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

[Juan Valdenebro]

What about Ilford Delta 3200 or Kodak's 3200 ISO film?

Not even an option, if you read OP's thread title: he talked about films for all situations, AND good for EI1600 too.
I like D3200/DD-X in MF, and TMZ (35mm) in TMaxDev. Both are great at EI1600 and EI3200.

 

[warden]

What about Ilford Delta 3200 or Kodak's 3200 ISO film?

The OP decided (post 86) to try bulk rolls of each film mentioned in the post title back in May, which is when the thread paused. Hopefully he'll stop by and let us know how it went!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

It would be nice, for sure.
Does anybody know about any internet test of D400 for 400/800/1600 comparing wet prints?
Thanks.

 

[bluechromis]

You have to take statements that 400 speed films pushed two stops always look terrible with a grain of salt. Yes there is a greater loss of shadow detail and possible blown highlights. But how big a problem that is really depends on the subject matter and what the photographer is trying to achieve. For street photography and events, the focus will be on the action, the people. Viewers are not likely to be troubled that there are dark alleys in the background with little detail. A lot of Gary Winogrand's photos had blocked up shadows. But few noticed because they were looking at the couple in the convertible with a screaming monkey. When shooting candid shots of dynamic scenes if there is low light there is no alternative to shooting at a high EI. The question is do you prefer to get the finer grain of a 400 speed film at the loss of shadow detail or do you prefer the greater shadow detail but courser grain of D 3200? I have heard an Ilford rep. say the DDX is the best for D 3200, but that Xtol is "pretty good". I have found that DDX is good with D 3200, but it is costly and might be a tad less sharp that Xtol. There is Kodak Xtol and a number of commercial clones: Eco Pro, Adox version and Foma version. I've not heard that the clones are markedly worse, and some think the Adox version may be very good. This is going to cost less than DDX and I doubt that you would lose much in performance to DDX. There are also home-mixed clones like Mytol and Instant Mytol that are extremely affordable.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I think D400 must push decently to EI1600 in DD-X for soft light scenes, but the question is not if it can be done, but how does it compare to HP5+ at that point, if we wet print the same scene done with both, checking their tone and grain...
I imagine, if Ilford had really made a modern and technically better film at 200-400, and also better at 1600, and more than 20 years ago, possibly by now HP5+ would have disappeared.

 

[bluechromis]

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

Ilford does say that D 400 is less tolerant of inaccurate exposure than HP-5. If you are pushing you are inherently playing with less margin of safety with exposure. If you are doing dynamic scenes like events where you are running and gunning and don't always time to get everything perfectly set up, I would think HP-5 would be the better bet.

 

[Helge]

All you need is right here.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I used D400 only when I was a student, 20 years ago: exactly when the current version came out. Back then I didn’t know what to look at, and my exposure and development were not optimal, so I can’t say anything first hand.

From reading -for years- hundreds of posts in Photrio, Leica Forum, FADU, largeformatphotography, rangefinderforum, Photo.net, etc., this is what I conclude:

Delta400 is a bit slower than HP5+: lots of users report horrible grain growth and blocked highlights at EI400: that’s common mostly with D-76/ID-11. It seems at 400 in MQ developers D400 has a contrasty/pushed look. I’d say this comes many times from HP5+ users who know by experience the lowish native contrast of HP5+.

Its slightly lower speed makes a lot of users say EI200 is correct. I’d say the film was called 400 for DD-X use, the same way TMX and TMY are not really 100 and 400 in D-76 unless we push development a little, but those two reach box speed in TMaxDev with great tone.

Most users reporting great tone and great image structure with D400 use metol developers, like Perceptol and Barry Thornton’s 2 bath developer, exposing at 200 or 250. For sunny scenes wet printed, diluted Perceptol seems the best option for controlled highlights and best grain.

All this is nothing new, and not really far from HP5+, but as D400 doesn’t have the same “different speed grain layers” as often called, it’s not a film equally good, for uprating, as HP5+, or at least not to the same degree: HP5+ can be beautiful at EI3200 for wet printing overcast scenes, while I’d say D400 at EI800 is fine, but at EI1600 probably it’s a better idea using HP5+.

I’m not very interested in D400 for pushing or for street, but I’d like to see its best version for 35mm wet printing for mixed scenes rolls. Xtol doesn’t produce beautiful sharp grain with D400 when it’s wet printed, as far as I know, but if it does, it would be good to take a look.

Of course, scanning is a different field, and software/virtual sharpening can create things that are not in the negative.

Especially, it would be cool to see if D400 has its own look, and its own grain too, as beautiful as those of Tri-X when it’s correctly exposed and correctly developed for wet printed sharp present grain, but with high resolving power and great clean tone despite its present grain in the whole 35mm frame.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

All you need is right here.

View attachment 321528 View attachment 321529

Hello Helge,
How would you talk about those two curves' differences?
Thanks.

 

[pentaxuser]

Can I take it as scientific fact that HP5 r D400+ pushed to 1600 is bound to be more grainy that D3200 at 1600? Is there a scientific test that proves this and if so can anyone point me to it?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

Hello Helge,
How would you talk about those two cuves' differences?
Thanks.

Well, looks like HP5 will retain more straight curve for longer when pushed, because of its initial longer line and slightly lower base fog.
For tungsten plus pushing things might change slightly because of D400s better red sensitivity. But it’s not going to be by much. LED lighting with its lower deep red and no IR is not going to help.

 

[Helge]

Can I take it as scientific fact that HP5 r D400+ pushed to 1600 is bound to be more grainy that D3200 at 1600? Is there a scientific test that proves this and if so can anyone point me to it?

Thanks

pentaxuser

They are not going to be more grainy than D3200.
D3200 will always be more grainy.
They’ll be higher contrast and with sometimes empty shadows.
That’s what D3200 does well keeping contrast low when pushed.
There is multiple tests around showing that too.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Can I take it as scientific fact that HP5 r D400+ pushed to 1600 is bound to be more grainy that D3200 at 1600? Is there a scientific test that proves this and if so can anyone point me to it?

Thanks

pentaxuser

More than grain, which has a smaller relevance, it's tone what matters first.
For sure the tone of D3200 at EI1600 is much better than the tone of both ISO400 films at EI1600. But that's not very important because nobody forces us to use ISO400 films at EI1600 exclusively: at box speed their tone is perfect.
Of course apart from better tone in all soft light scenes, only D3200 -thinking of films at EI1600 alone- can be used for direct sunlight scenes with clean shadows.
So the decision depends on three facts: first, if we want the chosen film to be good for every day photography (OP), second, if we want the film to be able to produce good shadows when there's high contrast or if we want it for soft light only, and third, if we'll push to EI1600.
IMO the best option for decent grain, common photography, sunny scenes, overcast, and ocassional EI1600, is HP5+. It's the most versatile film in the world.
Delta3200, especially in 35mm, has a type of grain that's not for everything. But for sunny scenes with the fastest possible speed for DOF/shutter speed handheld, and for tone at EI1600 alone, D3200 is the one. We pay with grain.
At EI200, and if we'll never uprate, the best option seems to be D400 in Perceptol.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Well, looks like HP5 will retain more straight curve for longer when pushed, because of its initial longer line and slightly lower base fog.
For tungsten plus pushing things might change slightly because of D400s better red sensitivity. But it’s not going to be by much. LED lighting with its lower deep red and no IR is not going to help.

Thank you!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

pentax,
About your precise question on what grain will be smaller, 400 or 3200 to 1600, I don't think there's a simple answer: we're talking about three films that can be developed in different developers and dilutions/agitation schemes.
I've read several times D3200 at EI1600 in Perceptol has very controlled grain: not the common D3200 grain, but I have never used D3200 for that, only for 3200 pushing, and for that speed I prefer it to HP5+.
Another problem with ISO3200 (1000) films is they get affected easily by temperature, age and cosmic rays, and it's happened to me even with film bought in Europe while living there: no matter if it was bought in the biggest places with refrigerated film and huge materials rotation, we can't know how film was treated from the moment it was manufactured. By the way, it happened to me three times, in different years (weak lowish speed film) and it was with D3200 always, never with TMZ.

 

[pentaxuser]

D3200 will always be more grainy.
They’ll be higher contrast and with sometimes empty shadows.
That’s what D3200 does well keeping contrast low when pushed.
There is multiple tests around showing that too.

Can you link me to those tests? Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

Delta400 is a bit slower than HP5+: lots of users report horrible grain growth and blocked highlights at EI400: that’s common mostly with D-76/ID-11.

Not in the real world it isn't. People who actively refuse to learn the absolute basics of process controls, then howl about their terrible results all over the internet are a different matter.

