Ilford FP4+ or Delta for an HP5+ user

[agenkin]

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.

[Ole]

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"...

[Lee Shively]

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.

[Uncle Bill]

Third the nomination of FP4, it's more forgiving than Delta emulsions and I consider it one of the classic films out there.

[Dave Miller]

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.

[david b]

I love FP4+ in rodinal.

[BrianShaw]

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.

[jim appleyard]

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!

[Trevor Crone]

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.

[Dave Krueger]

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.