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

[Lachlan Young]

HP5+, 400TX, 400TMY-II and Delta 400 all have remarkably similar toe shapes. HP5+ has slightly higher shadow speed. All will gain some real shadow speed in a properly formulated PQ/ PA type developer (e.g. Microphen, DD-X, Xtol, XT-3 - no guarantees about various garden-shed formulae).

Delta 400 underwent a significant revision about 20 years ago - which seems to have slipped by people who probably haven't used it in the intervening - part of which was to improve its latitude to underexposure.

A short scale subject will also give a misleading impression of a speed improvement.

 

[radiant]

Personally I'm not overly fond of Delta 400

Me neither. I haven't really got the idea behind Delta 400 because HP5+ is so good already and these modern 400 films are so similar anyways.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Me neither. I haven't really got the idea behind Delta 400 because HP5+ is so good already and these modern 400 films are so similar anyways.

Delta 400 has a better colour sensitivity range, is sharper, finer grained - and seems to aim to be a bit smarter in holding highlight densities under control than traditional methods of highlight roll-off or unrelenting straight-line. On the other hand, granularity goes up much faster with overexposure. It's Tri-X meets Ilford Delta colour sensitivity but with a smarter approach to highlight density control. You will clearly see the differences if the rest of your imaging chain is up to minimum standards.

 

[radiant]

Delta 400 has a better colour sensitivity range, is sharper, finer grained - and seems to aim to be a bit smarter in holding highlight densities under control than traditional methods of highlight roll-off or unrelenting straight-line.

Compared to HP5+ ?

About highlights: if it is not roll-off or unrelenting straight-line, then what is is? Something between, like a very smooth shoulder?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Compared to HP5+ ?

About highlights: if it is not roll-off or unrelenting straight-line, then what is is? Something between, like a very smooth shoulder?

Delta 400 doesn't roll-off in the conventional sense, instead what seems to happen is that the highlight gradient bends somewhat (Delta 3200 does this even more strongly) so that you still get a rise in density, but at a slower rate - thus you neither get the harder roll-off into mud (when you burn those highlights in) of a traditional shoulder, nor the higher densities of a straight line - but you still get better separation in those highlights you need to burn in & they're less dense overall. 400TX has the most traditional curve shape - as does HP5+, but with a couple of extra stops of straight line - while 400TMY-II keeps an amazingly long straight line. Delta uses a complex epitaxial emulsion (effectively multiple emulsions in one) which allows for certain benefits relating to emulsion thickness and sharpness - it is interesting that Kodak chose to stick with a multilayer construction for 400TMY-II, but I suspect it probably has to do with issues that epitaxial emulsions may cause under certain exposure conditions (e.g. granularity can shoot up with overexposure) - and that they have antennae dye technology, effectively adding several (2?) stops of sensitivity to a given emulsion. Both seem to be attempting to get the benefits of polydisperse emulsions without the downsides.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Here is the video shot on location, where I'm seeing how far I can push HP5...

Pushing HP5


I shot another video a couple of days ago, about pushing Delta 400. I will post it some time this coming week...

 

[Helge]

Here is the video shot on location, where I'm seeing how far I can push HP5...

Pushing HP5


I shot another video a couple of days ago, about pushing Delta 400. I will post it some time this coming week...

Very interesting video.
Subbed right away.
Esp. interesting that the sensitivity seems to go in steps somewhat.
400 and 800 is not that different, then there is a jump to 1600 with much the same result at 3200 with another jump to 6400.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Very interesting video.
Supped right away.
Esp. interesting that the sensitivity seems to go in steps somewhat.
400 and 800 is not that different, then there is a jump to 1600 with much the same result at 3200 with another jump to 6400.

Thanks, Helge. By the way, what does supped mean? I usually use that word when I've finished a drink...

 

[Helge]

Thanks, Helge. By the way, what does supped mean? I usually use that word when I've finished a drink...

Sorry, should have been subbed as in subscriped.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Sorry, should have been subbed as in subscriped.

Thank you! Appreciate your support, Helge!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Delta 400 underwent a significant revision about 20 years ago - which seems to have slipped by people who probably haven't used it in the intervening - part of which was to improve its latitude to underexposure.

@Lachlan Young, That's interesting to hear. I used this film in the mid to late 90's, and haven't touched it until a few years ago. I just ran a push test (out of curiosity) the other day. First glance of the negatives, they look very similar to the HP5 negs I shot along with it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Delta 400 underwent a significant revision about 20 years ago - which seems to have slipped by people who probably haven't used it in the intervening - part of which was to improve its latitude to underexposure.

@Lachlan Young, I just ran a push test (out of curiosity) the other day. First glance of the negatives, they look very similar to the HP5 negs I shot along with it.

Just more expensive

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

Delta 400 underwent a significant revision about 20 years ago - which seems to have slipped by people who probably haven't used it in the intervening - part of which was to improve its latitude to underexposure.

@Lachlan Young, That's interesting to hear. I used this film in the mid to late 90's, and haven't touched it until a few years ago. I just ran a push test (out of curiosity) the other day. First glance of the negatives, they look very similar to the HP5 negs I shot along with it.

