Ilford HP5 vs!

[Melvin J Bramley]

Does Harmans budget film Kentmere 400 make Ilfords HP5 redundant ?
I bought a brick of Kentmere 400 ,120, and am impressed with the results.

 

[Don_ih]

Does Harmans budget film Kentmere 400 make Ilfords HP5 redundant ?

No. Not at all. HP5+ is a better film. Kentmere 400 is dandy. But HP5+ is more pictorial. Better tonality and all that rot.

 

[MattKing]

I assume you mean the current HP5+, not the long discontinued HP5.
The films are different. Among other things, the anti-halation components in HP5+ are more effective.
And AFAIK, HP5+ is available in sheet film, while Kentmere is not.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I only shoot HP5, plus version, in 8X10 sheet form, souped in PMK pyro. Enlarged 2X or 3X there can be an almost etched quality to the detail, unlike anything else. I have no idea what it look like in 35mm version needing to be enlarged 15X or 20X to get a comparable sized print - probably sheer mush.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Nothing can ever replace HP5+.

It is the one indispensable film in my armoury.

 

[Nitroplait]

For an economy BW film, Kentmere probably offers the best quality out there, but it certainly is not up to the quality of HP5+.

 

[ags2mikon]

If your budget is squeezed K-400 is okay, but hp5+ is better in every other way. I'v used both. I prefer K-400 to Foma 400. I decided to shoot slower and by a higher quality film.

 

[brian steinberger]

HP5 is my favorite, in 120. Once in a while I throw some tri-x in there for a slightly different look but I stay away from the “cheaper” films though I did buy a few rolls of Kentmere 200 to try out.

 

[loccdor]

Seen lots of good images on both. More important than your chosen (or financially determined) film is your understanding on how best to work with the film. That's bought with time and attention rather than money.

 

[thinkbrown]

Both are excellent quality films produced by Harman. Gregory Davis did a comparison of both films to tri-x (a reference he used in a whole series of film evaluations) and they both compare very favorably:



Personally, I've shot a lot of both over the years and I mostly buy Kentmere 400 these days. It's a great film at a great price.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you think Kentmere 400 really equals HP5+ or Tri-X, it's mostly demonstrating the extent of visually very significant weaknesses in your imaging chain, such that you are unable to deliver enough information to the film (or subsequently transmit from) to be able to utilise the greater information recording/ transmission capacity of Tri-X or HP5+. Kentmere 400 has many good points, and compared to something like Fomapan 400, it is unbelievably better. K400 has a much narrower usage window than Tri-X or HP5+ etc, but at the qualitative level that many are really actually operating at, it's more than sufficient. Just don't pretend it's superior, that's all.

 

[retina_restoration]

I agree with the previous comments. Kentmere Pan 400 is “satisfactory” for general usage, but by no means is it as capable as HP5+.
When it comes to “premium” VS “budget” films, you definitely get what you pay for.

 

[pentaxuser]

Does Harmans budget film Kentmere 400 make Ilfords HP5 redundant ?
I bought a brick of Kentmere 400 ,120, and am impressed with the results.

Melvin, can I ask : Have your tried both films and have found little or no difference? If the answer is "Yes" then it seems both films are equal for you with the only difference being Kentmere's lower price.

I haven't tried Kentmere but if the above was my finding then I'd switch to Kentmere.

pentaxuser

 

[loccdor]

If you think Kentmere 400 really equals HP5+ or Tri-X, it's mostly demonstrating the extent of visually very significant weaknesses in your imaging chain, such that you are unable to deliver enough information to the film (or subsequently transmit from) to be able to utilise the greater information recording/ transmission capacity of Tri-X or HP5+. Kentmere 400 has many good points, and compared to something like Fomapan 400, it is unbelievably better. K400 has a much narrower usage window than Tri-X or HP5+ etc, but at the qualitative level that many are really actually operating at, it's more than sufficient. Just don't pretend it's superior, that's all.

To play devil's advocate, it can also be argued that focusing on small differences between two films relative to the myriad of more important factors that are going into the creation of an excellent photograph is mostly a distraction.

But, I think it's a popular thing to do because it's a quantifiable, easily testable distraction, unlike many of the other pieces of the puzzle.