HP5+ or Fomapan 400

[Ariston]

I want to start bulk loading my film so I can control the number of frames, and to save money. I am deciding between HP5+ and Fomapan. I have used the HP5+ a good bit and am satisfied with it, but I see that Fomapan is much cheaper. I have never used Fomapan and am wondering if it is worthwhile. Is HP5 really $20 better than Fomapan?

Also, if you have any advice on bulk loading, please share. This will be my first bulk load with a tear-drop loader I found at an antique shop.

 

[Ariston]

I should mention that I push to 1600 a lot.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I should mention that I push to 1600 a lot.

From what I've read Fomapan 400 struggles to work well at 800, so I suspect HP5 may be the better option in this case.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I want to start bulk loading my film so I can control the number of frames, and to save money. I am deciding between HP5+ and Fomapan. I have used the HP5+ a good bit and am satisfied with it, but I see that Fomapan is much cheaper. I have never used Fomapan and am wondering if it is worthwhile. Is HP5 really $20 better than Fomapan?

Also, if you have any advice on bulk loading, please share. This will be my first bulk load with a tear-drop loader I found at an antique shop.

my advice is: if you are familiar and satisfied with JHP5, stick to it. It's a quality film from an experienced manufacturer who has vowed to stick to supporting B&W photography. Fomapan is an excellent film too but, if push came to shove, my moneye were on Ilford.

 

[Skeeterfx20]

Buy a roll or two to see if it works for you. What works for me or another person may not work for you.

 

[chip j]

FOMA 400 is really grainy, but looks fine. It's supposed to be the closest you can get today to the legendary Tr-X of the 60s.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've used both and much prefer the look of HP5. It also much better reciprocity.

 

[koraks]

From what I've read Fomapan 400 struggles to work well at 800, so I suspect HP5 may be the better option in this case.

Fomapan 400 struggles to get to 400. If pushing is the objective, Fomapan 400 would be my last resort.
Also, Fomapan 400 tends towards a pronounced S-curve whereas HP5+ is more linear. It's a matter of taste.

 

[Agulliver]

In 35mm I find Fomapan 400 is quite grainy. And it's not great for pushing at all. I would, and indeed do use, HP5+ if the intention is to push to 1600.

The Foma 100 and 200 are fine films in 35mm and they are my "go to" films for bright, outside days.

 

[twelvetone12]

I used both but I prefer HP5+ as my goto 400 iso film. Fomapan 400 is quite different and much grainier, which is not necessarily bad but IMHO more a question of taste.

 

[Ian Grant]

HP5 is a vastly superior film to Fomapan 400 which is rather lack luster compared to Fomapan 100 & 200.

Ian

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Fomapan 400 is garbage film comparing to hp5+.
I only went through one bulk of f400 and after switching to normal film I realized my lens is sharp again
F400 is not 400 film, hp5+ is pushable @3200. It is high quality film. And not cheap.
Where I'm it is Kentmere 400 as economy film. Still superior to f400.

 

[trendland]

I want to start bulk loading my film so I can control the number of frames, and to save money. I am deciding between HP5+ and Fomapan. I have used the HP5+ a good bit and am satisfied with it, but I see that Fomapan is much cheaper. I have never used Fomapan and am wondering if it is worthwhile. Is HP5 really $20 better than Fomapan?

Also, if you have any advice on bulk loading, please share. This will be my first bulk load with a tear-drop loader I found at an antique shop.

What about a mix of this films? HP5 is too expensive from my point! I remember a half priced bulk
relation from the past! The fact Ilford higher pricing to film is one thing! But bulk films saw more
increasement from % so the difference of bulk and 135-36 is much smaler todays!
So from my point HP5 bulk is too expensive ... but Foma isn't that bad film that it has to be priced -20%!!!!

I would offer myself a nice price to Ilford HP5 from that mix :

2 bulks Foma
1 bulk HP5

That should make -16% pricing for HP5 (but listen you shot 1 roll Ilford film and 2 rolls Foma instead of Ilford)!

 

[trendland]

Fomapan 400 is garbage film comparing to hp5+.
I only went through one bulk of f400 and after switching to normal film I realized my lens is sharp again
F400 is not 400 film, hp5+ is pushable @3200. It is high quality film. And not cheap.
Where I'm it is Kentmere 400 as economy film. Still superior to f400.

Normaly I also don't like Foma much Ko.Fe. but there is allways the exception of the exeption !

with regards

PS : If it has to go about : "to live and let die" - then FOMAFILM!

 

[trendland]

HP5 is a vastly superior film to Fomapan 400 which is rather lack luster compared to Fomapan 100 & 200.

Ian

Unterstand Ian - Fomapan 400 isn't that great you stated in the past? I remember you never
mentioned the ISO 400 film!

with regards

 

[trendland]

I want to start bulk loading my film so I can control the number of frames, and to save money. I am deciding between HP5+ and Fomapan. I have used the HP5+ a good bit and am satisfied with it, but I see that Fomapan is much cheaper. I have never used Fomapan and am wondering if it is worthwhile. Is HP5 really $20 better than Fomapan?

Also, if you have any advice on bulk loading, please share. This will be my first bulk load with a tear-drop loader I found at an antique shop.

Sorry Ariston complete reset! You mentioned ISO 400 and I made the failure to remember
: "Foma film not the best but sometimes OK" but I can't remember ISO 400 Foma!

Seams so it is worhtless to safe bucks from cross calculation!

with regards

PS : ILFORD IS KNOWING EXCACTLY WHY TO HIGHER FILM PRICING = good films!!!!!

 

[Ian Grant]

Unterstand Ian - Fomapan 400 isn't that great you stated in the past? I remember you never
mentioned the ISO 400 film!

with regards

Yes, I don't think I've mentioned Fomapan 400 here before. Earlier this year on another Forum a member had a discussion with me about it and HP5 and sent me some Fomapan 400 to try. I found it a disappointing film in terms of image quality, tonality, grain, and effective film speed, and most importantly it wasn't remotely close to the image quality I get from HP5 or Delta 400, or Tmax 400 when I used to use it.

Ian

 

[Wallendo]

HP5+ is the better film. I have enjoyed shooting Fomapan 100, but based in what I have read, I have never tried the 400 speed.

If money is an issue, consider either Kentmere 400 (made by the same company as HP5+, which is available from most on-line retailers - I have only shot the 100 speed version) or UltraFine Xtreme 400 (available from ultrafineonline.com and their eBay site - this is a very good value film - it's manufacturer is not known, but looks a lot like Kentmere - I have shot a 100' roll and enjoyed it.)

 

[Ariston]

Thanks for the suggestions. I ordered some Ultrafine to try, because I have read other good reports about it.

 

[NB23]

Hp5 is the master’s master film. Come on, man!

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for the suggestions. I ordered some Ultrafine to try, because I have read other good reports about it.

Make sure it is the "Extreme" version!

 

[Pioneer]

If you intend to push to EI 1600 go with HP5+. Fomapan 400 does not push well. Even EI 800 will be a struggle in certain circumstances.

Otherwise I find Fomapan/Arista EDU Ultra 400 to be a fine film. A bit more grain in 35mm but still a very good film.

Obviously, as you can tell with this small post, not everyone agrees with me but everyone has different tastes.

I shoot at 400 and develop in D-23 for 12 to 15 minutes depending on the contrast I would like.

But the only way to find out is to try it yourself and shoot and develop the way you would prefer. Otherwise it will just be confusing and you will have no idea what works for you.

 

[koraks]

Otherwise I find Fomapan/Arista EDU Ultra 400 to be a fine film. A bit more grain in 35mm but still a very good film.

I've made some images I'm quite happy with with Foma400. I've also run into a quite serious QC issue with it.
This is the thing with Foma in my opinion: their products are always quite pronounced - sometimes on a good way, sometimes not so much. Their products are pronouncedly affordable. When their films show an S curve (which 100 and particularly 400 certainly do), it's pronounced and not subtle (you love it or hate it). When their papers are warm tone, there's no other paper in production that comes close (Fomatone MG!) And when there are coating or manufacturing defects, they are quite spectacular. For these reasons I sometimes think of working with Foma products as a bit of an adventure. Sometimes you get really bogged down in the unfavorable characteristics, but sometimes you get something that is really difficult to get in any other way.

Ilford, as an opposite, is quintessentially British polite: it does what it says on the tin, with a stiff upper lip, and every time you ask it to, without hesitation.

Different strokes for different folks - or something in the box of chocolates to suit your particular taste of the day.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I used both but I prefer HP5+ as my goto 400 iso film. Fomapan 400 is quite different and much grainier, which is not necessarily bad but IMHO more a question of taste.

that's right and it's like salt;a bit is fine bhut, too muxg can ruin everything.

 

[Ariston]

Make sure it is the "Extreme" version!

Matt, I just checked, and luckily I did order the extreme version... although they left the E out of "Xtreme."

Should I take this to mean the other versions are inferior?

Also, has anyone here ever pushed this to 1600?