Ilford Delta 400 vs HP5

treeman

treeman

Messages
4,094
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
 
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.
 
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.

25746165368_c74bdec52c_c.jpg
 
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
 
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.
 
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.

39269156101_fc2291b71e_b.jpg


25526870978_b9250d68b4_b.jpg


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:
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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jao
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.
 
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


Delta 400 on 645


Delta 400 on 6x7


35mm HP5 pushed to 800
 
Last edited:
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.

26677756_1729049757127088_4239217939846856540_o.jpg
 
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.
 
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
 
I like 120 HP5 and push it to 1600. I'm with Michael Kenna on the subject of grain

Grain is a facet of the photographic process that I like to use. It’s akin to seeing the brushstrokes in a a painting I really don’t understand why photographic manufacturers and many photographers seem to be on an endless search for finer and finer grain structures
Click to expand...
 
gazmorton2000 said:
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.



Click to expand...
they are sunning shots, and the grain looks ace!
 
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.
 
Kevin Allan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top