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.

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

The differences between these two films is anything but "small", if — as Lachlan has intimated (somewhat brusquely) — you know your process and techniques well.

 

[Hassasin]

Really funny arguments. I'm not going to do lab comparisons between the two films, but I will say one thing: great photographs have been produced with immensely worse characteristics to Kentmere 400.

Sometimes it's almost impossible not to notice what some people (wrongly) focus on in analog photography. There are times and places when best will only do, there are many more times when not the best will more than do.

 

[loccdor]

The differences between these two films is anything but "small"

In such discussions the counter is always "compared to what?"

Compared to:
A technical film which struggles to adequately record a large subject brightness range?
A grainy super-high-speed film?
A low resolution film from an earlier era?
The differences between film and digital images?
Different lighting conditions?
Changing the subject of your photograph?
The size of the final image?
The viewer of your image?

great photographs have been produced with immensely worse characteristics to Kentmere 400.

My thought exactly. On the other hand, if you want to spend an extra dollar to get a little bit more shine out of your film, it's completely reasonable to me too.

 

[Hassasin]

My thought exactly. On the other hand, if you want to spend an extra dollar to get a little bit more shine out of your film, it's completely reasonable to me too.

Of course. I was basically after some suggestions which effectively meant: if you don't know what you're doing stick with Kentmere, but if you do know any better, don't even try to compare the two. The actual truth somewhere in between.

Short answer to OP question is the two are not same film and demand is out there for both. HP5+ will remain considered "better" and will be priced accordingly. I don't doubt price difference has to do with manufacturing requirements, perhaps better consistency batch to batch etc. there are reasons why it is not same emulsion as Kentmere and it takes a little bit more to make it.

In all this, I continue to see questions asked, then hammered by egos, which leads one to question whether it was worth it to ask in the first place.

 

[perkypat]

Strangely, I prefer the result I get with Kentmere 400 compared to HP5, I like its softness, it reminds me FP4 with more grain.
I develop it with Xtol (Adox XT-3) Stock in Rotary Processor.

 

[PicklesFrog]

i like kentmere 400 enough to get a bulk roll. both the grain and the flat tone makes it suitable for my type of printing. however, i feel like hp5 is great for all round photography and good even if you under/over expose or under/over develop. the contrast is also pleasant for just straight prints/scans. i know how to agitate and develop for my own rolls of k400, but my friend can get very good prints out of hp5 that i cannot with my current technique if i used hp5, which he cant get out of k400 with whatever he uses. its just all about how you use the film to your own strengths and weaknesses, as well as knowing how the film works and how to exploit it to get its best quality photos.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have shot a lot of Kentmere 400, including under several labels, in 35mm and 120, as my walk around film, only a few rolls of HP 5 + as my usual it going to matter film is Tmax 100 and 400. Up to a 8X10 both Kentmere and HP5 + look much the same, Kentmere has a bit more gain. Kentmere has better QC than Foma, and does a better of controlling glare than repurposed movie film. Currently I am shooting Foma 400 and 100 as my walk around film as Foma has a good anti haligent layer that is need here in the desert southwest. Depending on how you shoot, how much you shoot, where you shoot maybe Kentmere 400 for "Walk Around" and HP5+ for travel, events and the like.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@Augustus Caesar K400 inferior in what way? It's weaker AH resulting in halation effects in some cases (that I love)? It's grain is just as fine as HP5/TX. Tonally, indistinguishable. I also just figured it was inferior, until I tried some. hint hint.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

@Augustus Caesar K400 inferior in what way? It's weaker AH resulting in halation effects in some cases (that I love)? It's grain is just as fine as HP5/TX. Tonally, indistinguishable. I also just figured it was inferior, until I tried some. hint hint.

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

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

As I mentioned, the only thing inferior is its AH layer. The other shortcoming is that it is not available in sheet film. HP5 and K400 are different films. Just look at their characteristic curves.