Delta 400 in ID-11/ D-76 is very well behaved, as is HP5+. The main difference is the shouldering/ gradient change in the highlights (in the case of Delta 400) & that HP5+ has slightly higher shadow speed (Delta 400 is more in line with TMax 400 & Tri-X 400), with better latitude in terms of granularity/ sharpness relationships (i.e. overexposure can crank the granularity & sharpness on Delta for possibly quite complicated chemical reasons in more solvent developers).

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello, Lachlan.
It's clear you felt affected by my post.
You shouldn't...
You didn't even express clearly what you wanted to express, so I didn't understand well:
Do you say, what lots of users report, is wrong?
Do you say, most of those reports don't come from D-76 use or from people who have used HP5+ before trying D400?
Do you say, in your humble opinion, D400 isn't a bit slower than HP5+?
Apart, when you write try again, that doesn't speak well about you.
What is that, you thought I was trying to do?
Maybe you're confused: I'm not trying to make you or anyone think like me... I'm very fine if your opinions are not close to mine: it doesn't matter in any way.
Now, let me explain you not about life but about photography:
For practical photography, it is of very little importance testing zone I to use that insignificant data to define a film's whole behaviour.
But it's very important, to some photographers -it doesn't matter if you're not inside this group- knowing about (and using it well) a film's ability to offer us middle grays that can visually work well even if we uprate slightly.
Because of this, IMO, HP5+ is a little faster than D400.
Keep your opinion, that's OK.
But I'm not trying to do anything.
I'm not saying D400 is not ISO400. It is, but at 400, in D-76 it is a bit more contrasty than HP5+. If you think differently, no problem.
What I said is, even being both Ilford films ISO400, they don`t behave the same way, and that's why the world prefers HP5+.
And I've been honest enough as to write that D400 at 200 in Perceptol is IMO the best option for that EI.
These things are important -again, it doesn't matter if you think they're not- because lack of understanding make young people become old caring about testing zone I instead of making good photographs.
And I'm not talking about you, in case you're confused again.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

(For forum clarity, Lachlan's original post was three words: "Nope, try again".)

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I think no matter the name we give to it, D400 is a much, much more limited film than HP5+.
If not, it would be selling above HP5+ more than 20 years ago.
IMO Ilford didn't try to make, with D400, a film that's better than HP5+, but only a film that's less grained when the user doesn't need the higher speed/capabilities/versatility of HP5+.
But anyway, in that case, I'd prefer TMY.

 

[faberryman]

Wow.

 

[MTGseattle]

I'm not sitting on any vintage marketing literature, but weren't Ilford's Delta products a direct competitor to Kodak's T-max offerings with both having an engineered grain structure? Kodak being a "T" grain and Ilford being a "delta." or some such. Can it be directly compared with HP5+ or are we in apples and oranges territory?
I am curious regarding the changes to the Delta films from the 90's to now.
As an aside, have I been missing out all these years by not trying HP5+?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I'm not sitting on any vintage marketing literature, but weren't Ilford's Delta products a direct competitor to Kodak's T-max offerings with both having an engineered grain structure? Kodak being a "T" grain and Ilford being a "delta." or some such. Can it be directly compared with HP5+ or are we in apples and oranges territory?
I am curious regarding the changes to the Delta films from the 90's to now.
As an aside, have I been missing out all these years by not trying HP5+?

That's what is strange to me too: I'd enjoy a TMY Ilford version, or even a Tri-X Ilford type of film, but D400 was a huge failure competing with TMY.
Yet I want to know, as I've posted, what it's best at.

 

[MTGseattle]

I've always been generally happy with the Delta films, but I fully admit to not asking a ton from them. I think I pushed a couple or rolls 2-stops, but that's about it.

 

[Helge]

I think no matter the name we give to it, D400 is a much, much more limited film than HP5+.
If not, it would be selling above HP5+ more than 20 years ago.
IMO Ilford didn't try to make, with D400, a film that's better than HP5+, but only a film that's less grained when the user doesn't need the higher speed/capabilities/versatility of HP5+.
But anyway, in that case, I'd prefer TMY.

That’s pure conjecture on your part.
People may find they get better results overall with FP4 and HP5. It’s simply more forgiving film for small and even a little larger mistakes.
HP5 is every bit as good as Tri-X, even better I’d say.
D400 is not quite a match for TMY. It has its own look though. Something people complain about TMY lacking. It’s too good.
D400 has emphasis on mid tones which is rather unique for a 400 film I find.
Then there is the red sensitivity.
But we’ve been there before recently: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/tmax-400-vs-delta-400.172100/page-6