HP5 and Delta 400, much of a difference?

[xtolsniffer]

I've pretty much settled on HP5 in both 120 (RB67 and C220) and 35mm (Nikons) which I develop in ID-11. I have no issues with it, I like it, I'm used to it. However, I'm thinking of moving to DDX as a developer as I often suddenly find I have an hour to spare in the darkroom and have (usually) run out of stock ID11 and have no time to mix up another batch. DDX seems to be a good idea as I also use Delta 3200 in Microphen (which I also run out of), so I could settle on one liquid developer rather than two powdered. I have used DDX and also find I get on with it and it's generally recommended for the Delta films. Then it got me thinking if whether I was missing out on something with Delta 400 vs HP5. I know I should only change one variable at a time, but what are the characteristics and differences of both HP5 and Delta 400 in DDX? Is there much to see?
Ta!

 

[RobC]

I think you should just try delta 400 and see if you like it. We don't know if you will prefer its grain structure better than HP5 or not.

As for DDX, you should get maybe a 1/3 stop more speed than with ID11 when using HP5 or D400. But with D3200 you'll get approx 1 stop less speed than with microphen but it won't be as grainy as microphen.

 

[Ian Grant]

I use Delta 100 & 400 in 120 and find Delta 400 finer grained than HP5 which is why I prefer it. For LF handheld work I use HP5 and I'm always amazed at the quality of the negatives which print easily.

There are differences in tonality and sharpness but aside from the grain as Michael says they are slight and not so noticeable in prints.

Ian

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Not to sound flippant but either work and with most any developer. One thing I've learned and wish I'd done sooner is to just shoot and not fixate on which film or which developer. The differences are subtle and unless you dial everything with perfect consistency (exposure, shutter speed, light, temperature of development, agitation, dilution, etc etc) all those factors will have as much if not more difference than which particular film or developer you use. Just shoot a few, try a few, and decide what you like based on your use and experience. Me? I've decided I like all film, and have settled on HC-110, Rodinal, D-76, and occasionally Exactol Lux, DiXactil Ultra and Diafine. It ALL has the potential to look absolutely terrific.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I did a comparison of HP5 and Delta 400 back in the 90's, in Xtol. I went with HP5. It's all a personal preference. Try it and see for yourself.

 

[ColColt]

My three developers are Rodinal, HC-110 and sometimes ID-11 Plus for all films...works for me. I'm still on the fence about Tri-X and HP-5. Years ago it was Tri-X but to my eye it's changed and HP-5 has given it a good run for the money. I find HP-5 in HC-110 Dil H quite nice.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

My three developers are Rodinal, HC-110 and sometimes ID-11 Plus for all films...works for me. I'm still on the fence about Tri-X and HP-5. Years ago it was Tri-X but to my eye it's changed and HP-5 has given it a good run for the money. I find HP-5 in HC-110 Dil H quite nice.

That "change" in Tri-X you see is probably more you than the Tri-X. I joke that I used to dislike HC-110, and now love it, so they must have change the formula. No, actually I just dialed it in!

 

[ColColt]

You may be right, I have changed quite a bit since then. I've always liked Tri-X since I first shot it way back when and still use it. Maybe my eye sees things a mite differently these days. I do think HP-5 has improved over when I firs tried it back around the late 70's.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Not to sound flippant but either work and with most any developer. One thing I've learned and wish I'd done sooner is to just shoot and not fixate on which film or which developer. The differences are subtle and unless you dial everything with perfect consistency (exposure, shutter speed, light, temperature of development, agitation, dilution, etc etc) all those factors will have as much if not more difference than which particular film or developer you use. Just shoot a few, try a few, and decide what you like based on your use and experience. Me? I've decided I like all film, and have settled on HC-110, Rodinal, D-76, and occasionally Exactol Lux, DiXactil Ultra and Diafine. It ALL has the potential to look absolutely terrific.

That's my experience as well!

 

[John Bragg]

I am a fervent user of HP5+ and I does indeed compare well with Tri-X. I have also used Delta400 and like it as well, though it is in my experience smoother and has less bite in the images. I prefer the grain and microcontrast of HP5+ and also its tonality. It seems to have more real speed and holds highlights really well. I have never tried it with DDX though, as my developer of choice is HC-110 dilution H. Delta400 is also more expensive, at least here in the UK, so that had a bearing on my choice. My advice is to try both and compare. Only you will know what suits your personal vision at the end of the day. There is no wrong choice here, just personal preference. Good luck.

 

[Xmas]

Delta takes twice as long to fix and exhausts fixer more rapidly.

Grain is less apparent in Delta.

 

[ColColt]

Good to see you again, John. You're to blame for turning me onto Dilution H with HP-5 and I've found it to work very well. I've shot two rolls of Delta but like the looks of HP-5 better even though Delta has the perceived look of less grain. As my signature implies, I like grain.

 

[Xmas]

Hi David

If you liked the old HP5 no plus sign you could try Kentmere 400.
Note I'm not saying it is the same rebadged but merely more similar.
100 foot and a daylight loader is cheap.

Noel

 

[ColColt]

I wasn't that crazy about the old but do like the results I see today with it. I've never tried the Kentmere 400 but need to do that.

 

[Nathan King]

These films have a completely different tonal response. You have to try it and compare.

 

[John Bragg]

Good to see you again, John. You're to blame for turning me onto Dilution H with HP-5 and I've found it to work very well. I've shot two rolls of Delta but like the looks of HP-5 better even though Delta has the perceived look of less grain. As my signature implies, I like grain.

Hi David, glad it is working for you. I really do think it is a great combination. Delta400 is good but a different look entirely. I like good honest grain and I empathise with your mourning the loss of Apx400. The Agfa films were unique and tailor made to suit Rodinal. I dont miss Tri-X now that I have HP-5+ dialled in.

 

[ColColt]

Had I known Agfapan 400 was eventually going to be defunct I would have stocked up on plenty but, I got away from so much photography due to a variety of reasons and like all things I figured it would always be around-like Tri-X. I was wrong as usual.

I agree it was tailor made for Rodinal which was the developer I used 90% of the time.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use Kodak Tri-X for 135 and 120 film. I may start using Ilford Delta 3200 for wildlife photography.
Kodak Tri-X 400 is not available in 4"x5" so I use Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ for those cameras. Are they the same as Kodak Tri-X 400? No. I am I happy with Ilford FP4+ and HP5+? Yes.

I use replenished XTOL for 135, 120, an 4"x5" films. I also use Rollo Pyro for 4"x5" film.

 

[Pioneer]

I was a TriX fan. I am now an HP5 fan. They look so close I can't tell any difference in the print. For me the difference is in the price.

I don't have much experience with Delta 100 or 400. I am sure I would like them just fine but I have lots of bulk rolls of TMX 100 and 400 so I doubt I will get to any of Ilford's stuff for awhile.

I basically use D76, HC110, Rodinal and DDX. The DDX is used almost exclusively for my Delta 3200. The Rodinal and HC110 are there because they have a shelf life of forever. Ironically, the D76 would probably easily handle all my developing needs.

 

[wblynch]

I have never got on well with Tri-X. The one roll of HP5+ I recently used came out nicely.

I haven't tried Delta 400 but I do like Tmax-400 better than Tri-X and LOVE Fuji Neopan 400 (still have some socked away)

When all my 200+ rolls of 400 b/w are used up I will move to HP5+ (maybe I'll just sell off the Tri-X and save time)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I use HP5+ at 1200-1600 in HC-110 B for 10-11 minutes. Doesn't seems to be a problem on prints.

This one is HP5+ @1200 on 5x7 FB paper.

I wonder if Delta 400 might be better @1200-1600. I don't like Delta films at box speed, results are flat and lifeless. But if pushed, maybe some contrast and grain kicks in.

 

[cliveh]

I would suggest that HP5 has integrity and Delta 400 does not.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would suggest that HP5 has integrity and Delta 400 does not.

HP5+ is a traditional grain film.
Delta 400 is a tabular grain film.

But I am confused about Delta 400 lacking integrity. Does that mean that Delta 400 will sneak behind my back and Fauxto$hop significant changes to the emulsion? I am so confused!

 

[cliveh]

HP5+ is a traditional grain film.
Delta 400 is a tabular grain film.

But I am confused about Delta 400 lacking integrity. Does that mean that Delta 400 will sneak behind my back and Fauxto$hop significant changes to the emulsion? I am so confused!

To draw an analogy it is like comparing vinyl records with digital CDs.

 

[John Bragg]

For me, Delta400 can be like a blended whisky. Pleasing to the average palate, but lacking a lot in character. HP5+ is more like a single malt. Full of character and individuality, but not to everyones taste.