Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,266   Posts: 1,534,331   Online: 787
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    49

    Ilford FP4+ or Delta for an HP5+ user

    About a year ago I asked here about choosing film for starting with film photography. I decided to pick one and stick with it for a while, so I went with Ilford HP5+. Now, about a hundred rolls later, I think that I'm ready to try another film. It's not that I'm unhappy with HP5+ - I appreciate its exposure latitude very much. I've been shooting it at ISO 400 to 3200, and it's been very good to me.

    I'm after is a little more richness of the tonal ranges (I understand that this is not a function of film alone). I've been looking at FP4+ and Delta 100/400. I found lots of shots from both films online, but it's hard to evaluate the scanned pictures on the monitor: I keep thinking that, perhaps, a shot that I don't like may be fine on the negative, but something was not done right during scanning and preparation of JPEG.

    So I would like to hear opinions of forum members, who have substantial experience with Ilford Delta or FP4+, and, preferably, also HP5+: what would you advise me to try next?

    This time, also, I don't want to just pick a roll or two, but would prefer to commit for at least 20-40 rolls. The reason is that it seems to me that to make an opinion about some film, I really prefer to shoot it under a wide variety of conditions.

    I shoot 35mm and develop in Ilford DD-X.
    Last edited by agenkin; 12-10-2007 at 12:48 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #2
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Personally I prefer FP4+. But that preference is likely to be coloured (huh) by the fact that I use FP4+ in all sizes from 35mm to 8x10", and mostly in MF to 5x7"...
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    My personal preference is FP4 as well. But I've never tried Delta.

    I like the old technology films--Pan F, FP4, HP5, Tri-X, Plus-X, etc. These days mostly HP5 and FP4.

  4. #4
    Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oakville and Toronto Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,370
    Images
    308
    Third the nomination of FP4, it's more forgiving than Delta emulsions and I consider it one of the classic films out there.
    "Life moves pretty fast, if you don't stop and look around once and a while, you might just miss it."
    Ferris Bueller

  5. #5
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    I’m sure you realise that you will receive all possible permutations of answer to your question. So this is the one that says Ilford Delta 400 is best; at least for me.
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  6. #6
    david b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    None of your business
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,034
    Images
    30
    I love FP4+ in rodinal.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Shively View Post
    My personal preference is FP4 as well. But I've never tried Delta.
    I thought it might sound odd to say this, but now that it has been said... me too.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,054
    If you liked HP-5, then you will probably like FP-4. They are more closely related than the Delta group is. HP-5 and FP-4 are "old-style" emulsions (still quite valid, however) and Delta is a t-grain emulsion. T-grains have a different look to them.

    Now, if you wish to continue with the "old-style", but want a different look than Ilford, try Efke. Fair warning: the photographs you take can be great, I love the emulsion, but the QC isn't so hot. You should take two shots of everything!

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SE.London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    547
    At the end of the day what really matters is what you like. But as you are asking for opinions. Like you I've used HP5 extensively but I've found Delta 400 to be finer grained with a smoother tonality especially when developed in PMK Pyro. Its not a quantum leap but I've found there is a difference which I prefer.

    For the slower emulsions I've always favoured Agfapan 100 but since that is no longer available I use Delta 100 which comes close.

  10. #10
    Dave Krueger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by jim appleyard View Post
    Now, if you wish to continue with the "old-style", but want a different look than Ilford, try Efke.
    Can you elaborate on the different look? I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I was wondering about how Efke and Foma films look as compared to Ilford films particularly in terms of graininess.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin