I've used both and HP5 is by far my favorite. I went through a phase where I thought Delta was better, but then found myself missing HP5. HP5 has better tonality, nicer grain (though more grain), and sharper. Plus, it pushes better. I think Delta 100 is a closer rival to FP4 than Delta 400 is to HP5.
I actually prefer Delta 400 over HP5+
Why? Because HP5+ is so close to Tri-X, that I'd rather use Tri-X for those things.
However, as Delta 400 is significantly different than either, I like it better than the HP5+ i'd rather use tri-x for.
I do like the look...
Delta 400 in Rodinal 1:100 on Ilford MGIV RC
Simon R Galley,
I received the package in the mail today with the reading. Thank you very very much. I really appreciate you going above and beyond to teach me the ropes. I think I've learned a lot more about film from the information your provided.
I decided when making prints out of my first Delta Professional roll that HP5+ suits my taste better. I brought the other two rolls back to the local store I bought them from and exchanged them for HP5+.
Thanks again everyone! I think I'm going to like this forum.
I understand that HP5 is probably the better choice right now, but don't discount Delta 400. I'm not sure what developing time you used, but if you used the same time as for HP5, your negative would have come out underdeveloped, which results in a loss of contrast and shadow detail. When you decide to develop on your own, try Delta again, and develop for the proper time.
You may not like it, but I think you should at least give the film a fair shake.
T-grain films, such as Delta and Tmax, when used in conjunction with developers like Tmax developer, have much shorter developing times then HP5 or TriX. A developing time of 7 - 8 minutes makes it much easier to finish a roll of film in a single class period. With many developers HP5 and the like can take 13 -15 minutes. This is one of the major reasons high school photo teachers favor Delta and Tmax.