1. treeman

    treeman

    Messages:
    4,225
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Having just processed my first roll of HP5 for about 25 years! I'd forgotten how grainy it was, (admittedly pushed to 800asa)

    Is Delta any better in terms of grain I.e not so much?

    Thanks
     
  2. Carl Hall

    Carl Hall

    Messages:
    3,005
    Name:
    Carl
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I don't like HP5 either as I found it to be too grainy for my tastes. I've used Delta 100 a little and found it to be much better.

    I've only got a few examples, but I hope they help!

    edit- these are 120 HP5, I haven't used it in 35mm

    [​IMG]Bristol by Carl Hall, on Flickr

    [​IMG]Bristol by Carl Hall, on Flickr

    [​IMG]Bristol by Carl Hall, on Flickr
     
    Jao and treeman like this.
  3. FujiLove

    FujiLove

    Messages:
    2,924
    Edit My Images:
    No
  4. RaglanSurf

    RaglanSurf Forum Idiot'13/14 FPOTY'17

    Messages:
    10,304
    Name:
    Nick
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I'm not keen on HP5 unless using indoors in low light, I have used Delta but I'm not that impressed. My go-to 400 b&w film id Tri-X although I am developing a liking Berrger Pancro 400.
     
  5. FujiLove

    FujiLove

    Messages:
    2,924
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Delta 100 is super-smooth. This image is cropped to around 50% of the original negative, but there's still very little grain. Developed in HC110.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. joxby

    joxby

    Messages:
    8,293
    Name:
    John
    Edit My Images:
    No
    In my experience Delta 400 is smoother than HP5, its not without grain but what grain there is isn't as coarse.
    Course, it depends how and what you process it in.
    The best 3 devs I can think of for smoothing grain in delta 400 are Xtol, Xtol and.....Xtol
     
    Woodsy and ChrisR like this.
  7. LancsLee

    LancsLee

    Messages:
    313
    Name:
    Lee
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Also just started to scan some 35mm HP5 negs from around 20 years ago and hell, that stuff is grainy. What a pleasure to then scan some XP2 and BW400CN. Also have some Delta 100 negs that are quite nice but no Delta 400.
     
  8. Jao

    Jao

    Messages:
    3,740
    Name:
    Adrian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I have liked HP5+ for a few years but I know its isn't everyones choice, but I won't be buying any more. It is grainy and the grain structure isn't as nice as TRI-X in my view. Delta 400 is a nice film too but it is also grainy although the grain looks different. It has other advantages in my view.

    I recently shot a roll of HP5+ and Delta 400 on the same day at the same location and the same challenging dull light. Here are two images, one is HP5+ the other is delta 400. Both were processed in Ilfotec LC29 at 1-19 and scanned on my Epson V500. I should say they are both 645 and not 35mm. The first is HP5+ and the second is Delta 400.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    For me, I think the bigger difference between HP5+ and Delta 400 is not really grain, but the better tonal range of Delta. After shooting both films in close succession, I will be using Delta 400 in the future when my stock of HP5+ runs out.


    If you really want to reduce grain though, I think you need to shoot film rated at a slower speed.

    Hope this helps
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2018
    RaglanSurf likes this.
  9. ChrisR

    ChrisR

    Messages:
    8,533
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I've just had a look at examples of HP5 and Delta 400 (has to be 400 for a decent comparison). It also makes a difference of course whether you are using 135, 120 or larger. All my examples are 135. I only found one roll of HP5 in my search. The landscape shots look fine...

    HP5 example 2.jpg

    Some indoor shots look very grainy...

    HP5 example.jpg

    I think that might have convinced me not to shoot much more HP5. I have several rolls of Delta 400 (from before the time I decided Tri-X was mustard), and it looks pretty good. No comparable shots to the above, but I don't find the grain in this obnoxious at all:

    Delta 400 example.jpg

    I think Tim Layton, a fine art photographer in the US who shoots 4*5, 8*10 and 11*14, uses HP5 quite a lot. I don't think grain would be an issue at those sizes!
     
    Jao likes this.
  10. FishyFish

    FishyFish

    Messages:
    2,402
    Name:
    Nige
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I like the grain of HP5+. That shot of the Jane Austen novel in @ChrisR ’s post above is lovely. I don’t mind grain in general, but I like finer grained films like Tmax or Delta 100 too. It depends on what I want to achieve (or, more to the case, what’s in the camera at the time).

