Which film for all-round use and pushing to 1600? (hp5 or delta400)

Alexander Starbuck · Apr 22, 2022

Hi all!

I got back into film a few months ago and am loving the experience so much, that I wish to replace parts of mydigital workflow that I do for work, with film.

As a part of that I need a recommendation for a medium speed film, say ISO 400, which would work in an event scenario. It should look nice at 200, 400 all the way up to 1600. I am considering a bulk roll of either HP5 or Delta400.

I develop all my BW in either Rodinal or Pyrocat HD, but for pushing I will try DD-X.

I like a modern looking image, with some grain but not too much of it and with a moderate to upper end on the contrast scale. I dslr-scan all of my negs for now, darkroom is in future plans.

Kodak films are not an option as they are way too expensive, Delta 3200 is ok but also a bit pricey and the grain looks like mountains (I haven't tried it in DD-X so I still might use it if that developer turns out less grainy negatives).

Any tips and insights more than welcome!

Down Under · Apr 22, 2022

I feel for you. The big problem with trying to shoot any 'standard' film at ISO 1600 and then push-processing it, even all the hyper 400 emulsions from Kodak and Ilford, is you end up with negatives that look like they were taken on the old Kodalith Ortho - all highlights and shadows and nothing in-between. No character at ll. Horrible to print or scan.

In my own (admittedly limited) experience over the decades, the few times I've tried to push film to this ISO rating, I got the best results with Ilford XP2. HP5 just did not do what I wanted, nor Kodak T400 or Tri-X. Ilford once made an Iso 3200 B&W film but I'm not sure if it's still available or not. I did use one or two rolls of it and got 'tolerable' negatives, but I found it was best used at ISO 1600 or ISO1200.

It will take a bit of experimenting and a few test rolls, ideally processed in C41 chemistry, not B&W, if you do your own. If not, you are in for some very difficult times...

If you do go with XP2, consider buying in 30.5 meter/100 foot rolls, get a change bag and (if your pockets are deep) a bulk loader and a few cassettes, and roll your own. here in Australia, XP2 is one of very few films that is actually much cheaper to bulk load than the other emulsions.

Best of luck with your tests, and let us know your results. We are always interested in pioneers and pioneering...

Alexander Starbuck · Apr 22, 2022

Hi ozmoose and g'day to the downunda!

Thanks for your reply, much appreciated. Actually, I have tried XP2 at some point in the past and haven't really liked it for some reason.

I do like both HP and DELTA, but am just having a hard time choosing I guess hehe.

radiant · Apr 22, 2022

HP5 pushes nicely to 1600. But do not develop in Rodinal, the grain comes out pretty harsh. Xtol/XT-3 is a great developer for HP5.

radiant · Apr 22, 2022

One example, this was with HP5/1600/XT-3 and printing was very easy: http://kuvau.tuu.fi/kebu-3/

pentaxuser · Apr 22, 2022

Have a look at what Ilford itself says about the 2 films here:https://www.ilfordphoto.com/hp5-vs-delta-professional-400/

They appear to rate both equally in terms of pushing ability

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill · Apr 22, 2022

I have been using HP5 since the mid 90's. I've always exposed it anywhere from 160 to 320 (depending on subject brightness). For about a week, I've been seeing what it can do at box speed, all the way up to 25600. I was very impressed. I'll post my video this weekend.

Finn lyle · Apr 22, 2022

I'm not sure if diafine or acufine would be available to you but I've had decent luck with pushing HP5 in these. Diafine works great and gives me an EI of 1000 or so but since Acufine gives a little more control over the development I wonder if it would work better. The TMAX/Delta films do not seem to push well in diafine at least, however.

John Wiegerink · Apr 22, 2022

Andrew O'Neill said:
I have been using HP5 since the mid 90's. I've always exposed it anywhere from 160 to 320 (depending on subject brightness). For about a week, I've been seeing what it can do at box speed, all the way up to 25600. I was very impressed. I'll post my video this weekend.

Andy,
I'm very interested in your results and will watch for your video. With my metering and my developer, I get very good result at rating HP5+ at ISO640. Of course somebody else will say no, no, no, it's best rated at ISO200 or whatever. Same film, same developer, same time, same exposure and different results? All up to one's technique. I've never pushed Delta 400 on purpose, but HP5+ is one of the better films for pushing. It's one of the better films period. JohnW

John Wiegerink · Apr 22, 2022

Finn lyle said:
I'm not sure if diafine or acufine would be available to you but I've had decent luck with pushing HP5 in these. Diafine works great and gives me an EI of 1000 or so but since Acufine gives a little more control over the development I wonder if it would work better. The TMAX/Delta films do not seem to push well in diafine at least, however.

Old Kodak Tri-X and Diafine were made for each other. Easy ISO/ASA 1250-1600. Trouble is Diafine is terrible expensive at the moment, but if you are careful with it, it will last near forever. JohnW

gone · Apr 22, 2022

Like others here have mentioned, HP5 seems to be the film for that. I hope so anyway, there's a roll in my Pentax right now that's being shot at 800 and 1600 on alternate frames in order to see which one I prefer.

Or just buy the Delta 3200 and shoot it at 1600, from what I read here and elsewhere a lot of folks think it's a 1600 film anyway.

Lachlan Young · Apr 22, 2022

Alexander Starbuck said:
I develop all my BW in either Rodinal or Pyrocat HD, but for pushing I will try DD-X

DD-X is vastly better than either for maximising shadow speed with low granularity & optimal sharpness within that relationship. It's based on knowledge that didn't exist at the time Rodinal appeared - and unlike Pyrocat (which is clearly a set of substitutions on D-76 to make it form a stain (really a dye)), was formulated by actual photographic engineers with rigorous instrumentation (and probably considerable double blind perceptual testing) vastly better than what various developer tasters on the internet wish themselves into believing they are seeing.

Alexander Starbuck said:
I like a modern looking image, with some grain but not too much of it and with a moderate to upper end on the contrast scale.

DD-X's point is to effectively improve on ID-11/ D-76 & Microphen types of fine-grain developers.

Alexander Starbuck said:
Delta 3200 is ok but also a bit pricey and the grain looks like mountains (I haven't tried it in DD-X so I still might use it if that developer turns out less grainy negatives).

That's because you're developing 3200 in non-solvent developers. Solvency isn't simple with modern (1950's onwards - but most of the popular technical texts are still operating on 1930s emulsion assumptions) emulsion structures - and higher solvency with an optimised emulsion design can deliver finer and sharper grain.

pentaxuser · Apr 22, 2022

Andrew O'Neill said:
I have been using HP5 since the mid 90's. I've always exposed it anywhere from 160 to 320 (depending on subject brightness). For about a week, I've been seeing what it can do at box speed, all the way up to 25600. I was very impressed. I'll post my video this weekend.

Wow, Andrew! 25,600, I take it that this extreme was only required to work out whether Dan or the man from the creeks fired the first shot in the Malamute

Like John, I look forward to the video

pentaxuser

radiant · Apr 22, 2022

You can "push" to 25600 if your scene luminance range is high. That way you get something on the film. Shoot a scene with 3 stop range and you have basically nothing.

Below a chart how zones translate. At 1600 the lowest is at original Zone II. On 25600 you need to have something on box zones VII and upwards to even have something on film. Meaning at least 6 stops of luminance range.

Paul Howell · Apr 22, 2022

As a PJ I pushed a lot of film, in my experience expose for the highlights and let shadows fall where they may, don't even go down the path of thinking you can shoot at twice box speed and get good shadows. With that in mind, HP 5 paired with D76 or ID 11 will give good highlights, hold onto some shadows without baseball size grain. Delta 400 my thinking does not push as well as as HP 5, but if you decide on pushing then I would use DDX. Diafine is hard to get in the U.S and is expensive, it will do well with HP-5, hold to more shadows, but as Delta has a thin emulsion it will not shoot much above 800, some reports 400 or even 200. A divided developer like Diafine soaks into the emulsion to be activated by part b. Thin emulsion, not enough developer soaks into give full speed.

Andrew O'Neill · Apr 22, 2022

John Wiegerink said:
Andy,
I'm very interested in your results and will watch for your video. With my metering and my developer, I get very good result at rating HP5+ at ISO640. Of course somebody else will say no, no, no, it's best rated at ISO200 or whatever. Same film, same developer, same time, same exposure and different results? All up to one's technique. I've never pushed Delta 400 on purpose, but HP5+ is one of the better films for pushing. It's one of the better films period. JohnW

I am/was one of those saying best rated at 200. By the way, I just shot Delta 400 at 1600 as a second part to the video... Down to the darkroom to develop it!

John Wiegerink · Apr 22, 2022

Andrew O'Neill said:
I am/was one of those saying best rated at 200. By the way, I just shot Delta 400 at 1600 as a second part to the video... Down to the darkroom to develop it!

Andy,
Nothing wrong with your rating HP5+ at 200. I was just saying that your 200 might be my 400 with my style of metering , etc..

Paul Howell · Apr 22, 2022

Meter, slow or fast shutter speeds, choice of developer all impact on what ISO you should use. Many photogpghers are really into testing film and developers, it a part of photogprhaly they enjoy, others hate testing. I test every time I change film or developers, at this point I have notes for just all the films and developers I've used over the past 55 or so years, my modern bodies with electronic shutters and matrix metering shoot at just box speed, older all mechanical cameras, all over the map.

John Wiegerink · Apr 22, 2022

Paul,
Yes, it’s so hard to give advice to folks asking when we all do things a little differently. Or like you say, are gear is not always spot on either.

Moose22 · Apr 22, 2022

radiant said:
HP5 pushes nicely to 1600. But do not develop in Rodinal, the grain comes out pretty harsh. Xtol/XT-3 is a great developer for HP5.

+1 on this.

I've had great results with HP5 at 800 and 1600 in xtol.

Shoot -- was going to give a 1600 example but it isn't online yet. Sorry. But my point is that I find it pushes very nicely.

This was at 800:

pentaxuser · Apr 22, 2022

Paul Howell said:
Delta 400 my thinking does not push as well as as HP 5, but if you decide on pushing then I would use DDX. but as Delta has a thin emulsion it will not shoot much above 800, some reports 400 or even 200.

Well Ilford itself seem not even to hint at D400's inability to push as effectively as HP5+ in its article and I'd have expected some hint at least if shooting above 800 was almost impossible

I'd be interested in seeing the pedigree of those reports that say it cannot go above 400 and as for the reports that it will not shoot much above 200 .... Well that report(s) I would like to see. If that were the case then we'd be correct to call the author of the Ilford article to which I linked an outright liar, wouldn't we?

pentaxuser

Paul Howell · Apr 22, 2022

Some years ago I experimented with Delta 400 and Tmax 400, HP5 and Trix, shot as box speed, pushed to 800 and 1600, used DDX, f76+. My tests used a simple ring around, subjective evaluation. In my testing I found Tmax 400 pushed really well to 800, I would really call it a push, 1600 was ok, loss of shadow detail, grain was best in D76. Trix was next my list, a bit more grain than Tmax 400, Trix pushed to 800 was a push, 1600 looked much Trix from the past, noticable grain and almost no shadow details Delta, I did not like the tones, not in DDX or F76+, I think Hp5 was a bit better, like the tones. Then again I dont care for Delta films at all, when given a choice will take Tmax every time.

radiant · Apr 23, 2022

pentaxuser said:
Well Ilford itself seem not even to hint at D400's inability to push as effectively as HP5+ in its article and I'd have expected some hint at least if shooting above 800 was almost impossible

D400 doesn't seem to have any steep toe so it pushes to 1600 nicely.

GLS · Apr 23, 2022

HP5+ pushes well in DD-X. Here is one example of mine at EI1600 in a pretty dim interior:

--- by atomstitcher, on Flickr

Personally I'm not overly fond of Delta 400, and much prefer T-Max 400. I find the latter pushes to 800 really nicely, again in DD-X:

6 ½ by atomstitcher, on Flickr

Helge · Apr 23, 2022

HP5 pushes exceptionally well. It’s a better classic fast film in my book than Tri-X.

If you don’t want the grain TMax 400 is just about the best film ever made. Doesn’t hold shadow information quite as well to 1600 as HP5 but is impossibly high resolution at that rating.

Both benefit from a -2 or -3 stop preflash.
Doesn’t pull contrast all the way back, but helps some.

Which film for all-round use and pushing to 1600? (hp5 or delta400)

Alexander Starbuck

Down Under

Alexander Starbuck

radiant

radiant

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Finn lyle

John Wiegerink

John Wiegerink

gone

Lachlan Young

pentaxuser

radiant

Paul Howell

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

John Wiegerink

Paul Howell

John Wiegerink

Moose22

pentaxuser

Paul Howell

radiant

GLS

Helge

Which film for all-round use and pushing to 1600? (hp5 or delta400)

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency