HP5 and Delta 400, much of a difference?

[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!

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

That I understand. The only tabular grain film that I will consider using is Delta 3200 for its speed with a 500mm lens or a 500mm lens with a 2X extender.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

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.

It seems you definitely like more contrast though that shot above the shadows seem a bit too blocked up to me.

And I have to say I take some exception to your comment about Delta films being flat and lifeless at box speed. To each their own opinion of course but I recommend you perhaps try different techniques or developers to dial them in?

I don't find these examples flat or lifeless and all were taken at boxed speed:

Delta 100 (next two):




Delta 400 (next two):

 

[DREW WILEY]

I tried Delta 400 exactly once. Never again. The shadow separation was Blaaaah.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Now these two below are HP5+. Can anyone really look at these or the Delta examples above and really say one is all that different than the other? (Of course some will say with paper prints it's obvious!!)

HP5+ (next two):

 

[DREW WILEY]

More like listening with or without a lawnmower running just outside your window.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

More like listening with or without a lawnmower running just outside your window.

Not if you're listening for a lawnmower.

 

[Ian Grant]

I shoot HP5 and Delta 400 alongside each other (delta 400 120 & HP5 5x4)and it's hard to see a difference in scans or prints except for the grain in HP5 in 120 compared to 120 Delta 400 shot at a different time.

Ian

 

[cliveh]

I shoot HP5 and Delta 400 alongside each other (delta 400 120 & HP5 5x4)and it's hard to see a difference in scans or prints except for the grain in HP5 in 120 compared to 120 Delta 400 shot at a different time.

Ian

But can you feel the difference?

 

[Ian Grant]

But can you feel the difference?

Feel is maybe the wrong term, yes there's a difference in straight test prints but by the time I've made a print they match well, except for the grain

Ian

 

[markbarendt]

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

You would.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I have to say that I much prefer HP5+ to Delta 400, although I do like Delta 100. If you are looking for finer grain from HP5+, try developing it in Perceptol or try T-Max 400 in ID-11 1+1.

 

[weasel]

frankly, I think most of us, ( me included), are simply full of crap. Just got back from a trip to new mexico, shot a bunch of acros in 120, and delta 400in 35mm. Both developed in xtol; both very different films as well as different formats. When worked up into prints, the differences were very subtle at small enlargments. ( that would likely change going bigger). Why was that? Because I knew what I wanted the images to look like before I took them, and then worked them up accordingly. I guess the point im trying to make is that processed to the same end point, differences will be minor.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I am very low less film experienced shooter, but in short tests or few i immediately decided which films i like, and for 400ASA film this is my order according to the films in 400 i used so far: TMAX400 > HP5+ > Tri-X > Delta 400

My best developer i have now is HC-110 then followed by TMAX, i have D-76 and ID-11 and few more others, but HC-110 and TMAX always giving me a pleasing great results over other developers even than this D-76 most popular one, i don't have Rodinal, and i still have a pack of X-TOL but the pain of preparing it stopped me to use it, maybe i have to shoot nearly 20-40 B&W films first and store them then i can develop with XTOL before it get exhausted, and i am still searching for a 5L beaker plastic as i had one of glass and it broke accidentally with really a gentle touch of the bottom of the beaker due to the weight/volume of the liquid prepared that time.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

frankly, I think most of us, ( me included), are simply full of crap. Just got back from a trip to new mexico, shot a bunch of acros in 120, and delta 400in 35mm. Both developed in xtol; both very different films as well as different formats. When worked up into prints, the differences were very subtle at small enlargments. ( that would likely change going bigger). Why was that? Because I knew what I wanted the images to look like before I took them, and then worked them up accordingly. I guess the point im trying to make is that processed to the same end point, differences will be minor.

Yup. Sort of what I was saying in my load of crap back on post #5 of this thread.

 

[jeztastic]

I shot some portraits 6x6 120 on HP5 and Delta 400 recently. After scanning I could see a clear difference in the tonal range. I haven't tried printing yet, but my suspicion is I will get easier to print skin tone with the Delta 400, but more drama with HP5. I suspect I will end up going with Delta for portraits in future but that remains to be seen. I will have a good printing session in the half term holiday and report back.

Sent from my SM-T805 using Tapatalk

 

[nolanr66]

Delta 400 35mm cost $6.00 a roll and HP5 is about $4.65 a roll. (more or less on the cost) According to Bain in that industry news video he said that Delta is less forgiving then HP5. He might have said finer grain but I would have to watch it again to be sure. Myself I am going to share the joy with Kodak and Illford and shoot Tri-X and HP-5 most of the time. I did recently shoot a roll of Delta 100 at Yosemite and I thought it gave very nice landscape type shots. Toss on a colored filter and a tripod starts looking good if you want to shoot at f11.

Edit: I went back and watched the first part of the video with Bain. He said Delta was less forgiving with exposure and with development then the plus films.. He said it had "Better" grain. I do not know if "better" means finer or just more pleasing to look. You decide on that.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I find these two film to be almost opposite poles of what Ilford offers, and can't imagine ever substituting one for the other. HP5 can really
sing in 8x10 format if you understand it. It's too grainy for my taste in anything smaller. Delta is a med speed, tabular grain thin emulsion
film. It's like trying to compare a sparrow to an ostrich. Yeah, they're both birds, but otherwise....

