Ilford HP4 exp. 1979

[Logan Becker]

Just bought two 17 meter spools of 135 Ilford HP4 that expired in 1979 on ebay. Interested to know the difference (if any) between this and HP5.

 

[Jacob Weiss]

Post some images of how they come out please!

 

[Logan Becker]

Post some images of how they come out please!

Will do, It's taking a month to get here!

 

[Petraio Prime]

Just bought two 17 meter spools of 135 Ilford HP4 that expired in 1979 on ebay. Interested to know the difference (if any) between this and HP5.

It's probably worthless by now. I used HP4, and it was inferior to Tri-X. Grainier and had less shadow detail. I would discard it. HP5 is a vast improvement.

 

[Agulliver]

It won't be worthless...it will yield images....but as @Petraio Prime says HP5 was a big improvement over HP4. HP5+ is a small but significant improvement over HP5.

From what I remember, HP4 was definitely inferior to Tri-X. When HP5 became the norm (I think they sold HP4 and HP5 concurrently for a few years) people still swore that Tri-X was better even though Ilford really equalled it (and possibly bettered) with HP5.

I recall my photography teacher at school showing me HP4 compared to Tri-X and recommending the latter. I bought a couple of bulk loaded rolls of Tri-X from him and these were my first B&W films. When I came to buy my own, the local shop only sold Ilford so I tried HP5 and it was way better than the HP4 I had seen.

 

[Cholentpot]

It's probably worthless by now. I used HP4, and it was inferior to Tri-X. Grainier and had less shadow detail. I would discard it. HP5 is a vast improvement.

Maybe this is the look he's going for? Some of us shoot film for a look you can't get on digital, even if that means a technically cruddy image.

 

[Logan Becker]

I like the Tri-X aesthetic, but I may soup in HC-110 if the tests don't come out to my liking.

 

[Ian Grant]

I used HP3 then later HP4, it wasn't inferior to Tri-X at the time I used it first, it's just that Kodak didn't rename Tri-X with each improved generation from its introduction in 1938/9. So for a short spell the newer Tri-X was better until Ilford introduced HP5.

Fast films don't store that well so don't expect much it's likely to have a very high base fog and have slowed in speed.

Ian

 

[Logan Becker]

I like the Tri-X grainy aesthetic, but I may soup in HC-110 if the test shots don't come out to my liking. I read something about Benzotriazole reducing fog and speed, but nothing with numbers on dilution and time :/

 

[Agulliver]

I've been using HP5 which expired in 1994 and it's fine even at 400. Your HP4 is "only" about 15 years older. Of course storage will play a part but you'll get some sort of images from it. Experiment and you might find something to your liking. Just look at the results from an APUG member who recently shot film from 1939.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I like the Tri-X grainy aesthetic, but I may soup in HC-110 if the test shots don't come out to my liking. I read something about Benzotriazole reducing fog and speed, but nothing with numbers on dilution and time :/

Again, it's no bargain. It's 40 years old! It may well produce images, but all kinds of faults will likely occur. Besides, it was never that good to begin with.

 

[Cholentpot]

Again, it's no bargain. It's 40 years old! It may well produce images, but all kinds of faults will likely occur. Besides, it was never that good to begin with.

In your opinion. I'm shooting Tri-x that has veiny emulsion is so old and deteriorated. I've been rating it at 20. I'm having fun and enjoying the results. Sure it's not as clean as fresh Tmax-100 and maybe a frosted glass is clearer but who cares! I got an image!

 

[Petraio Prime]

In your opinion. I'm shooting Tri-x that has veiny emulsion is so old and deteriorated. I've been rating it at 20. I'm having fun and enjoying the results. Sure it's not as clean as fresh Tmax-100 and maybe a frosted glass is clearer but who cares! I got an image!

'I got an image!'

That's not a particularly high standard, now is it? I bought a bunch of HP4 one time, and thus I can speak from having used quite a lot of it. It was quite inferior to Tri-X.

 

[Hubigpielover]

Again, it's no bargain. It's 40 years old! It may well produce images, but all kinds of faults will likely occur. Besides, it was never that good to begin with.

Dead Link Removed

 

[Agulliver]

Whether it is a bargain depends on how much the OP paid, and what the OP is hoping to achieve. Maybe he wants a "less than perfect" look?


From what I remember and from what I can gather from googling and asking....there was a time when HP4 and HP5 were around concurrently. At this time, Tri-X had been through one of it's periodic improvements and for a time was certainly a lot better than HP4. Maybe for most of HP4's life there was little difference....but I certainly do remember being steered away from HP4 and towards tri-x by seeing negs and prints from both.

 

[Cholentpot]

'I got an image!'

That's not a particularly high standard, now is it? I bought a bunch of HP4 one time, and thus I can speak from having used quite a lot of it. It was quite inferior to Tri-X.

If I wanted consistent standards I would be a robot. Or shoot digital. Some of us like grunge and quirks that only film brings.

 

[Petraio Prime]

If I wanted consistent standards I would be a robot. Or shoot digital. Some of us like grunge and quirks that only film brings.

I use film, you know. Just pointing out that 40 year-old HP4 is not something I would bother with. I wouldn't bother with it even if it were fresh! Been there, done that. HP5 Plus is a much better film, finer-grained, faster, and sharper.

 

[Logan Becker]

It's still a month out. I'm a young guy, if it comes out screwy then I'll know what NOT to do next time

[Edit] By the way, if anyone can find any negs or images with HP4 that'd be cool.

 

[pentaxuser]

I

[Edit] By the way, if anyone can find any negs or images with HP4 that'd be cool.

Well I found some HP4 negative strips in a secondhand photography book bought from a bookshop. It looked as if the previous owner
has used them as bookmarks. They looked quite good to me. I printed some of them and the prints looked OK as well. Sorry I have neither the prints or negs now as I took them to the local newspaper in the town where I bought the book in case there were still relatives who lived there and who would recognised the people in the negs. I have no idea if the newspaper ran an article seeking the people on the negs

pentaxuser.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Just bought two 17 meter spools of 135 Ilford HP4 that expired in 1979 on ebay. Interested to know the difference (if any) between this and HP5.

it's time for fresh film!It may work but fresh film will have more contrast and less fog!