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

[AZD]

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

My solution to this dilemma - needing drastically different exposure indices and levels of detail over a short period - has been to carry two bodies. One has FP4 or Kentmere 100, the other has HP5 at 800-1600. This may or may not be a practical approach for you.

Regardless, the best solution is to dive in and see what works best for you. I find that these infinite loop analysis paralysis situations are usually resolved after a roll or two and the many internet comments become immediately irrelevant. As a result, there are some films (and cameras and lenses…) I will never bother using again, and then there are binders full of HP5 negatives run through Nikons. (Sorry for the jab, I might be one of the few who picked up an Olympus body and immediately realized it wasn’t meant to be. I’ll try to do something nice today to redeem myself.)

 

[retina_restoration]

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

Ultimately, you need to try all of your film options yourself and decide how they compare. Buy a 24 exposure roll of both (or all three: TMZ) and shoot tests of them - preferably the same scene(s) - and develop them the way you expect to use them, and do your own comparisons.
If you must know exactly how they stack up against each other before buying 100’ of film, then testing each first is the only practical choice.

As I said earlier, Delta 400 is absolutely my preference over HP5 (in small formats) - it has a clarity and “sparkle” in the upper values that HP5 simply doesn’t have. It’s great for many applications, but isn’t a great fit for how I like to work.

Some examples of work done on Delta 400:






PS: there's nothing to stop you from buying 100' of both (or several) film types and simply switch out the roll when you need a different film. It's a simple thing to remove a bulk roll and put in a different one.

 

[mcafeejohn]

My solution to this dilemma - needing drastically different exposure indices and levels of detail over a short period - has been to carry two bodies. One has FP4 or Kentmere 100, the other has HP5 at 800-1600. This may or may not be a practical approach for you.

Regardless, the best solution is to dive in and see what works best for you. I find that these infinite loop analysis paralysis situations are usually resolved after a roll or two and the many internet comments become immediately irrelevant. As a result, there are some films (and cameras and lenses…) I will never bother using again, and then there are binders full of HP5 negatives run through Nikons. (Sorry for the jab, I might be one of the few who picked up an Olympus body and immediately realized it wasn’t meant to be. I’ll try to do something nice today to redeem myself.)

Haha, no hard feelings, you are very right about the loop analysis paralysis situation part,but because i already pulled the trigger on the order, i think i'll enjoy the delta 400 for the next year ! Won't keep me from testing the hp5 tho (already shot some, waiting to dev it).
I already know i'll love the sharpness i'll get out of the delta, and as said earlier for night shots ill just go for the delta 3200, if on the long run i decide i prefer the smoothness from hp5 i'll know which bulk to purchase next ! thanks for the advice and maybe you should give Olympus another try, who knows

 

[mcafeejohn]

Ultimately, you need to try all of your film options yourself and decide how they compare. Buy a 24 exposure roll of both (or all three: TMZ) and shoot tests of them - preferably the same scene(s) - and develop them the way you expect to use them, and do your own comparisons.
If you must know exactly how they stack up against each other before buying 100’ of film, then testing each first is the only practical choice.

As I said earlier, Delta 400 is absolutely my preference over HP5 (in small formats) - it has a clarity and “sparkle” in the upper values that HP5 simply doesn’t have. It’s great for many applications, but isn’t a great fit for how I like to work.

Some examples of work done on Delta 400:

the examples given here are really quite nice ! I was in too much of a hurry (shouldn't have been, i know) to take the time to test them thoroughly, but the more i see examples of delta the more i think i made the right choice, anyways, i'm only stuck with it for about 18 rolls max (or less if i decide to sell some if it doesn't suit my needs, which i doubt) after which i can decide if i stick with it or want to change to hp5 for good.
The only thing that can break delta for me is if the dynamic range (latitude ?) is REALLY less than hp5, which it should be theoretically, but from what i understand as long as i expose properly i should be good in most conditions.

 

[dkirby]

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.

Kentmere 400 really is quite good pushed to 1600, and it does so very well in D-76 stock. Examples of K400 pushed to 1600 in D-76:







At 400 Kentmere will not compete with Delta in terms of grain, sharpness, etc. My personal experience aligns with what others have said that Delta does not push as well as either HP5/K400

 

[thinkbrown]

Yeah, kentmere 400 is good enough that I don't buy hp5 anymore. Either I'm buying Kentmere 400 or Delta 400 if I'm doing something special

 

[retina_restoration]

the examples given here are really quite nice !

Thanks.

The only thing that can break delta for me is if the dynamic range (latitude ?) is REALLY less than hp5, which it should be theoretically, but from what i understand as long as i expose properly i should be good in most conditions.

