HP5 for the speed or FP4 for the fine grain

[cliveh]

The theory behind tabular grain technology sounds great, but if some of the grains (even a few) are not pointing in the right direction it destroys the integrity of the entire grain placement. I just don't like it.

 

[TareqPhoto]

The only 3 films from Ilford i like are: HP5+, Pan F+ and FP4+.

I prefer Tmax 400 over HP5 but i prefer Pan F or FP4 over TMAX 100, my favorite ASA 100 film is Acros 100.

 

[nworth]

FP-4 is definitely finer grained than HP-5, but maybe not as much so as you would expect. Delta 400 might be a good idea, and XP-2 is definitely worth a look. (XP-2 has quite a different structure than HP-5. It is a color negative film that gives black and white results. Those results are quite spectacular.) When you go to bigger print sizes, a tripod is the most important thing you can use to increase sharpness and print quality. Unless you shoot at faster than 1/250 second, a tripod is an absolute requirement for big prints, and it often helps even at fast shutter speeds. A cable release and mirror lock-up also help noticeably.

 

[cliveh]

Unless you shoot at faster than 1/250 second, a tripod is an absolute requirement for big prints, and it often helps even at fast shutter speeds. A cable release and mirror lock-up also help noticeably.

I would take issue with this statement, as I have sometimes produced quite good prints from 1/4 second hand held. However, in principle I understand your point.

 

[nworth]

Speaking strictly about sharpness, I'll stand by my statement. But as for print quality, lot depends on the subject and the display context.

 

[cliveh]

What on earth are you talking about?

Tabular grain technology.

 

[Aron]

Before getting into an argument on Epitaxial/Tabular/Sigma vs traditional/semi-traditional grained films, I'd say although there is a difference between HP5 and FP4 grainwise, switching from the former to the latter might very well not provide you with the same kind of improvement in image quality you hope for.

If I were you, I would get used to working fast with your MF camera (even if the RB might not allow for this easily: how about a TLR?) and keep on using the film I know the best. It can be done and the results will speak for themselves. I handhold both my 35 mm RF and TLR down to slower shutter speeds and can't really see more camera shake with my MF pictures.

Just my to cents.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

None of these are as effective as a tripod. They are last resorts.

I would not consider these last resorts. The OP seemed to indicate that he really didn't want to lug a tripod around.

BTW, tripods aren't ideal either. Try using them here in Florida with its loose sandy soil. Just when you get everything level, one leg sinks a little further into the sand.

Jerry

 

[cliveh]

Where did you get this:"if some of the grains (even a few) are not pointing in the right direction it destroys the integrity of the entire grain placement"

The statement is mine, but it derives from a conversation I had with a technologist from Ilford.

 

[xtolsniffer]

After seeing this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-18242214

I've decided I like grain after all!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

After seeing this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-18242214

I've decided I like grain after all!

A little grain is good for the photographer's soul!

Also, can you get lenses with larger apertures, allowing shorter shutter times?