 

[cliveh]

I find these two film to be almost opposite poles of what Ilford offers, and can't imagine ever substituting one for the other. HP5 can really
sing in 8x10 format if you understand it. It's too grainy for my taste in anything smaller. Delta is a med speed, tabular grain thin emulsion
film. It's like trying to compare a sparrow to an ostrich. Yeah, they're both birds, but otherwise....

Sparrow to an ostrich, that is better than my vinyl/CD analogy. Perhaps we should try to provide analogies of tabular grain film and HP5 to enlighten this thread.

 

[wblynch]

I shot some portraits 6x6 120 on HP5 and Delta 400 recently. After scanning I could see a clear difference in the tonal range. I haven't tried printing yet, but my suspicion is I will get easier to print skin tone with the Delta 400, but more drama with HP5. I suspect I will end up going with Delta for portraits in future but that remains to be seen. I will have a good printing session in the half term holiday and report back.

Wouldn't you want a little drama in your portraits?

I find myself favoring tonality over (less) grain every time.

 

[John Bragg]

Wouldn't you want a little drama in your portraits?

I find myself favoring tonality over (less) grain every time.

Well said Bill. I couldnt agree more with this statement. Delta is a lovely film but I find myself liking HP5+ better. Not too grainy, but grainy enough and very forgiving.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I go the "watercolor grain" route of HP5 in pyro: very crisp edge acutance with relatively inconspicuous overall grain, provided it isn't enlarged more than about 3X or 4X, which is of course a nice big 20x24 print from 8x10 film. For small camera use, like MF, I'd rather have
the grain effect blatant rather than "sorta", yet still with good detail rendition, which is why I prefer Delta 3200 for that. I've never cared for
Tri-X for my personal work, though have obviously seen many great prints done with it. Delta 100 doesn't hold much appeal for me either;
I prefer ACROS or FP4 in the medium speed category. It is a nice portrait film, but so is TMax 100.

 

[jeztastic]

Wouldn't you want a little drama in your portraits?

I find myself favoring tonality over (less) grain every time.

I agree, but I am looking for more mid-tones for skin. I have no problem at all with HP5 grain especially at 6x6.

Sent from my SM-T805 using Tapatalk

 

[toddsby]

roger and frances

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!

OP: Recently came across this article. http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/choosing bw films.html
Think it nails the differences. old tech vs new tech is how they explained it.

At this point we run into the differences between so-called 'old technology' films (such as FP4 and Plus X) and so-called 'new technology' films (such as Ilford Delta 100/100 Delta - they changed the name and confused everyone - and Kodak T-Max 100 or TMX). The crystals of silver halide in 'new technology' films are much more uniform in size and shape, and the shape itself is optimized for sensitivity. This gives finer grain and higher sharpness for a given speed, but also a more or less reduced flexibility (see below).
In practice, the differences between 'old technology' and 'new technology' have been decreasing ever since 'new technology' films were introduced, so which you prefer will normally come down to questions of grain, sharpness and tonality. 'New technology' films are normally much superior in both grain and sharpness, but many people prefer the tonality of 'old technology'.

 

[markbarendt]

After scanning I could see a clear difference in the tonal range. I haven't tried printing yet, but my suspicion is I will get easier to print skin tone with the Delta 400, but more drama with HP5.

Negatives are always and only "a portion"/"a part" of the equation. Converting to positive is the other big part. Both parts must be considered and both parts are very adjustable.

If there is a significant difference in the important tonal range of the positives (what is visible as a positive) then you probably haven't controlled or corrected for enough variables. That is true of prints and scans. Scanners, simply put, are not normally impartial judges of how a negative can be printed or how it will print. Lots of people get back scans from their local lab, look at that "proof" and say oh darn that frame turned out overexposed or flat and ugly and completely disregard that/those frames when they are well within the printable range.

If I followed that logic a huge number of my shots would be tossed as overexposed and "blown out" when compared to the rest of the roll. In reality they are perfectly workable and I simply chose to expose considerably more than normal, the scanner doesn't know that though.

If you control for the variables, the differences in tonal range should disappear.

 

[phelger]

The large number of posts concerning film and developer on this site witness the importance we all give to these parts of the whole photgraphic process. However, my most recent discovery is that the printing is what really makes the difference. For a long time I believed that if only I could produce the perfect negative the print would automatically come out as I wished. But now I see this is not the case. Most films developed more or less correctly can be translated into the print you want when applying the range of techniques - correcting contrast, dodging, burning, flashing etc - available. So now I don't spend much time on developing - HP5 (and FP4) in Xtol stock, making sure I don' underexpose, that's all.
I was led to this conclusion by studying the work of Michael Kenna including the rare interviews where he talks about his technique. Somewhere he said "developing the film is the most boring part of the process". And also, his choice of film is rather simple, Tri-X by preference. He does not, to my knowledge, reveal much about his printing techniques, except that two to four prints is what he can do in a full day's work, in other words, there is a lot of trying and testing involved.
And after all, one negative can produce so many different results
Peter