing in 1994 Stewart would have been limited to films like Tri-X or maybe TMAX 3200, but it hardly matters (though as a sidenote, I think I see Tri-X and sometimes TMZ grain, but not TMY). Some of the pictures are sooo good. Only a photographer would look at them and think that maybe the highlights are a little blown out, and the black suit disappears below the film’s toe, and the grain is just a little too coarse… These pictures show how a skilled photographer can turn all those technical shortcomings into some excellent pictures.

 

[Craig]

You can always buy a couple rolls of each film, try them out at 1600 and then see which you like better. I would avoid Kentmere, as I find it's grain at 400 is larger than HP5, and much more noticeable than Delta.

HP5 seems to have a slightly lower contrast index than Delta when developed to the Ilford times, so it will probably be a good film to push.

Although you have lots of D76, you might wish to try a package of Ilford Microphen, as that does increase film speed.

 

[farpointer]

Troop and Anchell in the latest “The Film Cookbook” call HP5 their favorite versatile black-and-white film for scenarios where you sometimes may need to push 2 or 3 (or more) stops. They recommend Xtol or Ilford DD-X when pushing is required.

 

[mcafeejohn]

Given your options, I think HP5 is a great choice. Pushing film seems to elicit strong reactions, but if you’re gonna do it anyway, HP5 is probably better than most. It’s my first choice when I need 1600-3200, and it’s understood that fine grain and shadow detail are not what I’m after. It allows me to make the most of light, portable cameras in weird lighting.

Every year I shoot a demolition derby or two. By 10pm the camera is set to f3.5 and 1/60th second, a combination just good enough to sharpen up an f1.4 lens and keep motion blur mostly under control. Develop at 1600 or 3200 based on a little intuition and don’t worry too much, HP5 always handles it.

Related to pushing film: 30 years ago I got a copy of a book called Sweet Swing Blues on the Road by musician Wynton Marsalis and photographer Frank Stewart. Many pictures on dark stages and in dark rooms. Prior to its printing in 1994 Stewart would have been limited to films like Tri-X or maybe TMAX 3200, but it hardly matters (though as a sidenote, I think I see Tri-X and sometimes TMZ grain, but not TMY). Some of the pictures are sooo good. Only a photographer would look at them and think that maybe the highlights are a little blown out, and the black suit disappears below the film’s toe, and the grain is just a little too coarse… These pictures show how a skilled photographer can turn all those technical shortcomings into some excellent pictures.

Thank you for the reference, i agree that when used correctly even pushed hp5 can look amazing at night or in concert-like events, however, even without considering pushing the film, I'm still having the dilemma between the two (delta/HP5) I like the sharpness of delta, but i also like the "artistic, 40's aesthetic" of HP5, actually prefer the organic grain over "pepperiness" of delta, i guess it comes down to personal philosophical view, do i want the modern sharpness and pepper grain that comes with it or more organic grain with less sharpness, at the end of the day, i have to make a choice but can't seem to be able to

 

[xkaes]

One warning though, the desire to acquire additional OM lenses is something that you need to be warned about - it can become addictive! This is from slightly earlier than your camera.

While Olympus made great lenses, so did the Independent Lens Manufacturers. Here's a list of just what the major companies offered. Probably all of these lenses were made with the OM lens mount:

https://www.subclub.org/minman/lenstable.htm

 

[mcafeejohn]

While Olympus made great lenses, so did the Independent Lens Manufacturers. Here's a list of just what the major companies offered. Probably all of these lenses were made with the OM lens mount:

https://www.subclub.org/minman/lenstable.htm

dead link?