Ilford HP5 vs!

[MattKing]

It can't be cheaper unless there is something different (inferior) about it. Otherwise, why make HP5+?

Films aren't monolithic. Different films have different characteristics, and the various characteristics have different levels of significance for different users in differing usages.
Otherwise why make Hp5+ and Delta 400 and Kentmere 400?
Or for that matter, T-Max 400 and Tri-X 400?
Kentmere 400 is superior to HP5+ if its relative economy and less effective anti-halation and excellent availability better meet someone's needs.

 

[thinkbrown]

Films aren't monolithic. Different films have different characteristics, and the various characteristics have different levels of significance for different users in differing usages.
Otherwise why make Hp5+ and Delta 400 and Kentmere 400?
Or for that matter, T-Max 400 and Tri-X 400?
Kentmere 400 is superior to HP5+ if its relative economy and less effective anti-halation and excellent availability better meet someone's needs.

A lot of these arguments rapidly distill into "well this company makes one expensive blue paint, clearly it's better than the cheaper blue paint" while completely ignoring that you and I might like entirely different blues. At the end of the day these are all tools for making art and preference is like 90% of it.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Very true, but some people just can't see it that way.

 

[Ian Grant]

Films aren't monolithic. Different films have different characteristics, and the various characteristics have different levels of significance for different users in differing usages.
Otherwise why make Hp5+ and Delta 400 and Kentmere 400?
Or for that matter, T-Max 400 and Tri-X 400?
Kentmere 400 is superior to HP5+ if its relative economy and less effective anti-halation and excellent availability better meet someone's needs.

Adding to these points, films have different characteristics depending on the choice of developer.

Lachlan Young is also right in stating "the qualitative level that many are really actually operating at" is important. Accurate exposure, and tight process controls, are the key factors to achieving high quality results. You really see the differences in craft with increased enlargement.

Ideally, when doing comparisons you first need to optimise your personal EI and development time for each film/developer combination. Back around 1987/8 I did this with 3 films FP4, Tmax 100, and Agfa APX100.. I used 35mm film for the tests. I ended up using APX100 in Rodinal (at box speed), and Tmax 100 as a backup at half box speed.,

Sharpness/fineness of grain:

1. Kodak T-Max 400 II
2. Ilford Delta 400
3. Tie: Ilford HP5+ / Kodak Tri-X
4. Kentmere? I don't know exactly, but I am sure it is inferior to the films above.

Now in terms of 400 films I used XP1 the XP2 by 1987/8 always pushed to 1600 shooting rock bands. While I haven't tried Kentmere 400 I'd agree with your list. I used to use Tmax 400 for hand held MF work from it's release. However, while living abroad I switched to Ilford films ad Kodak B&W films were very hard to find.

I use HP5 sheet film, but greatly prefer Delta b400 for MF work. Ilford explained on a factory tour it wasn't economic coating both Delta 400 and HP5 as sheet film. Sales of FP4 and Delta 100 are much higher.

If I wanted a budget 400 B&W film maybe I would try Kentmere.

Ian

 

[albireo]

I'm very much with @loccdor in that these are both perfectly competent products and in the right hands they will produce results that are indistinguishable in a controlled double blind test, in most lighting and common photography conditions.

Having said that: for me personally, I have stopped playing around with Kentmere 400 in 120 altogether given that here in the EU HP5+ is just a few cents more per roll. I don't understand Ilford pricing.

At current prices available to me, HP5+ is now my main budget 120 film option.

For much better film, at the next price bracket, I am more and more leaning towards TriX, which I'm finding (in my own workflow, for my own needs) a superior film to HP5+ in all ways, and a noticeably different film all other variables being the same.

I am in fact puzzled by people reporting HP5+ to be largely equivalent to TriX. Must be again a question of "poor user tolerances" as discussed above by some. Or perhaps historical opinions by people using older versions of TriX.

Having largely abandoned Foma in 120 due to the problematic QC alone, I now use HP5+ as my daily budget option and TriX for when results really matter. Kentmere doesn't really register anymore.