Ilford Delta 400 vs HP5

[George Mann]

Which one of these films produced the best balance of clean, clearly defined images and neutral contrast in low light?

 

[Steven Lee]

Woo! Another HP5 vs Delta 400 thread. But first, I want to see a dirty, poorly defined negative with biased contrast

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

They are both wonderful films that I love to use. They are both capable of doing what you are asking...

 

[George Mann]

I am leaning toward Delta 400. But what does it do @ ISO 800?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I am leaning toward Delta 400. But what does it do @ ISO 800?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I also made a video about Delta 400 with a R720 filter, because of it's extended red sensitivity.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Both are great films: HP5+ has traditional grain [generally larger clumpy grain] and Delta 400 has tabular grain [small regular shaped]. So choose which film you like. There are no wrong answers here.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Both are great films: HP5+ has traditional grain [generally larger clumpy grain] and Delta 400 has tabular grain [small regular shaped]. So choose which film you like. There are no wrong answers here.

Couldnt agree more with you. Have them and use them for different pourpose. Nothing to gain from comparing each other.

 

[oxcanary]

I use both - HP5 for more urban gritty 400 ISO vibe - Delta 400 for ‘I want FP4 tonality and grain in the winter’ vibe

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I am leaning toward Delta 400. But what does it do @ ISO 800?

It will be underexposed by a stop or so. Best results usually come from recommended speed setting to slightly more to the generous side of exposure.

 

[George Mann]

I was thinking of trying Kentmere 400 instead (box speed). I need to brush up on low light metering techniques as well.

 

[koraks]

I was thinking of trying Kentmere 400 instead (box speed).

All I can say is I like HP5+ better than Kentmere 400 (also sold under other brand names). HP5+ has a bit tighter grain and higher effective film speed as far as I know.

 

[George Mann]

My research has led me to believe that Kentmere 100 pushed to 400 would give me better results. It would allow me to use just one film all the time.

 

[koraks]

'Better' is subjective. For me, shadow detail is relevant. Pushing kentmere 100 to 400 would be entirely unusable for me, but that's personal.

 

[George Mann]

For me, shadow detail is relevant.

But how relevant is it at night?

 

[koraks]

I don't know what result you're after, so you decide.

 

[relistan]

When you say “low light” do you mean handheld? Because on a tripod even very slow films are great depending on the shot you want in low light.

All of the films mentioned have different characteristics. The good news is that all are high quality emulsions that reach box speed in most common developers. Kentmere films are the budget line and reportedly have reduced silver content. Their look in contrasty situations is more different from the other two stocks than they are from each other. Kentmere halation behavior is different from the other two stocks you mention (not bad, different) which may impact how you feel about it at night.

Delta is a finer t-grain film and HP5+ is traditional cubic grain. Both are top quality films and work very well. Try them and see what you like.

 

[Ian Grant]

I use both, I prefer Delta 400 in 120, and don't have a choice with LF as only HP5 is available. Both films give excellent results.

Ian

 

[Craig]

But how relevant is it at night?

If you're doing night shooting the obvious choice is Fuji Acros, as it has essentially no reciprocity failure.

 

[George Mann]

When you say “low light” do you mean handheld? Because on a tripod even very slow films are great depending on the shot you want in low light.

I need the faster speed for handheld/monopod use.

It doesn't sound like Kentmere is popular here. I normally shoot Delta 100 (not pushed), but can buy nearly twice as many rolls of the cheaper brand for the price.

I like the way Kentmere 100 renders in good light, but have no experience with it in low light.

 

[George Mann]

If you're doing night shooting the obvious choice is Fuji Acros, as it has essentially no reciprocity failure.

It's too expensive.

 

[relistan]

I need the faster speed for handheld/monopod use.

It doesn't sound like Kentmere is popular here. I normally shoot Delta 100 (not pushed), but can buy nearly twice as many rolls of the cheaper brand for the price.

I like the way Kentmere 100 renders in good light, but have no experience with it in low light.

I like a Kentmere films. But I don’t shoot low light.

 

[Craig]

It's too expensive.

You didn't say what format you're shooting, but in 35mm at B&H the difference between Delta 100 and Acros is $1/roll. Yes, more expensive, but not that much different ($12 vs $13) either.

 

[George Mann]

You didn't say what format you're shooting, but in 35mm at B&H the difference between Delta 100 and Acros is $1/roll. Yes, more expensive, but not that much different ($12 vs $13) either.

Delta in 24exp is much cheaper.

 

[images39]

I agree that there's no right answer or "best" between HP5 and Delta 400, and we can only offer our opinions, based on personal taste.

In 35mm, given how I develop them, I find these two films have a very different look. For my taste, HP5 is too grainy in 35mm (again, based on my developing practice, including from labs). Delta 400 looks finer grained, with smoother tonality, especially in 35mm. I've tried rating HP5 at 200, but my results were still too grainy. Others might have determined a way to make 35mm HP5 look finer grained, but I haven't succeeded in that. In 120, HP5 looks nice to me, and the difference between the two is harder to tell.

Dale