Ilford HP5 and Delta 400 in 120, differences, similarities...

[brian steinberger]

After trying both films for some time now I'm still at a toss up as to which film I like better. I'm curious as to what others experiences of these two films are. I'm mainly interested in the 120 emulsions and also don't need to hear about grain.

This is a list of what I have gathered so far (ID-11):

- Delta 400 has a straighter lined curve than HP5. This is the main quality that I like in Delta 400 over HP5. It's closer to the FP4 look.
- HP5 has a curve with a massive shoulder which inhibits it from building up contrast, which works both for and against it depending on the situation.
- Delta 400 is only slightly finer grained than HP5.
- HP5 responds well to a wider variety of developers than does Delta 400.
- HP5 seems to be a faster film, maybe EI 500 or 640, more shadow detail (depending on developer of course) than Delta 400.
- HP5 has less base fog than Delta 400.

I'm curious as to which film pushes better. I've pushed both easily to EI 800 but no more. Anyone have experiences with pushing either of these films up to 1600?

It seems Delta 400 is so close to HP5 in almost every way, much closer than Tmax400 is to Tri-x. So why the Delta 400 in the line-up? Only benefit I see is the straighter lined curve, and that seems to be the only reason I would choose it over HP5, as grain is not an issue for me in 120. But for tonality I'm at a toss-up.

Any comments greatly welcome...

This is not an HP5 vs. Delta 400 thread and I don't want it to become that.

 

[R gould]

Personally I am often called upon to take photos under adverse conditions and like 400 iso, and I tend to use HP5+ because I like it, it pushes well, handles well, it is almost bullet proof, and quite simply I like the results, Richard

 

[aldevo]

I'd tend to disagree with a couple of your findings based on my own experience...

I don't think Delta 400 looks anything like FP4+ at all. FP4+, IMO, has gradation that bears a striking resemblance to Kodak Tri-X.

Like many "traditional" ISO 400 films, there is a shoulder on the HP5+ characteristic curve but it's pretty far out on the exposure scale and, therefore, only terribly useful if you often find yourself photographing subjects such as the filaments of unfrosted light bulbs

One film that I would compare Delta 400 to in terms of its overall look is Kodak TXP when the latter is given generous overexposure - which is typically the "standard operating procedure" when using that film.

 

[brian steinberger]

I'd tend to disagree with a couple of your findings based on my own experience...

I don't think Delta 400 looks anything like FP4+ at all. FP4+, IMO, has gradation that bears a striking resemblance to Kodak Tri-X.

Like many "traditional" ISO 400 films, there is a shoulder on the HP5+ characteristic curve but it's pretty far out on the exposure scale and, therefore, only terribly useful if you often find yourself photographing subjects such as the filaments of unfrosted light bulbs

One film that I would compare Delta 400 to in terms of its overall look is Kodak TXP when the latter is given generous overexposure - which is typically the "standard operating procedure" when using that film.

You don't think HP5's shoulder limits it from producing sparkling highlights in sunny conditions? I believe this is why many people refer to HP5 as "making everything look like England."

I understand Delta 400 doesn't look anything like FP4, but it is certainly closer than HP5. I really wish I could find a film that resembled FP4 in 400 speed.

Any further experience with HP5?

 

[aldevo]

You don't think HP5's shoulder limits it from producing sparkling highlights in sunny conditions? I believe this is why many people refer to HP5 as "making everything look like England."

I understand Delta 400 doesn't look anything like FP4, but it is certainly closer than HP5. I really wish I could find a film that resembled FP4 in 400 speed.

Any further experience with HP5?

I don't really attribute that to the shoulder. Neopan 400 seems to have a more-prononunced shoulder (according to the last data sheets I saw, which was some time ago) than HP5+ but it's highlight behavior in the field seems more similar to that of Kodak 400TX.

I've always found that HP5+ is as its best in contrasty light; I like the look of it less when the light is flat.

I think the best match for FP4+ among ISO 400 films where gradation is concerned will be Tri-X (400TX).

 

[john_s]

Maybe what you're seeing (with HP5+) in the interaction of film and paper characteristics. When the new T grain and Delta grain films came out and showed a straighter line at higher densities, papers (such as Multigrade IV) were created to compensate with a less straight line characteristic. So going back to HP5+ might not suit such papers.

 

[brian steinberger]

Maybe what you're seeing (with HP5+) in the interaction of film and paper characteristics. When the new T grain and Delta grain films came out and showed a straighter line at higher densities, papers (such as Multigrade IV) were created to compensate with a less straight line characteristic. So going back to HP5+ might not suit such papers.

Interesting. I never really thought about that. Have all manufacturers taken this into account? Matching a negative to an appropriate paper is something that has always mystified me. More should be discussed on the topic.

 

[Steve Smith]

I believe this is why many people refer to HP5 as "making everything look like England."

Excellent. I had not heard this before.


Steve.

 

[Rolleijoe]

I've tried the Deltas when they first arrived on the scene decades ago. Usually an HP5+ or XP2 shooter, the Deltas immediately came across as cold and clinical. The term I remember was: analog-digital. Every so often I'll take a look at something recently shot with one of the Deltas, and the phrase holds true to this day.

The way I see it, with HP5+ and FP4+. there's really no need for such a cold/clinical emulsion as the Deltas.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Rolleijoe, I largely agree with you, but it depends on the subject matter really. I prefer traditional emulsions most of the time for the same reason. That said, I have some prints off D100 and D400 that are beautiful no matter how you look at them. If anything I would argue that one can shoot oldie films for oldie subject matter and modern films where the look should be modern i.e. metal, architecture etc.

Hp5+ is a film that baffles me. It is stunning in the right conditions (high contrast) but awful (IMO) in flat light. It seems to have two personalities!

Contrary to what someone said above I find the grain from D400 MILES finer than HP5+ and more akin to what you get from FP4+, but D400 tonality is more clinical than FP4+.

On my last trip top India I shot with HP5+, D400, TriX and D3200. All made contributions to the best 10 shots of the trip and there are D400 images that look lovely. Bottom line is I could happily shoot the world for a year with any of the main 400 films and would probably take D400 over HP5+ simply because I struggle to make nice prints from HP5+ when the scene has a low contrast range. Maybe I am doing something wrong.

 

[2F/2F]

Well, goes to show that results and analysis of them vary wildly between us all. I disagree on most of your findings.

This is a list of what I have gathered so far (ID-11):

- Delta 400 has a straighter lined curve than HP5. This is the main quality that I like in Delta 400 over HP5. It's closer to the FP4 look.
- HP5 has a curve with a massive shoulder which inhibits it from building up contrast, which works both for and against it depending on the situation.
- Delta 400 is only slightly finer grained than HP5.
- HP5 responds well to a wider variety of developers than does Delta 400.
- HP5 seems to be a faster film, maybe EI 500 or 640, more shadow detail (depending on developer of course) than Delta 400.
- HP5 has less base fog than Delta 400.

I find that:

- Delta 400 does have a straighter curve than HP5. It is mainly noticeable in the low and low-mid tones. However, Delta 400 and FP4 do not look remotely similar in tonality. HP5 is closer in tonality to Delta 400 than is FP4. HP5 is not all that close, but certainly closer than FP4.
- HP5 does not have much of a shoulder at all that I have ever found use for (though FP4's can be reached fairly easily). HP5 is very crisp in the high mids and high tones, and has plenty of separation in these areas. This is like Delta 400. The difference is that HP5 gets muddier in the lows and low mids than Delta 400, especially upon underexposure. (FP4, of the other hand, is crisper in the lows and low mids, and softer in the high tones.) With HP5, the only times I have had what I thought might have been highlight compression were in cases of extreme overexposure.
- HP5 has much more visible grain than Delta 400, and it looks completely different in structure.
- HP5 and other traditionally-grained emulsions respond less to variations in development than do flat-grained films like Delta and T-Max.
- Delta 400 is at least as fast as HP5, if not faster.
- I have not ever visibly noted a difference in fog between the two.

Are you sure you did not mix the samples up?

I'm curious as to which film pushes better. I've pushed both easily to EI 800 but no more. Anyone have experiences with pushing either of these films up to 1600?

It depends on what you mean by "pushes better." If you are asking which film handles underexposure the best (losing the least density across the board), it is the Delta. If you are asking which film can be developed to higher density upon underexposure (i.e. "pushed the most"), I am not sure.

It seems Delta 400 is so close to HP5 in almost every way, much closer than Tmax400 is to Tri-x. So why the Delta 400 in the line-up? Only benefit I see is the straighter lined curve, and that seems to be the only reason I would choose it over HP5, as grain is not an issue for me in 120. But for tonality I'm at a toss-up

I would agree that HP5 and Delta 400 are more similar than Tri-X and T-Max 400. However, this does not mean that HP5 and Delta 400 are anything like each other. Given these four films, HP5 and Tri-X belong in one group, and Delta 400 and T-max 400 belong in another group.

I am almost certain you switched the test samples.......

......but seriously, I think you are poorly exposing one or both emulsions, and not doing calibrated normal development. In particular, the idea expressed by the statement that HP5 "makes everything look like England" is completely contrary to my experience. I find it to be a film that has a healthy amount of bite for a fast traditionally-grained film, and that when it is muddy, it is because it has been badly underexposed (or, of course, shot in muddy light). Delta, on the other hand, seems far more forgiving and pliable to me; this is not to say that I like it better, though...

 

[brian steinberger]

2F/2F, these were just observations that I have observed from my beginning use with Delta 400. Maybe I didn't shoot enough to get a good observation. I didn't do any scientific tests, just normal shooting. It's funny how people comment on HP5, some say it is contrasty, some say it's not. Some say it's great in flat light, some say it's not. I agree with Tom, I've had problems getting good prints from HP5 negatives as well, but some print great! I'm developing in ID-11 1:1. I'm not sure what or if I'm even doing anything wrong, maybe it's just the light. I guess I just need to work with it more.

 

[brian steinberger]

Also, maybe somebody can explain how HP5 and FP4 are different in tonality?

 

[2F/2F]

2F/2F, these were just observations that I have observed from my beginning use with Delta 400. Maybe I didn't shoot enough to get a good observation. I didn't do any scientific tests, just normal shooting. It's funny how people comment on HP5, some say it is contrasty, some say it's not. Some say it's great in flat light, some say it's not. I agree with Tom, I've had problems getting good prints from HP5 negatives as well, but some print great! I'm developing in ID-11 1:1. I'm not sure what or if I'm even doing anything wrong, maybe it's just the light. I guess I just need to work with it more.

Most of this variation in results will go away if you use an incident meter, and if you begin judging luminance range so you know what, if any, alterations you should make in processing. IMHO, using directly-read in-camera meters is perhaps the best possible way to make ones negatives inconsistent and poorly exposed.