Ilford Delta 400 vs HP5

[redbandit]

HP5+ in 35mm is far far different from the 120 version.

in 120 version you can find photos online that people took at 6400 ISO setting.

35 mm 400 ise hp5+ shot at 800 iso, its like a national enquirer photo of elvis or sashquatch. dark, and "i think i see a blob here"

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

George, you'll have to get a roll of Kentmere 100 and see is your can push develop it to 400. It will only work if it's a good push film. It's something that I plan to look into, especially the 400 speed.

 

[aparat]

George, you'll have to get a roll of Kentmere 100 and see is your can push develop it to 400. It will only work if it's a good push film. It's something that I plan to look into, especially the 400 speed.

Good point. I recently ran a test of Kentmere 100 in 120 size, developed in D76, and I found the effective film speed "pushable" to only about EI 180, but contrast is very high, with CI reaching 0.99 (with a 22 minute development), which would be difficult to print. Here's more detail:

I have a test comparing HP5 Plus and Delta 400 coming up soon. Perhaps that would be useful to the OP.

 

[George Mann]

I was referring to shooting the film @ 400.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Good point. I recently ran a test of Kentmere 100 in 120 size, developed in D76, and I found the effective film speed "pushable" to only about EI 180, but contrast is very high, with CI reaching 0.99 (with a 22 minute development), which would be difficult to print. Here's more detail:
View attachment 326117
I have a test comparing HP5 Plus and Delta 400 coming up soon. Perhaps that would be useful to the OP.

I linked videos I made earlier in this thread... They are both excellent push development films.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I was referring to shooting the film @ 400.

You're using at night so you might be able to pull it off.

 

[aparat]

I linked videos I made earlier in this thread... They are both excellent push development films.

That's fantastic. They're both great films.

 

[images39]

HP5 has become strictly a medium format film for me. In 35mm, 400 ISO will be either Delta 400 or Tri-X.

Dale

 

[Agulliver]

Try both and see which you prefer.

I use HP5+, regularly pushing to 1600 and 3200. I neither understand nor recognise the comment regarding pushed HP5+ looking like a National Enquirer photo of a sasquatch. HP5+ pushes wonderfully. I have pushed it to 12800 in 35mm. Pushing to 800 is easy. I cannot fathom how one could fail.

But I did try Delta 400 just last month at 1600 in a jazz club, and it certainly did the job. But for me it was a bit too clinical. However, that might be the result OP is looking for?

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Try both and see which you prefer.

I use HP5+, regularly pushing to 1600 and 3200. I neither understand nor recognise the comment regarding pushed HP5+ looking like a National Enquirer photo of a sasquatch. HP5+ pushes wonderfully. I have pushed it to 12800 in 35mm. Pushing to 800 is easy. I cannot fathom how one could fail.

But I did try Delta 400 just last month at 1600 in a jazz club, and it certainly did the job. But for me it was a bit too clinical. However, that might be the result OP is looking for?

I suppose it depends on the developers used?

 

[gone]

I suppose it depends on the developers used?

Good point, that seems to be missing from the discussion. Using Tri-X as an example (since I don't have any experience w/ the 2 films being discussed here), if I develop that film in D76 stock, at 1+1 or in Rodinal at 1:25 to 1:50 I get very different negatives. It shows up on the prints too. I would expect something similar to happen w/ the 2 films here.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Try both and see which you prefer.

I use HP5+, regularly pushing to 1600 and 3200. I neither understand nor recognise the comment regarding pushed HP5+ looking like a National Enquirer photo of a sasquatch. HP5+ pushes wonderfully. I have pushed it to 12800 in 35mm. Pushing to 800 is easy. I cannot fathom how one could fail.

But I did try Delta 400 just last month at 1600 in a jazz club, and it certainly did the job. But for me it was a bit too clinical. However, that might be the result OP is looking for?

That's most likely down to different grain structure. I do however prefer the look of pushed HP5 over Delta 400.

 

[Agulliver]

I suppose it depends on the developers used?

Yes this is possible. Though as I always say, I don't expect to push 3 stops with semi-stand development in sea water

I have used ID-11 for decades (stock, two inversions per minute) and more recently switched to Microphen as currently 60% of my shooting is HP5+ pushed at least two stops.

