Ilford Films Are Too Contrasty > New Film(s) Needed

[DF]

New film(s) needed that offers more mid/grey tones.
Yeh? Neh?

 

[JensH]

Hi!

No.

Ilford is making great films from contrasty PanF+ to softer HP5+ and the Delta line...
Just do your choice. Of films, of developers, of printing.
Try FP4+ with PMK, should be your taste... a great combination.

Greetings
Jens

 

[twelvetone12]

Adox CHS II (especially in Atomal) is great and had great midtones if you want to try something different

 

[halfaman]

HP5 is a soft contrast film at box speed, even very soft I would say.

 

[koraks]

New film(s) needed that offers more mid/grey tones.
Yeh? Neh?

Firstly, ilford films are not all inherently contrasty. Like with all films, exposure and development matter.
If you're looking for smooth and subtle gradation, look at Kodak tmax400. Want even less grain? Try the 100.

 

[ericdan]

All ILFORD films I’ve tried were too low in contrast for me. Are you sure you’re not overdeveloping?

 

[relistan]

I agree with what was said above. If changing your dev times doesn't work, or changing how you expose it, look at compensating developers. Ilford Delta 100 in Adox FX-39 is pretty low contrast, for example.

If you are really looking for other films, I would start with Adox. If you really want lower contrast you can take a look at cinema films like ORWO N75 or Eastman Double-X in 35mm. Lomography Kino 120 films are ORWO.

 

[awty]

Hp5 has the best mid tone range I have seen in any film. Should learn to use it.

 

[Ian Grant]

Having used films from most manufacturers Ilford films are no different from others in terms of contrast. we as photographers control a films contrast with exposure and development time.

I began with FP3 & HP3 as a teenager (ex Government surplus and cheap) then shot Fp4 & HP5 commercially, moving to Agfa AP/APX 100 in the late 1980's and Tmax 100 & 40when I couldn't get Agf a APX100. Finally I moved back to Ilfor Dellta 100 & 400 and HP5 for hand held 5x4. Ive also used Fortepan 200, EFKE 25, and Fuji Acros, I get similar tonality with all these films.

If the results are too contrasty don't blame the film, increase the exposure slightly and cut the development time.

Ian.

 

[albada]

A few years ago, I tested all Ilford films with a new developer. With proper development, every Ilford film reached a contrast index (CI) of 0.58. Additional development raises CI, so as others have suggested, you are probably overdeveloping the film. If you have a very contrasty scene, you can overexpose a little (to preserve shadows) and then underdevelop to reduce the film's contrast. In the zone system, this is called "developing to N-1" or N-2 or whatever is needed.
Mark Overton

Edit: Ian posted the same advice as I was writing the above.

 

[russell_w_b]

If you think Ilford films are contrasty, you should try using Rollei Retro 400S. Then you'll see what contrasty is!

 

[Lachlan Young]

You're grossly overdeveloping and underexposing from the sounds of it. Sort that before blaming the manufacturers for your errors.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

While I certainly agree current offering is fine for wide range of "visionary" photography with ample ways to de-tune contrast pretty much to one's liking, I also have a feeling that OP was more asking a question than starting a rant against Ilford. There are a few complaints I have about how Ilford/Harman goes about its business, but so long as a specific film is available in a format required (one of my main issues with Ilford) it can be used with great results.

 

[pentaxuser]

New film(s) needed that offers more mid/grey tones.
Yeh? Neh?

What is this based on? If you have evidence of this then what Ilford films exhibit this that you have exposed and developed? Tell us what they are and as much as possible about your exposure and development routine and we may be able to help.

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

HP5 by its very nature, is not a contrasty film. It has lovely midtones as well.

 

[Wallendo]

When developed at manufacturer suggested times, Ilford films tend to have less contrast than Kodak and other films. I actually find Ilford films, especially HP5+, when developed per manufacturer recommended times, to be flat and bland and usually shoot Kodak TX400 instead.

It would be interesting to know the OP's development routine: Developer, temperature, agitation regime, and development time.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

New film(s) needed that offers more mid/grey tones.
Yeh? Neh?

Neh; the Ilford lineup has something for every taste.HP5 for example is very soft.FP4+ about medium and the slow films very contrasty.

 

[BradS]

Nay.
If HP5+ is too constrasty then you're over developing it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The film as stated clearly above is not too contrasty. I believe that you are dealing with an Operator Assisted Failure [OAF]. OAFs have been known for years to cause undesired results. OAFs can be a real pain. Please check your area and get rid of any OAFs. That should help.

 

[Light Capture]

Contrast is mostly function of development and exposure with any film. I didn't like HP5 initially but after some adjustments it produces results that are good for me.

I'm using it pushed at ISO 800, developing in rotary processor following all recommendations and also bracket tricky scenes or scenes I want to get right for sure. Tried different things but this gave me the results that are close to what I need and can be easily tweaked.
Developed in DD-X or Tmax developers. After big comparative test between number of films and developers, this is combination that works for me.
In the end it prints with 2 or 3 MC filter depending on enlarger used with contrast I personally like. Didn't see much difference in grain. Split grade printing or scanning also produce results I'm after most of the time.

Delta 100, 400 and FP4 also look good. Bracketing helps depending on available light and quality of light. If you need boost in contrast, most of the time extra 1/3 to 1/2 of a stop make enough of a difference in my process. Full stop of overexposure can add even more.

Kodak TMX 100 does have a different tonality that I'm not able to reproduce with Ilford films. Looks really nice when it shows up but not something to be chased too much since it doesn't show up and work in every scene.

There is also price a price differential between Ilford and Kodak.

 

[pentaxuser]

Isn't one of the main problems that the OP has not told us which film or films he is referring to? We seem to have started to home in on HP5+ but there is no basis for this or indeed any basis to do anything and he in fact has yet to respond at all. Might be worth waiting for a response

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

Almost all the claims that certain films are too contrasty - or that the self same film isn't contrasty enough - come down to basic failures of process/ exposure control and either too much or too little agitation. Before you blame any material, you should ensure that you have done everything you can to eliminate your own operator errors (which can have far more dramatic effects than anyone ever wants to admit).

 

[ericdan]

Almost all the claims that certain films are too contrasty - or that the self same film isn't contrasty enough - come down to basic failures of process/ exposure control and either too much or too little agitation. Before you blame any material, you should ensure that you have done everything you can to eliminate your own operator errors (which can have far more dramatic effects than anyone ever wants to admit).

OP didn’t claim anything. Just asked a question.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

OP didn’t claim anything. Just asked a question.

+ 1

 

[Lachlan Young]

OP didn’t claim anything. Just asked a question.

Then the OP shouldn't have posed a leading question that revealed an agenda rather than a genuine query.