Kodak is awesome, of course. But it costs more for the beginner. And less available here in the UK on the shelf. I just shot expired 2006 Kodak Tmax 100 on my Dog. Blown away
Often overlooked, spectral sensitivity is very important for b&w. FP4+ has elevated responsiveness in the red which acts like a light filtration, reducing blue/green, enhancing skies aso. Add excellent sharpness, fine grain and slight shouldering to that and you have a near-perfect allrounder especially for outdoor-scenes.
when i was learning black and white in the mid 80's i used FP4 exclusively. i found it a bit soft and i went harder than i was happy with, with the paper. when ilford brought out delta I tried a roll of that and loved it. it was perfect for me. i started of using ilford chemicals but by the time i was using delta i was using agfa chemicals. it gave me the results i wanted every time.
I have started using FP4+ for street. Too much light were I live and that way I can leave the lenes at around f5.6 or f8. Under the same conditions (EV17), I was at f11 with HP5.
I was raised on FP4and still love it. Every time I watch1 of you videos I want to get back into the darkroom. Many years ago I spent most of my time in the dark. These days I'm playing with youtube vids and learning so much from you sir! Film rules!
My first film was Lomography's Berlin. Probably not the best for a first time but I quite like some of the shots. Since then I've done Ektar 100, HP5 and a couple of others. Definitely going to be keeping a few rolls of HP5+ in reserve at all times. Nice balance of sharp shots and grain.
If you're stateside, I highly recommend Ultrafine 100 or 400! Best bang for your buck imo, and the results are surprisingly great given its price! Outside of the States, I'd recommend either Arista EDU 400 or with Kentmere 400! Great budget friendly film that gives some great results when you treat it right!
As a beginner your video was fun to watch and packed with new informations. Picked up a Rollei 35S and HP5+ film for my first street photography adventure!
"Welcome back to me channel!" This makes my day lately, as I slurp my morning eggs and coffee every morning 😈🤘 Boss, a quick question: I usually shoot medium format (an RB67) but I am looking for a smaller 35mm "daily driver". I was gifted a MInolta XD70 +50 1.4 and an OM 1 without a lens. The dilemma is: buy more lenses for Minolta (28 and 35) or sell the MInolta and get the same lens set for an OM? OM is so beautiful that I can't shake of the desire to complete that system. Cheers and thanks in advance!
Here in the States, until the 1990s, the opposite was true -- Plus-X and Tri-X would be the only B&W films that were always on the shelf, and they're pretty much the American brothers of FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus (RIP Plus-X). I could count on Tri-X and Plus-X at places like Crater Lake and Yellowstone Park, and at small town petrol stations -- they'd have three kinds of candy bars, four flavors of soda pop, and either Plus-X or Tri-X film, though sometimes it would be 620 when you wanted 135 or 120 when you had a 620 camera. I'd never seen Ilford films until I was out of college in my 20s. In fact, where I first heard about Ilford was when I read about Pan F "filling the gap" between Plus-X (ASA 125) and Panatomic X (ASA 32). Kodak never offered a B&W film between those speeds (vs. *two* at ASA 125, Plus-X and "consumer" film Verichrome Pan).
Interesting. It's a shame less and less stores are stocking film and the one I walked in had the Ilfords but none else. I know 10 years ago there would have been Kodaks there too. In fact, we have two photographic shops on the island. Same company different areas, they stock low on film. I can get Kentmere and Ilford there. Now and again I see a Kodak Tri-x but not often.
I started shooting film again this autumn after about 20 years of just digital. I shot lots of film back in the 90:s but always color and always had them processed in a lab. Now I only do B&W film (for color I use digital) and I develop and print them myself. I've only shot 400 ISO so far as it's dark and often overcast in the winter here in Finland so I need all the sensitivity I can get just to get decent shutter speeds. I started with Kentmere Pan 400 as it was on sale and I knew I'd be wasting a lot of film at first so got the cheapest I could find. Mostly I've been shooting HP5 in both 35 mm and 120 and it seems to give good results. I develop my film with CineStill D96f as it's easy to use and seems to work just fine. I'm planning on trying some 100 ISO (I have a couple of rolls of Rollei RPX 100 I got on sale. I'm a sucker for a good value so I always buy what's on sale :) too as soon as there's sufficient light just to see if there's any advantage over 400. It's been sunnier this week and I'm on vacation so I shot two rolls of HP5 (one 35 mm and one 120) in last two days. Just finished scanning them (I scan all my negatives first to decide what to print) and there are some quite nice pictures there. I'll probably do some printing later today.
I think I might have suggested Kentmere. In the UK it is cheaper than FP3 and HP5 - so mistakes are not so costly. And being Ilford it's good and readily available.
Brilliantly timed for me, Boss! I've just been bitten by the 120 bug, coming from a Sigma dp0 and needed to see where to start with film. Having watched quite a few of your previous video's I erred with the FP4 & HP5. Huge thanks to you.
I love HP5! When I was in photography school twenty some years ago, they had us only use TMAX 400. I think for a new beginner 400 speed is perfect for getting good first time results!
Thanks for all the great advice. I Recommend the SFLab beginners guide Film photography & printing to you all. I'm just waiting for blackout blinds for my man Darkroom. Then I will be taking pictures like a boss.Happy days
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Thanks so much you have kept me from going mad.I will one-day sign up to your patron,now I have just saved my job in the entertainment industry.All the best to you and your family,ow and George
I'm going to throw a other suggestion out there. I'd go for kodak gold 200 if your only planning on scanning. The latitude in that film is quite huge, I've walked with it with no metering just estimating by eye and ended up with totaly useable images across the whole roll. I just find it takes actual effort to make an unusable slide. Now that you can pick up a c-41 kit so cheaply, and I think it's false information that its difficult, all you need is a cheap thermometer and a bath tub to keep temp. Cant say I've procesesed 1 roll out of hundreds that didn't turn out. The chemestry lasts ages too as long as you add a quick was between stages. Now I love good old school silver halide films and shoot them often, but I'd hazard to say it's more particular to get it right, not to mention for scans the slightest water mark or dust shows through without digital ice.
I was brought up on FP4 and HP5 in the 80s I bulked loaded it and developed it in either ID11 or D76 and when I was an army photographer both were standard issue still shoot some now again both versatile and pretty good results though my fridge had a bit of everything in it now from JCH tri x Foma 400 definitely a great starter film 👍🏻
The first b&w film I shot a couple of years ago when l got back into film was FP4 in 120, and coincidentally the FP4 was the first film I developed myself in D76. I love it, it prints nicely, HP5 does as well, but l find that l like Delta 400 in Xtol the best, at least for printing. Some of the shots I've printed from a 120 Delta were just ubelievably good!
I know I am not Roger, but I have shot all of these films. The first thing to consider is the quality of the emulsion itself. As much as I like Fomapan I have noticed it suffers from specks in the grain occasionally. Definitely not something you tend to see in Ilford films. That being said, I really like Fomapan 100 and 400 they both have a very classic look. You tend to get more crushed blacks out of Foma and dimmer highlights with less overall dynamic range. Second, the Ilford films curl a lot less so they are easier to scan and enlarge. Third, I still buy both so take that how you will LOL.
Fomapan I used a lot many years ago as it was a lot cheaper for me to practice with. It's a great budget film, often rebranded as other names. I have had great results with Fomapan film and some not so great!
Good advice. Ilford is a solid and reliable film. For beginners it's worth considering Kentmere if it's available. It's made by Ilford and produces excellent results but is a pound or two cheaper
Kentmere is also a good film. Better since harman took it over. I can get Kentmere in our local photographic shop but it's closed at the moment because of the pandemic.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss unfortunately no when I did my research I didn't liked how it looked with HP5 : too grainy. I've tried D-76 (medium rendition) and XTOL (smooth and soft rendition), I liked the result. But I find them more expensive : they expire quicker, and the total of film processed with a galon of mixed solution is to low.
Can't ever go wrong with either. XTOL is also my standard developer. Another good (cheap and cheerful) alternative for beginners is APX100 / 400. In fact, APX works wonderfully well with Pyro-510.
From the digital scan comparisons of FP4 vs HP5, here is my quick impression as a rank beginner. First photo: FP4 has less grain, more contrast, and more resolution than HP5. Second photo: FP4 has slightly less grain and a little more contrast than HP5. Third photo: HP5 has slightly more shadow detail than FP4. Fourth photo: HP5 has better shadow detail, highlights, and exposure latitude. In this situation, HP5 did a good job as a portrait film. Making an 8x10 print from a 35mm negative is a bit of a stretch for that format. So, one would expect to see gain in prints made from HP5. Making 8x10 prints from 4x5 negatives would lead to much better results for both films.
I’m more a Kodak shooter (just a matter of taste) but I use hp5 pushed to 1600, I really like it’s look. One il Ford film I discovered last year and use a lot, it’s the 50 iso (don’t remember the name... pan F something). A great film !
I tend to use the Ilford films for most of my mono photography. I had a project planned for last year that I did intend to shoot on Tri x until I saw the price. Making Ilford even more attractive.
What is your take on Ilford Delta 100 and Delta 400? I've been experimenting with both here in the USA as well as FP4 and HP5. Also, my go-to camera store near where I live now sells Ilford's Kentmere line of films and I plan to try both the ISO 100 and 400 speed film stock in the near future. As someone who grew up shotting B & W in the 70s from high school onward, I really appreciate your content as it takes me back to the time when I was just starting out in photography. Over the last two years, I've purchased a Nikon N80 in very good condition, a Nikon F100 in very good condition and an F5 and F6, both in near mint condition. Watching your videos makes me want to shoot B& W film all the more. Please keep more of this great content coming! I am sure I am not alone among your subscribers who very much appreciate all of your efforts.
Cheers Paul. I enjoy shooting Delta 100. That is a fantastic fine grain film. I use it for scapes mostly. I usually shoot 400 films for street and some portraits. So HP5 would be my choice for that as I don't mind the grain in those photos although Delta 400 would look cleaner the HP5.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Thanks for the reply. I don't have a darkroom (I live in a small apartment) and have to take my film to labs for processing. Recently, I decided to try PARSONS PHOTO in Kansas; they were the last lab in the world that was processing KODACHROME and did so until 2014 when they could no longer get the needed chemicals.
If getting it dev'ed, sure. If getting into dev yourself I don't feel FP4 fills a function at all that HP5 cannot do when pulled, FP4 isn't even very punchy at box speed imo. Pushing and pulling needs to be learnt at once anyways. So my choice is PanF for lack of grain or medium film speed punch, and HP5 for 50-200 speed flatness, 400-800 speed general and 1600-3200 speed grunge shadows.
I love TriX at 320 to 640, all genres. FP4 for industrial look. Tmax 3200 at 1600 for digital printing. TriX is hard to beat in darkroom printing. Acros for slow speed is amazing.
I'm a big fan of both films, and it helps that, living in the UK, both are easily available and very affordable. Oddly though, I've shot very little FP4 compared to HP5 or even Pan F. Need to rectify this situation soon. Maybe later in the year when there's more light. As far as grain goes, I think the sandy texture of HP5 is very pleasing to the eye, and while it has similarities to Tri-X, the blacks aren't quite as "inky black" which helps in contrasty light. My preference is to develop in D76 1:1. It gives nice sharpness and contrast, but isn't so high in acutance that it exaggerates grain. I've tried HP5 and Tri-X in Rodinal, and every time it was a match made in hell. The negs always turned out really "grimy" looking. Some people use Rodinal for 400 speed films and get nice results, but I've no idea how.
Superb advice. The biggest mistake new film shooters make is constantly 'flipping' between different films - you can never establish a benchmark this way, too many variables. Films are not craft beer, you shouldn't keep trying different ones!! Keep it simple.
Very nice presentation. For a beginner, I would recommend Ilford HP5 Plus in Perceptol rated @ iso 200. The grain is not much larger than FP4, just as sharp, and with a whole stop speed advantage in practical terms. The tonality is slightly compressed which is not a bad thing for the beginner as it can help tame the highlights. HP5 Plus is one of the most versatile films available today. It can be rated from iso 200 to iso 1600 with good results, and it takes a different look with different developers. A roll of HP5 Plus in 120 or a sheet of 4x5 is a thing of beauty. There are a couple of other wonder films available, but here I would stick to Ilford as they have stuck by film photography when both Kodak and most of all Fuji just packed everything up and went digital. Kodak have made a come back , but their pricing policies here in the UK are just crazy. What I used to pay for a box of 50 sheets of 4X5 film a few years ago, I am now expected to pay for just 10 sheets.
Couldn't agree more. HP-5 is brilliant for a first film and the faster shutter speed it affords will let you get a sharp shot easily. Especially hand held which is likely because a new film shooter most likely won't have a tripod...yet! Be warned ye mortals... The shots you get with this will be so good you will want to do it more and more and more still! Soon you will have a wall of cameras, an enlarger, and a lens collection you can see from space! Great film! Get a roll and have fun! Lest ye be warned...!
I find HP5+ even a bit too nice when shot at box speed and developed in D76 stock. I‘m figuring out my times when cooked in caffenol. But my goal for this year is trying out the other classic b/w filmstocks.
Hello, I have a few questions. In a few months I will be going to an airshow and thought I would try to take some photos there. (I am by the way a beginner photographer), this is however a bit of a special airshow as it will be in the evening when it is just starting to get dark so the planes can fly with very visible pyrotechnics, lights and afterburners. I thought that since the planes will be moving *and* it will be a bit dark I should try a roll of high speed film (like ilford 3200) do you think that will be a good film for this specific situation. My second question is how you set the exposure settings when it is dark as I can imaginge that the camera's bult in light meter might not be the best for low light situations. The only way I can think of is to take some test shots on a digital camera with different settings first to see what works but I was just wondering if there was an easier way to do it. Thanks for the awnsers (Assuming you reply of course.) //A photography beginner.
It may be difficult to photograph if it's dark sky. All you'll see is the light immited from the jets. Which I imagine would be quite bright. Unless you want to totally over expose your shots so you see some detail of the aircraft and super bright burners. A 3200 would give you a faster shutter to freeze the jet in flight. I'd probably go 400 and open my aperture. Hard to tell until you're there metering. I'd definitely take a few digital exposures to see where I'm at. It's like fireworks but difference being with fireworks you generally have a few seconds exposure time for the trails.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss thanks for the response, since I happen to have a DSLR I think I will set the ISO the the speed of my film and test different settings then determine if I think it will be possible to do on film. Otherwise I will just have to take those photos on that same DSLR if I determine it to not be possible. Oh and this airshow is split into three days, the other two will be during the day so I will still have some chanses to get nice photos.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss I ended up actually shooting a roll of fujicolor c200, first time shooting (analog) color by the way. The other days of the airshow (when it wasn't dark) I used AgfaPhoto APX 400 and even 100 worked on a bright sunny day.
FP4+ is my staple. But I preferred the FP4 before they 'improved' to the + version. HP4 was good, too, but I've never seen the point of 'street photography' and these days it's all landscapes. Used to use HP4 in the studio for portraits/glamour.
If one starts their film experience with 35mm FP4/HP5 then they can continue with Ilford to 120 MF, 4x5 LF, 8x10 LF.... ULF. Don't know what other emulsions can take you on this journey. Today I shoot both in 4x5 (5x4). Only wish Delta 400 came in 4x5 (a personal campaign to leverage Ilford to change).
On the DSLR scan ones the FP4 did not look a sharp as HP5, which seemed odd since it looked finer grained, the HP5 had more contrast though in the ones of the young lady it did not seem so, so much, but the HP5 appears sharper in the TH-cam HD same with the lamp post. Maybe the focus was off for the FP4? It may have been shutter speeds if the F-stop was kept the same.
Can't disagree with FP4+ or HP5+. They're readily available, stable, predictable, flexible and good value. Big thing for me too is Ilford still sells them as 30meter/100ft bulk rolls, a huge cost saver. Some may prefer Tri-X, but it's often double the price of HP5+ in Europe. In the US Tri-X may make more financial sense. I think the recommendation of picking a couple of films likes these and sticking with them to get to know them is a good one. There's infinite fun to be had with different developers and times.
Kentmere film is reliable. Cheap as well. I've found most b&w film stock to be pretty solid, as long as you shoot it at speed and are aware that slower films are less 'punchy'. I have to admit that sometimes I've just had the wrong film in the camera for the conditions and ended up with several shots as undefined masses, usually when I've loaded 100 and ended up in a heavily shaded spot and failed to compensate enough. My fault not the films. The moral of this tale is always be aware of what film you have in, in a digital age you can't change the ISO for individual shots, one third of your exposure triangle is unmovable.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Unrelated, to above, 'Before Digital' is another vlogger from down your way - Dorset - Totally based on film camera reviews, sort of a mixture between oly 35mm and Dad's Army. Informative and charming at the same time.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss sorry, I'm don't really sure, that you understood me correctly. I mean about using 200 ISO film as something universal when you don't want loose quality and speed. Kentmere and the others are not producing 200 ISO films. Or you mean that using 200 ISO is not good option?
Can u do a comparison on HP5 and Delta 400? I know they are G-grain and T-grain, but what are the differences between these two when come into real life shooting?
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss So is there any worth to point out when both films come to enlargement? I prefer not to use contrast filters on enlarger if I could get enough contrast from the film itself... Should I go for HP5? I can't test it out as I don't have a chance to test it in the workshop becoz of COVID...
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Yes, it should be like the last agfa recipe before closing. Compensator developer, high acutance, defined edges. Excellent with FP4, less with HP5.
He did a video on that film, a while ago. I myself have used Ilford XP2 once and can say that it's very good, specially because it can be developed in the color process, and thus be sent off to a local photo lab that only does color film, and get B&W images. The grain is very fine, much finer than a standart 400 ISO film, because the image is made of dyes, not silver. The exposure latitude is very wide, so it can be overexposed by 3 stops and underexposed by 1 stop, with no processing ajustments (ISO 50 to ISO 800). I have tried that, but underexposing doesn't look good at all, so by all means shoot it at box speed (400) or a bit lower, at 200. Hope that that helps you.
As Ryan said Karl. I've never used it since. But a great film if you want to shoot BW and send off to be developed as it is a C41 set up. Not many labs develop BW.
@@karlrichards No. It was available in the shop I was in yesterday. If you havn't tried it grab a roll and see what you think. To get the real benefit from it you should dev it in C41.
i do love me some ilford film stock, but so far i have had zero success with their support. i've tried to get them to reply through both their web form and email and have gotten not so much as an acknowledgement.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss , i had a roll of 36exp fp4+ that was defective; it didn't appear to be attached to the spool inside the canister, so after the last shot all of the film ended up outside of the canister and couldn't be rewound. it was quite the surprise when i opened the back of the camera after i thought i had rewound the film. i contact ilford to make sure this wasn't an issue with that lot because i have a couple other rolls from this batch and don't want that to happen again. i sent them links to images of the issue and of the batch info, but i didn't get so much as a "thank you for contacting us" email. i've waited at least a week between contact attempts. i've heard so many stories about how they have excellent service; i'm kind of flummoxed.
I've always assumed but never asked, I assume High Street is what we might call in a small town in America as Main Street? Which is, not surprisingly, the most important main thoroughfare. Or possibly high street may refer to what we would call downtown which is the main business and shopping area of a more urban setting? And why is it called high street - evil weed smokers ;)
High Street, probably due to the church being at the highest part of the town and the market was held there, as it was less likely to flood and easier to collect tithes as well (church taxes). The richer people, merchants etc, usually lived uptown for exactly the same reason. I think Main Street is more likely to be the street that led from the bridge or ford up to the church, also a good place to put a shop or stall due to the passing trade. Downtown was where all the drains, if there were any, ran into the river.
It's just a long wide street in most towns in England which has a variety of retail, coffee, thrift, a few pubs and other shops either side. And a McDonalds! If you want better shopping you'd go to what you call a Mall. Which are usually further out.
There is no escape from McDonald's perhaps they are the real illuminati, I know they are evil and out to kill me because the menu consists of every deadly thing my doctor tell me not to eat. But I am weak.
@@iainmc9859 That is interesting. High ground around here would be used for hospitals under the thinking the air was better, and the higher income homes traditionally also seem to be higher up, but not always, I can see where drainage and the like certainly make for housing choices, you can see that even today.
You little bastard! Constantly telling us that you knew Stan, while we will never have the opportunity. But hen again, we know him a bit through you, right? At least that's what I am telling myself... Are we ever going to see a special about Stan?
There is little to know other than the chats we had about photography. He was building a trainset in his home. He had boxes of camera bits, negatives and train set parts hoarded in his home. You couldn't move lol. Lived on his own. A quiet man.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Thank you. What Stan was to you was Siewert to me. Got my first DSLR from him. I hope we can be a Stan or Siewert to someone else some day. Cheers. :-)
FP4+ & HP5+ = everything's photographed. It's like a pair of almighties 😎
Yet neither one comes close to Tmax and Tri-x.......
@@orion7741 Kodak - over rated and OVER priced...🙄 Get Delta for half the price. And print, don't scan😉
Kodak is awesome, of course. But it costs more for the beginner. And less available here in the UK on the shelf. I just shot expired 2006 Kodak Tmax 100 on my Dog. Blown away
Often overlooked, spectral sensitivity is very important for b&w. FP4+ has elevated responsiveness in the red which acts like a light filtration, reducing blue/green, enhancing skies aso. Add excellent sharpness, fine grain and slight shouldering to that and you have a near-perfect allrounder especially for outdoor-scenes.
Thank you for revealing the films you suggest at the beginning of the video. Vid starts @0:00
Lovely video. Would be great if you can also compare these two with their Delta counterparts.
when i was learning black and white in the mid 80's i used FP4 exclusively. i found it a bit soft and i went harder than i was happy with, with the paper. when ilford brought out delta I tried a roll of that and loved it. it was perfect for me. i started of using ilford chemicals but by the time i was using delta i was using agfa chemicals. it gave me the results i wanted every time.
I shoot mainly HP5, occasionally shoot coluor. I develop at home and love the contrast of HP5 and its wide latitude.
I have started using FP4+ for street. Too much light were I live and that way I can leave the lenes at around f5.6 or f8. Under the same conditions (EV17), I was at f11 with HP5.
Don't you find f11/f16 is ideal for street? Giving you more DOF and area of focus?
I was raised on FP4and still love it. Every time I watch1 of you videos I want to get back into the darkroom.
Many years ago I spent most of my time in the dark. These days I'm playing with youtube vids and learning so much from you sir! Film rules!
Thanks mate
My first film was Lomography's Berlin. Probably not the best for a first time but I quite like some of the shots. Since then I've done Ektar 100, HP5 and a couple of others.
Definitely going to be keeping a few rolls of HP5+ in reserve at all times. Nice balance of sharp shots and grain.
If you're stateside, I highly recommend Ultrafine 100 or 400! Best bang for your buck imo, and the results are surprisingly great given its price! Outside of the States, I'd recommend either Arista EDU 400 or with Kentmere 400! Great budget friendly film that gives some great results when you treat it right!
Fomapam 400, and 100 are good Kentmere alternatives and come in 120 as well
I got sent some Ultrafine from the states to try. Reminded me very much of Kentmere, similar packaging too.
As a beginner your video was fun to watch and packed with new informations. Picked up a Rollei 35S and HP5+ film for my first street photography adventure!
Awesome! Have fun eskimo!
I shoot FP4 back in the day at 200 Iso and it was wonderful. I've got some 120 FP4 I hope to shoot soon. Love film.