It’s not better than TMax 400. I’ll almost swear to that.
And HP5 pushes better than Delta 400. Delta 400 is good, but to me it is an also ran version of TMY.

 

[pentaxuser]

Congratulations, Andrew, on a very comprehensive test and video presentation. At first glance I too was surprised at how well 1600 met my standards for the "look" of the picture with 3200 marginally behind but probably very acceptable for those shots where the light required that speed. In certain light extremes in indoor arenas and depending on the subject, it looks as if 25,600 might just about produce an OK shot

In each case I felt the same as you that 400 delivered a shot with as much detail as I'd want and more impact. I will now not even consider any need to drop to 200

When you made the brightness and contrast adjustments, were these made to the scans only or were these and can these be made via exposure and contrast filtration under an enlarger?

The only disappointment that might await me with 35mm is the effect of an enlargement compared to your 4x5

I took some pics at the grandson's football ( soccer) match at the weekend and for the first time used E.I. 640 and I have yet to develop and print but had I seen your video first, I would and should have gone for at least 800 and probably 1600 as the light conditions made some of the shots' exposures a little too long I suspect

Thanks for the video

pentaxuser

 

[Two23]

I've been using HP5. Here's a video on a guy that tested it to ISO 25,000:

Kent in SD

 

[MattKing]

I've been using HP5. Here's a video on a guy that tested it to ISO 25,000:

Kent in SD

That is Andrew O'Neill, who linked to the video a few posts up .
Andrew - you and I should talk about your test

 

[radiant]

I assume Andrews tree branch scene was about 3 stops in luminance range. If you underexpose by 6 stops your Zone V is at Zone -I .. I mean all your exposure should be below Zone I. Which would mean you would get nothing on film.

You should have done contrast/tonality adjustment for the ISO 200 to match any of those other exposures. HP5 "overexposed" by 1 stop is not lost at all - if you compensate the contrast loss in development then you have a good negative with good shadow details if needed.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Congratulations, Andrew, on a very comprehensive test and video presentation. At first glance I too was surprised at how well 1600 met my standards for the "look" of the picture with 3200 marginally behind but probably very acceptable for those shots where the light required that speed. In certain light extremes in indoor arenas and depending on the subject, it looks as if 25,600 might just about produce an OK shot

In each case I felt the same as you that 400 delivered a shot with as much detail as I'd want and more impact. I will now not even consider any need to drop to 200

When you made the brightness and contrast adjustments, were these made to the scans only or were these and can these be made via exposure and contrast filtration under an enlarger?

The only disappointment that might await me with 35mm is the effect of an enlargement compared to your 4x5

I took some pics at the grandson's football ( soccer) match at the weekend and for the first time used E.I. 640 and I have yet to develop and print but had I seen your video first, I would and should have gone for at least 800 and probably 1600 as the light conditions made some of the shots' exposures a little too long I suspect

Thanks for the video

pentaxuser

The adjustments were made to the scans in PS. I'm quite confident that I could replicate in the darkroom, as the PS adjustments were quite minor.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I assume Andrews tree branch scene was about 3 stops in luminance range. If you underexpose by 6 stops your Zone V is at Zone -I .. I mean all your exposure should be below Zone I. Which would mean you would get nothing on film.

You should have done contrast/tonality adjustment for the ISO 200 to match any of those other exposures. HP5 "overexposed" by 1 stop is not lost at all - if you compensate the contrast loss in development then you have a good negative with good shadow details if needed.

Yes, I see what you mean. Interesting. Thank you.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That is Andrew O'Neill, who linked to the video a few posts up .
Andrew - you and I should talk about your test

Uh oh... am I in trouble? PM me. I'm at home taking it easy today. No darkroom work...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why not use Ilford Delta 3200 at ISO 3200 and develop in replenished XTOL at ISO 3200?

 

[Helge]

Why not use Ilford Delta 3200 at ISO 3200 and develop in replenished XTOL at ISO 3200?

Totally different looks.
HP5 @ 1600 is actually less grainy.

Ilford Delta 3200 at 1600 vs Ilford HP5 at 1600: High Speed B&W Film Comparison » Shoot It With Film

Looking for a high speed black and white film? Check out this comparison of Ilford Delta 3200 at 1600 vs Ilford HP5 at 1600!

shootitwithfilm.com

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

...and sadly, Delta 3200 is not available in sheet film sizes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Totally different looks.
HP5 @ 1600 is actually less grainy.

Ilford Delta 3200 at 1600 vs Ilford HP5 at 1600: High Speed B&W Film Comparison » Shoot It With Film

Looking for a high speed black and white film? Check out this comparison of Ilford Delta 3200 at 1600 vs Ilford HP5 at 1600!

shootitwithfilm.com

But I need the 3200 speed with the 500mm lens with the 2XE extender.

 

[Helge]

But I need the 3200 speed with the 500mm lens with the 2XE extender.

Then, obviously you should shoot D3200.
That film is unique and very good at what it does.