Other developers and processes that are perfectly reasonable at box speed might not be suited to pushing.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have found for me that, ID-11, Microphen, and Xtol-R, work very well. Out of the three, Xtol-R... but that's probably because I've got a ton of it on hand!

 

[redbandit]

I suppose it depends on the developers used?

Yeah, it does.. Ilford film seems to need Ilford chemicals to get the best out of it.

I tried with other brand, and got that national enquire big foot photo results.. of a whole roll. used a plaid shirt as background. 4 color plaid became two color.

 

[Agulliver]

I have found for me that, ID-11, Microphen, and Xtol-R, work very well. Out of the three, Xtol-R... but that's probably because I've got a ton of it on hand!

Part of the reason I use Ilford products is they're usually among the cheapest as I am in England, and I started out with them in the early 80s. I've dabbled with others but found no pressing reason to change. ID-11 and Microphen work for my workflow and styles of photography.

That said, I might try something new again this year as the price of both my favourites has more or less doubled in the last two years. Still not a great outlay but I may see what's out there.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yeah, it does.. Ilford film seems to need Ilford chemicals to get the best out of it.

I tried with other brand, and got that national enquire big foot photo results.. of a whole roll. used a plaid shirt as background. 4 color plaid became two color.

Not true. I use Ilford films and develop them in all sorts of non-Ilford developers... even mixed up from scratch developers.

 

[Ian Grant]

Yeah, it does.. Ilford film seems to need Ilford chemicals to get the best out of it.

I tried with other brand, and got that national enquire big foot photo results.. of a whole roll. used a plaid shirt as background. 4 color plaid became two color.

Not true. I use Ilford films and develop them in all sorts of non-Ilford developers... even mixed up from scratch developers.

I agree with Andrew, I use Ilford films with Foma as a backup, I've not used an Ilford film developer since the early 1980s. These days I only use Pyrocat HD but used to get excellent results with replenished Xtol. I have been using Adox Borax MQ for someone else's FP4.

With any film you need to do your own testing to find the optimal EI and development times to get the best out of ant film/developer combination, this can make a huge difference.

Ian

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

With any film you need to do your own testing to find the optimal EI and development times to get the best out of ant film/developer combination, this can make a huge difference.

This is what everyone should be doing.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Not true. I use Ilford films and develop them in all sorts of non-Ilford developers... even mixed up from scratch developers.

Agree on this one with you Andrew. My go to go developer is Kodak D-76 and sometimes Legacy L76. I use this stuff with most of the film I use, including Foma, Ilford, Rollei, Agfa and even some Catlab. I think that developing time, dilution and process make most of a difference than developer are similar. Even homemade rodinal and POTA get me results I like if used with a good process.

Marcelo

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Agree on this one with you Andrew. My go to go developer is Kodak D-76 and sometimes Legacy L76. I use this stuff with most of the film I use, including Foma, Ilford, Rollei, Agfa and even some Catlab. I think that developing time, dilution and process make most of a difference than developer are similar. Even homemade rodinal and POTA get me results I like if used with a good process.

Marcelo

Hard to beat D-76. I love it at 1+1 with HP5.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah, it does.. Ilford film seems to need Ilford chemicals to get the best out of it.

I tried with other brand, and got that national enquire big foot photo results.. of a whole roll. used a plaid shirt as background. 4 color plaid became two color.

I get much better results from developing Ilford film in XTOL and replenished XTOL. XTOL is a Kodak product.

 

[removedacct1]

Yeah, it does.. Ilford film seems to need Ilford chemicals to get the best out of it.

Absolutely not true. I use Ilford films almost exclusively and haven't used an Ilford developer in 6 years. I use Ilford films of all formats, with Pyrocat HD, PMK, home-made D-76, FA-1027, D-23, DD-23, and others, and I always get superb results.
If you're not getting good negatives, its user error/technique, not the choice of developer.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

By the way, my experience with developer is from fresh developers. D-76 is used by me in less that 2 months while Rodinal, POTA and D23 are freshly mixed. Chemistry storage may play a big role on final results.