In my experience, Delta 400 does not suffer from "lack of dynamic range" compared to HP5, but the fact is that I never underexpose/overdevelop Delta 400, so my experience is limited to how I work (tends towards slight overexposure and decreasing development a wee bit). I cannot say how amenable Delta 400 is to extreme push processing. I think you'll find out for yourself what is and isn't possible, and that's a good thing.

 

[xkaes]

dead link?

It works for me, but for some reason it won't let me enter EDIT to check. Try a CUT & PASTE.

 

[farpointer]

It works for me, but for some reason it won't let me enter EDIT to check. Try a CUT & PASTE.

Navigating to www.subclub.org directly doesn't work for me, either.

If I just go to subclub.org it works (and redirects to www.subclub.org)

 

[npl]

Since you want both HP5+ and Delta 400, maybe instead of commiting to one and buying a bulk roll to save only a few bucks, you could place large orders of both films. There's places when you get a discount when buying like 10 rolls in one go.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

D400 pushes quite nicely to 1600. That is about its limit, and the same with HP5.
But...HP5 has been my main conventional BW filmt for decades, in roll films, up to LF, for many reasons.

 

[dkirby]

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.

D400 pushes quite nicely to 1600. That is about its limit, and the same with HP5.
But...HP5 has been my main conventional BW filmt for decades, in roll films, up to LF, for many reasons.

Curious to know your process for good results for D400 @ 1600 w/ examples if you have some. Particularly in 35mm for direct comparison.

Just would love to up my game if there's something I could be doing better

 

[retina_restoration]

Since you want both HP5+ and Delta 400, maybe instead of commiting to one and buying a bulk roll to save only a few bucks, you could place large orders of both films. There's places when you get a discount when buying like 10 rolls in one go.

Buying Ilford films in 100' rolls doesn't just save you "a few bucks" - it can be as much of a difference as cutting your costs in half. That is not an insignificant saving.

 

[mcafeejohn]

Since you want both HP5+ and Delta 400, maybe instead of commiting to one and buying a bulk roll to save only a few bucks, you could place large orders of both films. There's places when you get a discount when buying like 10 rolls in one go.

In Europe ? My current supplier is Fotoimpex from germany, i don't know any other european bulk supplier

 

[npl]

Buying Ilford films in 100' rolls doesn't just save you "a few bucks" - it can be as much of a difference as cutting your costs in half. That is not an insignificant saving.

I don't know about half. Right now on photoimpex a 10 pack of 36 exp HP5+ is 9,5€ per roll. A 30,5 Meters / 100 ft bulk roll is 125,9€, so assuming no waste and no mistakes when loading the canisters it's what, 18 rolls of 36exp ? So 6,9€ per roll. You'd have to shoot a lot to cover the cost of good bulk loading gear (not cheap !) before it's interesting. Sure, it will be at one point and for folks shooting large volume and commited to one film it can make sense. But since OP obviously want to have both HP5+ and Delta 400 in it's arsenal, I'm not sure bulk loading is the best option.

 

[npl]

In Europe ? My current supplier is Fotoimpex from germany, i don't know any other european bulk supplier

Fotoimpex and MacoDirect both offer a small discount for ten rolls of HP5 :

ILFORD HP5+ 135/36 400 ASA - fotoimpex.com analogue photography

Light Sensitivity: ISO 400/27°. Highly sensitive universal film with conventional crystal structure. Together with FP4+ THE classic from Ilford. And together with Kodak ...

www.fotoimpex.com

Ilford HP5 Plus 35mm 36 exposures

Ilford HP5 Plus is a fine grain, high-speed black and white film with a nominal sensitivity of ISO 400/27°. Also known for good acutance and high…

www.macodirect.de

Regarding bulk roll, this website has some : https://labo-argentique.com/732-ilford-hp5-plus-400-iso-35mm-x-305m.html

Also https://www.retrocamera.be/fr/ilford-hp5-plus-35mm-x-30-5m-rc0000000129

 

[retina_restoration]

I don't know about half. Right now on photoimpex a 10 pack of 36 exp HP5+ is 9,5€ per roll. A 30,5 Meters / 100 ft bulk roll is 125,9€, so assuming no waste and no mistakes when loading the canisters it's what, 18 rolls of 36exp ? So 6,9€ per roll. You'd have to shoot a lot to cover the cost of good bulk loading gear (not cheap !) before it's interesting. Sure, it will be at one point and for folks shooting large volume and commited to one film it can make sense. But since OP obviously want to have both HP5+ and Delta 400 in it's arsenal, I'm not sure bulk loading is the best option.

I get 21-22 rolls of 36 exposures out of 100’ of film. That’s just over $7 per roll, whereas a 36 exposure roll of D400 can be as much as $16. (Which is the current price at B&H) That sounds like half the cost to me ;-)
I was given a vintage bulk loader for free, so that cost was avoided. Vintage loaders in good condition can be had for a few dollars.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

And as for film, my all time favorite is T-Max 400....

For B&W films, I agree. T-Max 400 is the winner, hands-down. It has finer grain than some ISO 100-125 films and an almost straight-line H&D curve. I'm not sure why it isn't more popular.

 

[Craig]

For B&W films, I agree. T-Max 400 is the winner, hands-down. It has finer grain than some ISO 100-125 films and an almost straight-line H&D curve. I'm not sure why it isn't more popular.

Cost. Where I am a of TMY is nearly double that of HP5 or Delta (Delta 400 is actually a bit cheaper than HP5) and TMX is about $4 a roll more than TMY.

 

[Steven Lee]

For B&W films, I agree. T-Max 400 is the winner, hands-down. It has finer grain than some ISO 100-125 films and an almost straight-line H&D curve. I'm not sure why it isn't more popular.

Because it produces an image with a perfectly long and linear curve. It makes you question your life choices. Digital cameras are better at being T-Max than T-Max is. I am half-joking, but it's just too perfect. I once did a photoshoot in the studio with T-Max 400 and a digital body. Then I scanned the negatives using the same digital body and showed the resulting mix to the model. She couldn't tell them apart and neither could I after a few weeks. T-Max films are pointless in the digital era. They aren't "filmy", they are "digital".

HP5, on the other hand, you can't confuse an HP5 scan/print for a digital one.

 

[MattKing]

If you prefer to print in the darkroom, T-Max 400 gives you the ability to produce work that ranges between results that are similar to digital, and results that are fundamentally film like. It is very adaptable.

 

[F4U]

I'm not sure it really matters what 35mm bulk film you buy matters. It's not like large format, where film costs constrain you from making multiple bracketed shots of everything. And there is no such thing as "pushing" film. There never was. The phenidone-based developers may give a slight boost and still allow all 10 zones, but shutter calibration problems can be a constant deal killer. Eastman Kodak Co set the standard for rating fiim speeds many years ago, based on D-76, D-23, DK60a, H110, Rodinal, and a lot of full speed non-Kodak developers. All of the present-day films can give good work, used as directed. Pick one and go with it.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

T-Max 400 gives you the ability to produce work that ranges between results that are similar to digital, and results that are fundamentally film like. It is very adaptable.

Matt, would you mind elaborating this a bit?

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Cost. Where I am....

Because it produces an image....

Interesting points. When I see T-Max, locally, the price is similar to Tri-X, I never though of T-Max as being "too perfect," but I can certainly see where you're coming from, when you explain it in those terms.

 

[retina_restoration]

Because it produces an image with a perfectly long and linear curve. It makes you question your life choices. Digital cameras are better at being T-Max than T-Max is. I am half-joking, but it's just too perfect. I once did a photoshoot in the studio with T-Max 400 and a digital body. Then I scanned the negatives using the same digital body and showed the resulting mix to the model. She couldn't tell them apart and neither could I after a few weeks. T-Max films are pointless in the digital era. They aren't "filmy", they are "digital".

HP5, on the other hand, you can't confuse an HP5 scan/print for a digital one.

I am inclined to agree with this, but - I also find T-max films to be reasonably malleable in terms of the look they deliver.
Where a film like Tri-X or HP5+ have a characteristic look “baked in” to them, T-max is far more neutral. This is because Tri-X has an S-shaped curve, whereas T-Max 400 has a much more straight line curve. (forgive me if I am overstating the obvious)

Often, photographers prefer a film that has a definite “look” bias; they know their images are going to have a certain visual character if they choose something like Tri-X, and they know how to work with those characteristics. For many, T-Max can appear sterile and overly clean, lacking the qualities that define it as having "film" traits. This perception of “digital-looking” is valid, as T-Max’s lack of distinct traits may not resonate with all photographers.

But I have learned to be thoughtful about which film I use for the circumstances. Sometimes Tri-X (or FP4+) is better suited to how I see a scene, and other times I want that T-Max neutrality for an image.

Some examples, photographing the same scene on different days (but similar lighting conditions):
This photo was made with Tri-X
This photo was made with FP4+
and this photo was made with T-Max 400

The differences are subtle, but discernible to the trained eye.