Discussing Ilford's Medium Speed Lineup

[NortheastPhotographic]

Delta 100, FP4+, Kentmere 100, Kentmere 200, SFX200, Ortho+.

I always assumed that the relative niche'ness of analog photography would mean fewer emulsion choices, and in some cases that's true. It's certainly NOT in terms of Ilford's medium speed line up! Some of the options have pretty distinct characteristics, but FP4+, K100, and K200 are pretty similar in many ways. Why would you choose one over another? I can easily see standardizing on K200, it's a great film. FP4+ or K100 might be slightly finer grain but nothing compared to Delta 100, which is probably sharper* than Pan-F.

Are you sticking with FP4+ or Delta or have the Kentmere films swayed you?

*Please don't start a thing about sharpness vs acutance vs fine grain, you know what I mean.

 

[BrianShaw]

FP4+, sticking with it. If for no pother reason than it's been reliable and I know what to expect. If I ever try another emulsion it would be Delta but that hasn't happened yet.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

I was bulk loading FP4+ in 35mm, but have switched to Kentmere 100 due to cost. For the majority of what I do, which is testing cameras, Kentmere 100 works fine.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've used all those films (except K200, but I do have some in the fridge waiting for me...), and have a healthy supply in the freezer. Out of them all, I prefer D100, and FP4. Why? Mainly because they are available up to 8x10 (and larger). For LF ortho look, I'll stick with xray. I need to try out the K200, as soon as I've developed all my Japan films...(no Ilford films).

 

[Craig]

I've used them all except Ortho. I will stick to FP4 for tonality, and Delta 100 for fine grain. Although, it's tonality is quite nice too. K100 and 200 are noticably grainer than the other 2.

I regard SFX and Ortho as special application films, not general purpose films.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Delta 100, FP4+, Kentmere 100, Kentmere 200, SFX200, Ortho+.

I always assumed that the relative niche'ness of analog photography would mean fewer emulsion choices, and in some cases that's true. It's certainly NOT in terms of Ilford's medium speed line up! Some of the options have pretty distinct characteristics, but FP4+, K100, and K200 are pretty similar in many ways. Why would you choose one over another? I can easily see standardizing on K200, it's a great film. FP4+ or K100 might be slightly finer grain but nothing compared to Delta 100, which is probably sharper* than Pan-F.

Are you sticking with FP4+ or Delta or have the Kentmere films swayed you?

*Please don't start a thing about sharpness vs acutance vs fine grain, you know what I mean.

I'llstick to FP4 because of its traditional look.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Delta 100 and Ortho+.

Why? Because of colour rendering and overall tonal responses. In those aspects, Delta can deliver more 'classic' rendering than FP4+. For those that work with archive negs, a comparison between FP3 and FP4 et seq will rather give lie to the idea that FP4 is 'classic' in its rendering.

 

[Craig]

If I had to shoot only Delta 100 I would not be sad, it's a fantastic film.

 

[thinkbrown]

I've never shot sfx200, but none of the rest disappoint me. I've taken lovely photos with all of them and I think they all have their place in my camera

 

[mshchem]

Harman is supplying every market and price point. Like GM in the 50's and 60's. Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, Cadillac, GMC...... Opel, Holden
I haven't any real information but I suspect Harman has an actual plan

 

[john_s]

Delta 100 and Ortho+.

Why? Because of colour rendering and overall tonal responses. In those aspects, Delta can deliver more 'classic' rendering than FP4+. For those that work with archive negs, a comparison between FP3 and FP4 et seq will rather give lie to the idea that FP4 is 'classic' in its rendering.

Is it the higher red sensitivity of FP4+ that leads you to prefer Delta100?

 

[GregY]

Like Craig, FP4 for tonality and Delta 100 for fine grain. Personally no need to try or test the other mid speed offerings.

 

[gbroadbridge]

I've always shot FP4+, Delta100, and HP5+.

Perfectly happy and comfortable with them so no intention to try anything else and go through another learning curve.
It's not like they are prohibitively expensive or difficult to find any longer.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

FP4 Plus for me, although I tend to use HP5 Plus more these days.

 

[retina_restoration]

Are you sticking with FP4+ or Delta or have the Kentmere films swayed you?

If there was nothing to choose from but FP4+ and/or Delta 100, I could happily live with that. Both are exceptional films that can be easily manipulated to suit my needs. Neither has ever disappointed me.

I did explore the Kentmere 120 films when they first made their debut, and got some decent images from both speed options, but I found my Kentmere negatives required more work in post-processing to get results I liked. In the end, I found there was often a certain flatness to the images I couldn’t correct in post, so I stopped using it and stuck with Ilford’s more expensive offerings. I may try a roll or two of the new 200 speed Kentmere, just out of curiosity, but I doubt it will displace any of the other films I regularly use. Don’t get me wrong - it’s a fine choice for daily casual use, but for my liking, I found it lacked “energy and sparkle”, for lack of a better term. I’d much rather spend a few more dollars to get the best quality possible.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

FP4+ in 120 for me. The longer I know it, the more I like this great film.
Responds well to different developers (be it Pyrocat or Rodinal), and is offered in all sizes I do/will need.

A roll of Kentmere 100 is only 2 Euros less... so no.

Delta 100 in 35mm is very nice (as is TMX), but I only do Delta 3200 here anymore.

Jens

 

[snusmumriken]

Delta 100 and Ortho+.

Why? Because of colour rendering and overall tonal responses. In those aspects, Delta can deliver more 'classic' rendering than FP4+. For those that work with archive negs, a comparison between FP3 and FP4 et seq will rather give lie to the idea that FP4 is 'classic' in its rendering.

Are you able to illustrate that? I’d absolutely love to appreciate the difference.

 

[pentaxuser]

Delta 100 and Ortho+.

Why? Because of colour rendering and overall tonal responses. In those aspects, Delta can deliver more 'classic' rendering than FP4+. For those that work with archive negs, a comparison between FP3 and FP4 et seq will rather give lie to the idea that FP4 is 'classic' in its rendering.

What's a more classic rendering?

Thanks

pentaxuser