"Welcome back to me channel!" This makes my day lately, as I slurp my morning eggs and coffee every morning 😈🤘 Boss, a quick question: I usually shoot medium format (an RB67) but I am looking for a smaller 35mm "daily driver". I was gifted a MInolta XD70 +50 1.4 and an OM 1 without a lens. The dilemma is: buy more lenses for Minolta (28 and 35) or sell the MInolta and get the same lens set for an OM? OM is so beautiful that I can't shake of the desire to complete that system. Cheers and thanks in advance!
Cheers Alexander. I personally would get onto the OM1. Great camera. That said, I'm not familiar with the Minolta.
Love your channel. I wish you would've made prints of both film stocks.
I have been using FP4 since I first got into photography in the 1970s. I now use both FP4 and HP5 and the occasional Kodak Ektar for colour.
Great review and great video. Thank you.
RS. Canada
Ilford FP4 and HP5 are great films and reasonably priced too.
I'd say start with any of the Kentmere films, good value budget films.
That was great advice, back in the 70s that is what Bill Gedney told me when I took his class!!!
I kept it for ages until I ventured out a bit more. Lot's of funky films out there to try but anything important I have to come back to the solid few.
Here in the States, until the 1990s, the opposite was true -- Plus-X and Tri-X would be the only B&W films that were always on the shelf, and they're pretty much the American brothers of FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus (RIP Plus-X). I could count on Tri-X and Plus-X at places like Crater Lake and Yellowstone Park, and at small town petrol stations -- they'd have three kinds of candy bars, four flavors of soda pop, and either Plus-X or Tri-X film, though sometimes it would be 620 when you wanted 135 or 120 when you had a 620 camera. I'd never seen Ilford films until I was out of college in my 20s. In fact, where I first heard about Ilford was when I read about Pan F "filling the gap" between Plus-X (ASA 125) and Panatomic X (ASA 32). Kodak never offered a B&W film between those speeds (vs. *two* at ASA 125, Plus-X and "consumer" film Verichrome Pan).
Interesting. It's a shame less and less stores are stocking film and the one I walked in had the Ilfords but none else. I know 10 years ago there would have been Kodaks there too. In fact, we have two photographic shops on the island. Same company different areas, they stock low on film. I can get Kentmere and Ilford there. Now and again I see a Kodak Tri-x but not often.
Thanks for this excellent analysis and examples. I learned a lot.
Glad it was helpful!
I started shooting film again this autumn after about 20 years of just digital. I shot lots of film back in the 90:s but always color and always had them processed in a lab. Now I only do B&W film (for color I use digital) and I develop and print them myself.
I've only shot 400 ISO so far as it's dark and often overcast in the winter here in Finland so I need all the sensitivity I can get just to get decent shutter speeds. I started with Kentmere Pan 400 as it was on sale and I knew I'd be wasting a lot of film at first so got the cheapest I could find. Mostly I've been shooting HP5 in both 35 mm and 120 and it seems to give good results. I develop my film with CineStill D96f as it's easy to use and seems to work just fine.
I'm planning on trying some 100 ISO (I have a couple of rolls of Rollei RPX 100 I got on sale. I'm a sucker for a good value so I always buy what's on sale :) too as soon as there's sufficient light just to see if there's any advantage over 400. It's been sunnier this week and I'm on vacation so I shot two rolls of HP5 (one 35 mm and one 120) in last two days. Just finished scanning them (I scan all my negatives first to decide what to print) and there are some quite nice pictures there. I'll probably do some printing later today.
I think I might have suggested Kentmere. In the UK it is cheaper than FP3 and HP5 - so mistakes are not so costly. And being Ilford it's good and readily available.
FP4 Peter. Yes Kentmere is a good film for beginners.
Brilliantly timed for me, Boss! I've just been bitten by the 120 bug, coming from a Sigma dp0 and needed to see where to start with film. Having watched quite a few of your previous video's I erred with the FP4 & HP5. Huge thanks to you.
Wholeheartedly agree with HP5 Plus. I film for all seasons.
I love HP5! When I was in photography school twenty some years ago, they had us only use TMAX 400. I think for a new beginner 400 speed is perfect for getting good first time results!
Thanks for sharing!
I love the grain. I will buy the HP5
Both!
Seriously hp5 makes you shoot more, i think. But i prefer Fp4
Thanks for all the great advice. I Recommend the SFLab beginners guide Film photography & printing to you all. I'm just waiting for blackout blinds for my man Darkroom. Then I will be taking pictures like a boss.Happy days
Thanks Gaz. Any help email me. 👍
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Thanks so much you have kept me from going mad.I will one-day sign up to your patron,now I have just saved my job in the entertainment industry.All the best to you and your family,ow and George
I'm going to throw a other suggestion out there. I'd go for kodak gold 200 if your only planning on scanning. The latitude in that film is quite huge, I've walked with it with no metering just estimating by eye and ended up with totaly useable images across the whole roll. I just find it takes actual effort to make an unusable slide. Now that you can pick up a c-41 kit so cheaply, and I think it's false information that its difficult, all you need is a cheap thermometer and a bath tub to keep temp. Cant say I've procesesed 1 roll out of hundreds that didn't turn out. The chemestry lasts ages too as long as you add a quick was between stages. Now I love good old school silver halide films and shoot them often, but I'd hazard to say it's more particular to get it right, not to mention for scans the slightest water mark or dust shows through without digital ice.
I was brought up on FP4 and HP5 in the 80s I bulked loaded it and developed it in either ID11 or D76 and when I was an army photographer both were standard issue still shoot some now again both versatile and pretty good results though my fridge had a bit of everything in it now from JCH tri x Foma 400 definitely a great starter film 👍🏻
A good old classic Jonny. Nice to keep a few different films in the fridge for variety.
The first b&w film I shot a couple of years ago when l got back into film was FP4 in 120, and coincidentally the FP4 was the first film I developed myself in D76. I love it, it prints nicely, HP5 does as well, but l find that l like Delta 400 in Xtol the best, at least for printing. Some of the shots I've printed from a 120 Delta were just ubelievably good!
I'm mainly a TriX guy so I'd probably go with the HP5.
Is the Holga a good step in into 120mm? Seems like a good price 😅
What are your thoughts on Fomapan 100-400
I know I am not Roger, but I have shot all of these films. The first thing to consider is the quality of the emulsion itself. As much as I like Fomapan I have noticed it suffers from specks in the grain occasionally. Definitely not something you tend to see in Ilford films. That being said, I really like Fomapan 100 and 400 they both have a very classic look. You tend to get more crushed blacks out of Foma and dimmer highlights with less overall dynamic range. Second, the Ilford films curl a lot less so they are easier to scan and enlarge. Third, I still buy both so take that how you will LOL.
Fomapan I used a lot many years ago as it was a lot cheaper for me to practice with. It's a great budget film, often rebranded as other names. I have had great results with Fomapan film and some not so great!
Good advice. Ilford is a solid and reliable film. For beginners it's worth considering Kentmere if it's available. It's made by Ilford and produces excellent results but is a pound or two cheaper
Kentmere is also a good film. Better since harman took it over. I can get Kentmere in our local photographic shop but it's closed at the moment because of the pandemic.
I use HP5 for everything 🤭 and soup it in HC-110 1+63. I'm never disappointed, this mix is bullet proof. 👌
Ever tried Rodinal??
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss unfortunately no when I did my research I didn't liked how it looked with HP5 : too grainy. I've tried D-76 (medium rendition) and XTOL (smooth and soft rendition), I liked the result. But I find them more expensive : they expire quicker, and the total of film processed with a galon of mixed solution is to low.
Can't ever go wrong with either. XTOL is also my standard developer.
Another good (cheap and cheerful) alternative for beginners is APX100 / 400. In fact, APX works wonderfully well with Pyro-510.
From the digital scan comparisons of FP4 vs HP5, here is my quick impression as a rank beginner.
First photo: FP4 has less grain, more contrast, and more resolution than HP5.
Second photo: FP4 has slightly less grain and a little more contrast than HP5.
Third photo: HP5 has slightly more shadow detail than FP4.
Fourth photo: HP5 has better shadow detail, highlights, and exposure latitude. In this situation, HP5 did a good job as a portrait film.
Making an 8x10 print from a 35mm negative is a bit of a stretch for that format. So, one would expect to see gain in prints made from HP5. Making 8x10 prints from 4x5 negatives would lead to much better results for both films.
I’m more a Kodak shooter (just a matter of taste) but I use hp5 pushed to 1600, I really like it’s look. One il Ford film I discovered last year and use a lot, it’s the 50 iso (don’t remember the name... pan F something). A great film !
A chap on Instagram is a landscape shooter, pushes hp5 all the time for his results. Looks good too.
I tend to use the Ilford films for most of my mono photography. I had a project planned for last year that I did intend to shoot on Tri x until I saw the price. Making Ilford even more attractive.
Tri x I love shooting. Has a price to it. Worth it though.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss That's true. But I wanted more than one roll lol
What is your take on Ilford Delta 100 and Delta 400? I've been experimenting with both here in the USA as well as FP4 and HP5. Also, my go-to camera store near where I live now sells Ilford's Kentmere line of films and I plan to try both the ISO 100 and 400 speed film stock in the near future.
As someone who grew up shotting B & W in the 70s from high school onward, I really appreciate your content as it takes me back to the time when I was just starting out in photography. Over the last two years, I've purchased a Nikon N80 in very good condition, a Nikon F100 in very good condition and an F5 and F6, both in near mint condition. Watching your videos makes me want to shoot B& W film all the more.
Please keep more of this great content coming! I am sure I am not alone among your subscribers who very much appreciate all of your efforts.
Cheers Paul. I enjoy shooting Delta 100. That is a fantastic fine grain film. I use it for scapes mostly. I usually shoot 400 films for street and some portraits. So HP5 would be my choice for that as I don't mind the grain in those photos although Delta 400 would look cleaner the HP5.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Thanks for the reply. I don't have a darkroom (I live in a small apartment) and have to take my film to labs for processing. Recently, I decided to try PARSONS PHOTO in Kansas; they were the last lab in the world that was processing KODACHROME and did so until 2014 when they could no longer get the needed chemicals.
If getting it dev'ed, sure. If getting into dev yourself I don't feel FP4 fills a function at all that HP5 cannot do when pulled, FP4 isn't even very punchy at box speed imo. Pushing and pulling needs to be learnt at once anyways.
So my choice is PanF for lack of grain or medium film speed punch, and HP5 for 50-200 speed flatness, 400-800 speed general and 1600-3200 speed grunge shadows.
I love TriX at 320 to 640, all genres. FP4 for industrial look. Tmax 3200 at 1600 for digital printing. TriX is hard to beat in darkroom printing. Acros for slow speed is amazing.
I've never pulled a 3200, at least I don't think so... Love hearing what others do. Inspirational. Thanks for the continued input and following
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss i think the actual rating of P3200 is 1250. It is wonderful film, maybe the best.
I'm a big fan of both films, and it helps that, living in the UK, both are easily available and very affordable. Oddly though, I've shot very little FP4 compared to HP5 or even Pan F. Need to rectify this situation soon. Maybe later in the year when there's more light.
As far as grain goes, I think the sandy texture of HP5 is very pleasing to the eye, and while it has similarities to Tri-X, the blacks aren't quite as "inky black" which helps in contrasty light. My preference is to develop in D76 1:1. It gives nice sharpness and contrast, but isn't so high in acutance that it exaggerates grain. I've tried HP5 and Tri-X in Rodinal, and every time it was a match made in hell. The negs always turned out really "grimy" looking. Some people use Rodinal for 400 speed films and get nice results, but I've no idea how.
I follow an insta that is hp5 and rodinal all day for scapes. Punchy grainy looking prints but work well. Horses for courses
Superb advice. The biggest mistake new film shooters make is constantly 'flipping' between different films - you can never establish a benchmark this way, too many variables. Films are not craft beer, you shouldn't keep trying different ones!! Keep it simple.
Very nice presentation. For a beginner, I would recommend Ilford HP5 Plus in Perceptol rated @ iso 200. The grain is not much larger than FP4, just as sharp, and with a whole stop speed advantage in practical terms. The tonality is slightly compressed which is not a bad thing for the beginner as it can help tame the highlights. HP5 Plus is one of the most versatile films available today. It can be rated from iso 200 to iso 1600 with good results, and it takes a different look with different developers. A roll of HP5 Plus in 120 or a sheet of 4x5 is a thing of beauty. There are a couple of other wonder films available, but here I would stick to Ilford as they have stuck by film photography when both Kodak and most of all Fuji just packed everything up and went digital. Kodak have made a come back , but their pricing policies here in the UK are just crazy. What I used to pay for a box of 50 sheets of 4X5 film a few years ago, I am now expected to pay for just 10 sheets.
Thanks for that contribution!
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss you are most welcome, I hope people find it useful.
Although I don't like hp5, you can go wrong with the fp4/hp5 combo for starters. Hard to not get an image with hp5.
Couldn't agree more. HP-5 is brilliant for a first film and the faster shutter speed it affords will let you get a sharp shot easily. Especially hand held which is likely because a new film shooter most likely won't have a tripod...yet! Be warned ye mortals... The shots you get with this will be so good you will want to do it more and more and more still! Soon you will have a wall of cameras, an enlarger, and a lens collection you can see from space! Great film! Get a roll and have fun! Lest ye be warned...!
Great warning! Happened to me lol
I find HP5+ even a bit too nice when shot at box speed and developed in D76 stock. I‘m figuring out my times when cooked in caffenol. But my goal for this year is trying out the other classic b/w filmstocks.
My point here is solid films for beginners. Trying other films is great fun and good for adventure. You never know!
Thanks, this will be useful, saved. 🌱🌳☘🌏
Hello, I have a few questions. In a few months I will be going to an airshow and thought I would try to take some photos there. (I am by the way a beginner photographer), this is however a bit of a special airshow as it will be in the evening when it is just starting to get dark so the planes can fly with very visible pyrotechnics, lights and afterburners.
I thought that since the planes will be moving *and* it will be a bit dark I should try a roll of high speed film (like ilford 3200) do you think that will be a good film for this specific situation.
My second question is how you set the exposure settings when it is dark as I can imaginge that the camera's bult in light meter might not be the best for low light situations. The only way I can think of is to take some test shots on a digital camera with different settings first to see what works but I was just wondering if there was an easier way to do it.
Thanks for the awnsers (Assuming you reply of course.)
//A photography beginner.
It may be difficult to photograph if it's dark sky. All you'll see is the light immited from the jets. Which I imagine would be quite bright. Unless you want to totally over expose your shots so you see some detail of the aircraft and super bright burners. A 3200 would give you a faster shutter to freeze the jet in flight. I'd probably go 400 and open my aperture. Hard to tell until you're there metering. I'd definitely take a few digital exposures to see where I'm at. It's like fireworks but difference being with fireworks you generally have a few seconds exposure time for the trails.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss thanks for the response, since I happen to have a DSLR I think I will set the ISO the the speed of my film and test different settings then determine if I think it will be possible to do on film. Otherwise I will just have to take those photos on that same DSLR if I determine it to not be possible.
Oh and this airshow is split into three days, the other two will be during the day so I will still have some chanses to get nice photos.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss I ended up actually shooting a roll of fujicolor c200, first time shooting (analog) color by the way. The other days of the airshow (when it wasn't dark) I used AgfaPhoto APX 400 and even 100 worked on a bright sunny day.
FP4+ is my staple. But I preferred the FP4 before they 'improved' to the + version. HP4 was good, too, but I've never seen the point of 'street photography' and these days it's all landscapes. Used to use HP4 in the studio for portraits/glamour.
I've never come across HP4 as an expired film. Must have been all used up!
If one starts their film experience with 35mm FP4/HP5 then they can continue with Ilford to 120 MF, 4x5 LF, 8x10 LF.... ULF. Don't know what other emulsions can take you on this journey. Today I shoot both in 4x5 (5x4). Only wish Delta 400 came in 4x5 (a personal campaign to leverage Ilford to change).
Very true!
On the DSLR scan ones the FP4 did not look a sharp as HP5, which seemed odd since it looked finer grained, the HP5 had more contrast though in the ones of the young lady it did not seem so, so much, but the HP5 appears sharper in the TH-cam HD same with the lamp post. Maybe the focus was off for the FP4? It may have been shutter speeds if the F-stop was kept the same.
Fp4 portrait was not as sharp shooting at 1/60th. Got hand wobble!
Can't disagree with FP4+ or HP5+.
They're readily available, stable, predictable, flexible and good value.
Big thing for me too is Ilford still sells them as 30meter/100ft bulk rolls, a huge cost saver.
Some may prefer Tri-X, but it's often double the price of HP5+ in Europe. In the US Tri-X may make more financial sense.
I think the recommendation of picking a couple of films likes these and sticking with them to get to know them is a good one. There's infinite fun to be had with different developers and times.
I'm curious as to what your opinion of Ilford's Pan F+ is.
Great film. I use it for some seascapes. Developed in Ilfords Perceptol is a sweet combo. Very fine grain and bags of tone.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Yep. Pan F at 25ISO in perceptol. Glorious.
Kentmere film is reliable. Cheap as well. I've found most b&w film stock to be pretty solid, as long as you shoot it at speed and are aware that slower films are less 'punchy'.
I have to admit that sometimes I've just had the wrong film in the camera for the conditions and ended up with several shots as undefined masses, usually when I've loaded 100 and ended up in a heavily shaded spot and failed to compensate enough. My fault not the films. The moral of this tale is always be aware of what film you have in, in a digital age you can't change the ISO for individual shots, one third of your exposure triangle is unmovable.
Kentmere is made by Harman same as Ilford. Another good film. Cheap too!
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Unrelated, to above, 'Before Digital' is another vlogger from down your way - Dorset - Totally based on film camera reviews, sort of a mixture between oly 35mm and Dad's Army. Informative and charming at the same time.
Wouldn't such photographic films as rollei superpan 200 or fomapan 200 be a good middle ground for the iso 100 or iso 400 dilemma?
As well as Kentmere, Kodak, Ultrafine, ORWO.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss sorry, I'm don't really sure, that you understood me correctly. I mean about using 200 ISO film as something universal when you don't want loose quality and speed. Kentmere and the others are not producing 200 ISO films. Or you mean that using 200 ISO is not good option?
HP5 is my absolute favorite film, so much so that I bulk load 35mm now.
Can u do a comparison on HP5 and Delta 400?
I know they are G-grain and T-grain, but what are the differences between these two when come into real life shooting?
I find Delta 400 lot less contrasty and less grain. Tones are great with that film.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss So is there any worth to point out when both films come to enlargement?
I prefer not to use contrast filters on enlarger if I could get enough contrast from the film itself... Should I go for HP5?
I can't test it out as I don't have a chance to test it in the workshop becoz of COVID...
FP4+ 125 in Adonal 1+25 is my choice
i've never used that. Is it like Rodinal?
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss
Yes, it should be like the last agfa recipe before closing. Compensator developer, high acutance, defined edges. Excellent with FP4, less with HP5.
Nice Video. go for HP5+ :)
Hey. Can you make a video about how to shoot film with a flash. I dont know where to start :)
Have you got a light meter?
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss no just my intern light meter.
your video where you shot your daughter inspired me, but i cant figure out my flash :)
@@user-tj1el9uo1m what camera and flash are you using?
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss using the nikon fg20 and a metz manual flash
Grain all day for me. HP5 it is. I actually don't like black and white in medium format - it's too clean!
See my latest vid. HP5 and Rodinal. Grain is nice and gritty
Is it just me or does the HP5 negatives/prints look sharper then the FP4?
Sharper by the grain. The fp4 portrait I got hand wobble!
What's your opinion on Ilfords XP2 super 400?
He did a video on that film, a while ago. I myself have used Ilford XP2 once and can say that it's very good, specially because it can be developed in the color process, and thus be sent off to a local photo lab that only does color film, and get B&W images.
The grain is very fine, much finer than a standart 400 ISO film, because the image is made of dyes, not silver.
The exposure latitude is very wide, so it can be overexposed by 3 stops and underexposed by 1 stop, with no processing ajustments (ISO 50 to ISO 800). I have tried that, but underexposing doesn't look good at all, so by all means shoot it at box speed (400) or a bit lower, at 200.
Hope that that helps you.
Thanks Ryan
As Ryan said Karl. I've never used it since. But a great film if you want to shoot BW and send off to be developed as it is a C41 set up. Not many labs develop BW.
Thanks, I watched you older video last night and wondered if you shot it more recently.
@@karlrichards No. It was available in the shop I was in yesterday. If you havn't tried it grab a roll and see what you think. To get the real benefit from it you should dev it in C41.
Yeah hp5+ loght is crappy and dodges movement better , bring a bit faster
i do love me some ilford film stock, but so far i have had zero success with their support. i've tried to get them to reply through both their web form and email and have gotten not so much as an acknowledgement.
What for?
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss , i had a roll of 36exp fp4+ that was defective; it didn't appear to be attached to the spool inside the canister, so after the last shot all of the film ended up outside of the canister and couldn't be rewound. it was quite the surprise when i opened the back of the camera after i thought i had rewound the film. i contact ilford to make sure this wasn't an issue with that lot because i have a couple other rolls from this batch and don't want that to happen again. i sent them links to images of the issue and of the batch info, but i didn't get so much as a "thank you for contacting us" email. i've waited at least a week between contact attempts. i've heard so many stories about how they have excellent service; i'm kind of flummoxed.
Wow that is a nightmare. I've never had that. I imagine Ilfords support is very good normally. They are quite active on Instagram. Thanks for sharing.
I've always assumed but never asked, I assume High Street is what we might call in a small town in America as Main Street? Which is, not surprisingly, the most important main thoroughfare. Or possibly high street may refer to what we would call downtown which is the main business and shopping area of a more urban setting? And why is it called high street - evil weed smokers ;)
High Street, probably due to the church being at the highest part of the town and the market was held there, as it was less likely to flood and easier to collect tithes as well (church taxes). The richer people, merchants etc, usually lived uptown for exactly the same reason.
I think Main Street is more likely to be the street that led from the bridge or ford up to the church, also a good place to put a shop or stall due to the passing trade.
Downtown was where all the drains, if there were any, ran into the river.
It's just a long wide street in most towns in England which has a variety of retail, coffee, thrift, a few pubs and other shops either side. And a McDonalds! If you want better shopping you'd go to what you call a Mall. Which are usually further out.
There is no escape from McDonald's perhaps they are the real illuminati, I know they are evil and out to kill me because the menu consists of every deadly thing my doctor tell me not to eat. But I am weak.
@@iainmc9859 That is interesting. High ground around here would be used for hospitals under the thinking the air was better, and the higher income homes traditionally also seem to be higher up, but not always, I can see where drainage and the like certainly make for housing choices, you can see that even today.
@@johnjon1823 This really is based on a European Medieval model, but I guess the same probably applied to American towns in their infancy.
Film for beginners? Kodak T-max and Tri-x 100% Ilford is good, but Kodak is totally foolproof and still the best.
Tri-x + Rodinal is a winner
You little bastard! Constantly telling us that you knew Stan, while we will never have the opportunity. But hen again, we know him a bit through you, right? At least that's what I am telling myself... Are we ever going to see a special about Stan?
There is little to know other than the chats we had about photography. He was building a trainset in his home. He had boxes of camera bits, negatives and train set parts hoarded in his home. You couldn't move lol. Lived on his own. A quiet man.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Thank you. What Stan was to you was Siewert to me. Got my first DSLR from him. I hope we can be a Stan or Siewert to someone else some day. Cheers. :-)