    The roll of 135 Bergger Pancro 400 was especially grainy, but I liked that a lot too.
     
  11. Kei

    Kei

    Messages:
    282
    Name:
    Kyle
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I've used both and have a mild preference for HP5 over delta. I develop all my films using D76 1+1. I tend to find the grain on delta can be more coarse, but both are pretty similar.

    HP5 on 645
    [​IMG]

    Delta 400 on 645
    [​IMG]

    Delta 400 on 6x7
    [​IMG]

    35mm HP5 pushed to 800
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2018
  12. treeman

    treeman

    Messages:
    4,225
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No
    This is the one that that made me wonder about how significant the grain looks, it's not a great scan (still learning that) taken on a Rollei 35TE which I hadn't used for nearly 30 years and pushed to 800 asa, dev in Ilfosol, which I know isn't great for pushing film, but its what I had. And yeah that scratch! not sure yet if its a squeegee or camera scratch.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Nod

    Nod Kronus

    Messages:
    30,803
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Squeegee - camera related scratches are (almost) always parallel with the side edge of the film but that one is a few degrees off.

    Embrace the grain! If you really want/need less, use a C41 type B&W film.
     
  14. gazmorton2000

    gazmorton2000

    Messages:
    4,138
    Name:
    Gareth (Not Gary!)
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Never, ever use a squeegee! I never have and never had smear marks. Never had long scratches either.

    I LOVE HP5. Embrace the grain (which I know isn't for everyone). One of these is 35mm, the other is 645.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Tilz, Fraser Euan White, Jao and 3 others like this.
  15. horrocks

    horrocks

    Messages:
    2,315
    Name:
    Toby
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I have had very coarse grain on a couple of rolls of 35mm HP5 Plus recently. Martin Henson on the B&W Photography Learning Forum suggested that HP5+ possibly doesn't always scan as well as TriX, his preference.
     
    Jao likes this.
  16. joxby

    joxby

    Messages:
    8,293
    Name:
    John
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I don't do grain, and thats an end to it
    I quite like TriX 400 especially in Xtol, but is it a quid a roll better than Delta ?

    I don't think so.

    Its interesting (to me anyway) to hear what other people use, especially if its related to minimizing grain, I don't choose the cheapest, I'm not brand loyal, I just use the stuff I like, Ilford film with Kodak developer...:D
     
    FujiLove and Jao like this.
  17. Slyelessar

    Slyelessar

    Messages:
    708
    Name:
    Slyelessar
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    HP5 is something I am still undecided on, even though I have shot a lot of rolls. I am yet to shoot it on 120, perhaps soon.
     
  18. Sectionate

    Sectionate

    Messages:
    2,303
    Name:
    Nick
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Not really related to the thread, but Delta 100 is probably my favourite B&W film.
     
  19. Ste_S

    Ste_S

    Messages:
    358
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I like 120 HP5 and push it to 1600. I'm with Michael Kenna on the subject of grain

     
  20. mothdust

    mothdust

    Messages:
    1,400
    Name:
    Charlotte
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I've got far too much Rodinal left to start liking HP5+...
     
    StephenM likes this.
  21. niko

    niko

    Messages:
    1,980
    Name:
    nik
    Edit My Images:
    No
    they are sunning shots, and the grain looks ace!
     
  22. Kevin Allan

    Kevin Allan

    Messages:
    1,098
    Name:
    Kevin
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I've never shot HP5 on the basis of looking at on-line HP5 images and finding them too grainy for my personal taste.

    If I really needed ISO400 for a situation where a tripod wasn't an option, and wanted fine grain, I'd use XP2. Of course this needs to be C41 processed but I do C41 processing for colour neg anyway.

    If I could use a tripod, I'd choose either FP4+ or TMax 100, because I don't want obvious grain if I can avoid it. Both can be rated at 200 with appropriate processing adjustments - so rating HP5 at 200 wouldn't provide any benefit for my purposes.
     
  23. gazmorton2000

    gazmorton2000

    Messages:
    4,138
    Name:
    Gareth (Not Gary!)
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Thank you, :)
     
  24. LancsLee

    LancsLee

    Messages:
    313
    Name:
    Lee
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Have to agree. XP2 scans beautifully and looking through some of my old photographs I'm going to start using it again, although I've always rated it at 320. HP5 does work nicely in good light and for certain image styles, and I think prints much better in the darkroom than it scans for some reason. Because I only scan these day I'll only use it in 120 from now on.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice