Is Ilford HP5+ Overhyped? | Honest thoughts.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ธ.ค. 2022
- Ilford HP5+ is one of the, if not the most popular black and white film on the market today. There are some things in life that are just given. Ilford HP5+ is one of them. Just like morning coffee, it’s something that even if you’re not a fan you’re going to encounter at some point or another.
Ilford HP5+ Purchase Links (affiliate):
Amazon (US): amzn.to/3jNQkM9
As an Amazon.com associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
#filmphotography #ilford
I completely forgot to include the development time in the video. I developed all the rolls I used as samples in by hand in a Patterson tank in Ilford ID1 Stock solution for 7 & 1/2 minutes at 20 degrees Celsius, inverting for the first 30 seconds and 10 inversions for 10 seconds every minute after that. I used a water stop both and fixed with Ilford Rapid Fix.
Started using ilfotec HC with hp5 for 3.5 minutes at 20*C
World's best and oldest film developer is the Agfa Rodinal / Adox Adonal.
It suits every brand and speed of 35 mm film, roll film and sheet film.
Sold in a plastic bottle as a concentrated liquid.
After being diluted in plain water, ready to be used within three hours.
For panchromatic film, orthochromatic film, non sensetive film and X-ray film.
For half tone film and copy film (line film).
Rodinal is a one shot developer for different solutions:
1 : 10 1 : 25 1 : 50 1 :100 1 : 200
Not a single film has ever been made for push or pull processing.
Push processing will destroy the quality of any film; the film speed
will never go up by holding the same contrast index or the Gamma of 0,65.
To shorten or lengthen the developing time, depends on the illumination system
of the enlarger to be used for printing or the grade of the enlarging photo paper
or the type of photo paper developer.
There are enlargers with a single, a double or a triple condensor illumination system.
Plus the sysstem with the cathode cold light high voltage tube.
Photo paper developing can be done with a normal contrats developer, with a soft,
with a hard contrast developer. Or by a two bath methode of a soft and a hard contrast.
The 400 ASA / 27 DIN / 400 ISO B&W films can be enlarged as large as 240 x 360 cm
( 2,4 x 3,6 m). As the Viet Nam war photos made by Kyojichi Sawada in 1965, showh by the World Press Photo.
The 400 ASA films are high speed films. Not very well suited for reproduction -, architectural -, product - and industrial photography.
Fomapan 400 is a cheap B&W film. Where have tall he other films gone, like Agfapan 1000, Agfapan 400, Ilford 3200, Fuji 1600, Ilford HPS, Iford HP3, Ilford HP4 and Kofak Recording?
The 400 ASA film had not been made for "street photography". The high speed films are the films for the photo reporter, the sport photograper and the aerial photography.
Street photography has been invented recently by the digital photographer,
who was looking for another hobby.
Was Jaques Henrie Lartigue a streetphotographer in France in 1912??
I doubt it; his superb photos just showed the people in the streets in Paris.
Jaco van Lth, Rotterdam -The Netherlands
if use d76?how long time?
You can even process your HP5 in coffee if you’re feeling extra default.
I always wanted to try that.
In my 20+ years of shooting film I've tried and tested most films available (and now unavailable...) and HP5+ is without a doubt my go to film. Not only is it forgiving in regards of exposure errors, but it handles development "tweaking" extremely well. Semi-stand in Rodinal will never fail, if you want more contrast try HC-110 at dilution B, agitate more, maybe up the temperature...just experiment. I've successfully pushed it to 3200 (in DDX 1:4, 20min and minimal agitation) and gotten better result than Delta 3200. It should be said that I do my work in a darkroom, and hardly ever scan film, but I assume my personal golden rule will still apply: You can always add contrast if needed. Reducing contrast without losing detail may lead to serious frustration.
Plus it’s still under $10!!
Kodak changed the emulsion of Tri-X in 2007, making it finer grained similar to HP5+, technically excellent, but not quite as pushable. The old Tri-X was more grainy, and was a very popular film in the 70s, and 80s certainly for artistic expressive photography. To get that gritty grainy look I think Fomapan 400 is probably the best option, although the results are far less predictable than using HP5+.
Since digital scan-and-process is rapidly becoming the default work flow for many film photographers, films with wide dynamic range, push-ability and controlled grain structure such as Tri-X, Tmax and HP5 Plus are more desirable than ever for most applications. Thanks for the video. 👍
I was a photojournalist back in the late 80s early 90s in the Army stationed in Germany. 400 speed film wasn’t the main film used then. Yes we used it. But we used the slowest film for the photo shoot. Grain was important back then. The faster the speed the more grain. We used TriX and PlusX for the most part and for good reason. It gave great results. We also used Ilford HP5 and FP4. Both are great films, but I didn’t like them compared to Kodak. They didn’t give me the quality I needed compared to Kodak. I always got better results from TriX. I also worked the darkroom and had to process not only my film,but the other journalist’s’ film too. Make contact sheets and prints. The prints needed to be a certain contrast for publication. I never had problems with Kodak film. Including TMax film. I would push 400 to 1600, but only if I was shooting low light and wasn’t using a flash. If I used a flash I would use PlusX or FP4. I wouldn’t waste 400 on flash photography. For daylight, I used 125 or 100 iso before I would use 400. It’s better daylight film. Using 400 speed in bright daylight is waste and unnecessary. Plus for most cameras you’re limited to about 2, maybe 3 stops of reciprocity. With 100 or 125 you have about 4 to 5 stops of reciprocity. You also get finer grain and sharper images and better tones. If I needed to shoot anything faster than 400 I opted for TMAX 3200. Use the right film speeds for the shoot. You get better results. One note is professional film is designed to be idiot film. It gives you the latitude to make up for mistakes that you need to get that photo published. Photographers mess up all the time with film. They have the camera on the wrong f-stop or shutter speed or forgot to set the iso. Half of photography is in the darkroom, it’s the darkroom technician who can make or break a photo. Even a poorly shot one.
I get why someone likes HP5 but I see a lot of pictures posted by a lot of people using it. Their pictures are good. But I haven’t seen many day shots where the f-stop was below f11 or even f8. They all have a large depth of field. No close ups with a shallow depth of field. You can’t get it with 400 iso using the majority of cameras. You can if your camera goes up to 1/4000 on the shutter speed. The majority don’t. 1/1000 at best.
Here in the UK it is so often overcast 400 is a great versatile speed. And you can shoot indoors and outdoors on the same roll without a flash.
For us amateurs who shoot film sparingly, that’s quite useful.
Great video. Really hope you make more!
I've been binging your content, it's so good man!
Thanks!
Finally, a site with decent bg music 😊
Started using it when it was HP3 a long while ago. Tried most film stock since, Kodak Pan X (gone long ago) and Tri-X were both great but I could never get them to dry flat. For me, FP4 and HP5 are the still best, most forgiving and versatile films both in 35mm and 120 formats.
I grew up with HP5 learnt my photography with it in the late 70s and 80s and it was our standard film when I was a Army Photographer as it pushed very well still use today in both 35mm and 120 I refuse to pay Kodak prices anymore FP4 and HP5 are my staple along with Ferrania P30 for fun
I learned on HP5+ too. It's a super robust film that I love, and yes, Kodak's prices are a bit too nuts.
@@noahvonhatten yes they are and there going up again luckily I shoot mainly B&W I have a few rolls of colour but prices for portra 400 and Ektar are ridiculous they say it’s so they can increase staff levels so there is no more shortage of film unfortunately Kodak have a monopoly on colour film I used to love Tri-x but I am not paying nearly £15 a roll for it when there so many other options out there for much lower pricing
lovely video! I also like ilford hp5. Though sometimes I feel that it's too "in the middle". Miss contrast sometimes. But the fact that you can post it to 3200 without any real problems is a huuuge advantage for me!
I'm a beginner and wow, this video gave me a bunch of useful information!
It is one of my favorite emulsions!!! I have been a fan since before it was called PLUS ... been n Ilford fan since the 70s!!!
I’ve been using llford delta 100, because here in so. Florida it’s bright most of the time. Back in NY I shoot tri x on a regular basis. I’m going to give the HP 5 a chance, because of your video, thanks. Rick….. 🌴
Personally HP-5plus is pretty hard to beat, 35mm or 120. Having said that, there are times when I look at my tri-x images and say to myself omg. I shoot both. Honorable mentions Fuji Neopan 400. (Discontinued) Agfapan400. (Discontinued).
Bergger Pancro 400.
(Always backordered.)
Love HP5 and FP4, I usually rate FP4 at iso 400, loving the results. I've only tried TriX a couple of times very nice but too expensive. Rollei RPX 400 is pretty good too. cheers
Cool video! I find tri-x isn't really a 400 speed film, Kodak just markets it as that. It sits more around the 250-320ASA range.
As I moved from 35mm to medium format, I changed by standard frim from FP-4+ to Hp-5+ to accommodate the slower lenses I was using. Decades ago I used Kodak Plus-X and to lesser degree, old Tri-X, but Kodak's elimination of most of its B&W film and persistent higher prices Switched me to Ilford. While I suspect that I'd like Delta 400 more than HP-5, I have my darkroom processes so dialed in to HP-5 that it isn't worth the effort to explore Delta.
I always prefer FP4+ but HP5+ is a close second. Rated at 200ASA and dev'd in Ilfotech HC 1:60 it's a crackin' film.
I started my analog journey from FOMA400, my photography used to be very low light conditions, and get quite poor results with it. Then I moved to Delta400, I was looking for so called best quality film, it was better but still missing some shadow details in the end, and need very decent and accurate metering. Eventually I get my hands down on HP5, and well it was from then until now, that I never have used better low light condition film that give me so much details compared to those budget options. As ilford release kentmere 400 in medium format, it's my second option but price difference is to small to make it worth it. Wrapping up, I would recommend anybody who is starting to go for HP5 and just have fun time shooting.
Cheers, thank you for video.
Good ride cymbal in the music ❤🎉
Aperture Dundee, i just avoid this film these days. I agree that it is a budget option but when Kodak T Max and Tri X is available; i don’t wish to use HP5. There is much discussion that kodak B&W films are expensive but we don’t need to finish a roll all at once. We can take our time and expose a roll of Tri X in 2 weeks for example. We have such short lives. Live a little and use Tri X. Life maybe shorter than we think
Yeah HP5 is good, but at times can be affected by dampness or humidity, resulting in the dreaded white spots not to be confused with the white stripes which are a rock duo. I kind of like Rollei Superpan 200 for some of my B&W photography, but as far as film goes I think people get set in their ways, and stick to the stuff they know. I saw your video on Ferrania P30 which I love, but its a bit pricey for most shooters these days. My biggest draw when it comes to B&W film is the least amount of grain the better.
Has nothing to do with HP5 and everything to do with Ilford's backing paper
which is better between foma pan 100 and ILFORD pan100?
HP5 is beautiful shot at 800 in Diafine, which increases the already great exposure latitude.
I've used hp5 for many years... Even for weddings, and I think it is a wonderful bw film. Today, I do my own development of bw films... And I really enjoy pushing hp5 to iso 800. Or even to 1600, the grain is ok. I think it's a matter of taste. I love it, someone else may hate it. One other film that I've discovered recently is Rollei RPX 400. It is more sensitive to red than hp5... And I like it for portraits... Like Hp5 I like how it comes out when pushed to iso 800, and I think it usable with just about every subject. The price here in Italy is not too high... Buy ten rolls of Hp5 and Rollei RPX and I think you'll be glad.
What about Kentmere 400? Still Harman's stock and it has amazing results (and it's super cheap)
Something I can't explain is why I LOVE HP5+ in medium format, but in 35mm I don't. It's too flat for me, but the same emulsion with a larger negative instead I really like the results. In 35mm I use more often Kodak Tri-X, but as you said it's very very expensive. So I decided to try some rolls of Kodak Double-X (Cinsestill BWXX) and love it, it's pretty much a Tri-X but with a slight lower ISO. And you can buy 100' bulk rolls from some retailers, and this way it's very cheap, so... I think next year I will start bulk loading my 35mm film and for medium format I will shoot more HP5 and Kentmere 400 now that's also available in 120 format :)
I haven't tried double x yet, I'll have to give it a shot soon.
@@noahvonhatten I think it is worth trying it. However, the version of Cinsestill is quite expensive though. But it's the most practical way to try it.
Not a great fan of HP-5 (TMY2 or bust) but it could be interesting for certain looks. If you want more contrast, push 2 stops. So shoot it as 1600 ISO and push in DDX or Xtol.
Makes for an interesting look in 135, especially for portraiture where you're going for an Old Man and the Sea vibe. Use a blue filter. Tons of grain. Emphasizes every wrinkle, skin imperfection and age spot.
Double x is just b&w movie film without the remjet.
@@RobertLeeAtYT if you want more contrast, develop more. Underexposing just gives you less shadow detail and more noise
Love the HP5 to bits, but the outcome depends quite considerably of the chemicals they are developped in...
Never a big fan of HP5+, always used to use Tri-X rated at ISO320. I don't use a lot of ISO400 film these days but when I do my film of choice, particularly in 120 roll film, is Rollei RPX400, generally processed in Rollei Supergrain.
I always used Tri-X in HC-110, then Kodak priced it beyond reasonableness and I migrated seamlessly to HP5+ in Ilfosol 3. I happen to like it even better.
Ilfosol is special designed for low ISO film stocks
@@goldenhourkodak
According to Ilford, it is suitable for a range of uses and it happens to suit my needs very well. I wouldn't use it for pushing though, but I never push my film.
Even though I never shot an ilford as my first b&w roll(catlabs 320), and mostly shoot on coloured film. I personally don't think Ilford HP5+ is not overhyped, it's just the availability, it never run out of stock. These days there are quite a lot of film stock either hard to find in camera/electronic store, or rarely restock. I usually head in to stores to check on film stocks, ilford is always there.
It’s a great film and I have been using it for over 40 years.
answer is... no :)
but i personally use Ilford PAN just cause its cheaper than HP5 and Delta of course and you can push it too lol
I can recommend Agfa APX400 as an alternative. It looks a bit more professional and sharp.
You’re right! I recently got some, and some APX 100 as well. Both fantastic films.
...AND the HP5 negatives will not arch in the scanning frame, it behaves fine and lays almost perfectly flat. :)
Don't forget kentmere 400, it's not quite as "do everything" as hp5, but it's cheaper (ilford have strong iso 400 game!)
Great review! Can you do Fomapan 400 next?
I’ve got some in the pipeline for a future video.
Great video 👌🏻✨
For 35mm, NO ISO 400 film is an "all around default" film. You are locking yourself into too high of shutter speeds or too small of apertures in direct sunlight and preventing ANY creative control. The rare ISO 200 B&W films give FAR more flexibility if you are using colored contrast filters (outdoors, a light yellow filter should be on your lens if shooting B&W, costs only one stop of light) and ISO 100 or 125 films were de rigor 50 years ago (and more) or even SLOWER films INDOORS by 35mm guys like Alfred Eisenstaedt (he shot ISO 64 Panatomic-X at Presidential News conferences at 1/60 sec @ f 5.6 and f4 with his Leica M2 while TIME/LIFE photogs ground away with 200 exp back motor-drive Nikon F's with Tri-X, he RARELY shot 36 exposures!). Guess who's photos made covers and double-truck spreads??? HP5+ is an excellent film I shoot quite a bit of in 120 (in my 645) , where it's grain in 16x20 enlargements doesn't intrude (think 6"x9" from 35mm). I shoot quite a bit more Delta 400 as even bigger enlargements are grainless. Almost 55 years of professional work is speaking (it will be in May). I'm "retired" and only working 30-36 hours a week!
Nothing beats tri x at 200
A more affordable option is to push FP4+ to 400 ISO.
Pushing to 3200 ISO is easy
HP5 is basically interchangeable with Tri-X. I don ‘t particularly like either. Enlargements past 4x linear or so is just a mess of grain.
400 Tmax (tmy2) is a superior b&w film on all technical aspects. It’s really nice especially in Xtol 1:1. Just as with Delta, it is a tabular grain film. It makes a difference.
Are you talking about 35mm? I find HP5 rather unpleasantly grainy in 35mm.
@@Armitage01101 HP5, like TriX is grainy. Period. Both are inferior on technical measures to T grain emulsions. It's not just noise induced by grain, be it also the commensurate coarser tonality.
Of course, it's all normalized to the degree of enlargement. HP5 in 135 printed larger than 8x10 is unpleasant. Print it to 3x5 and it's indistinguishable from digital.
My take is that if you're specifically wanting to emphasize noise, shoot HP5, push 1, develop in Ordinal or hc110 at high dilutions.
The 99% of the time, Tmax, Across, or Delta. Soup in Xtol 1:1
Overhyped? Sure.
Bad film though? Certainly not.
That said, I prefer FP4.
I do not understand why people like this film. I I find it pretty flat and lifeless, contrast is too low, grain is not pleasing, etc. it’s the Portra 400 of B&w stocks. It’s a middle of the road, no commitment, no strong aesthetics film. I do shoot it in scenes of inherently high contrast, it does well in those situations, but that's about it.
You can always add contrast in post.
Tried Ilford FP4? That's their sleeper film with a cult following.
never liked HP5+ - it seems to have low ugly contrast and bad looking grain... Maybe cos I use D-76... For my opinion good old Ilford PAN 400 is much cheaper and much better nad wors as well as 800 or 1600 iso, not only 400)
Never liked HP5+ - always have bad, low contrast with it. Maybe cos I use wrong developer with it - I use good old D-76) Prefer much cheaper Ilford PAN 400 or Kodak TRI-x 400 or Delta 400 as 400 iso b&w films)
HP5+ has the ugliest grain I've ever seen, I hate it. It's not the size, it's the clumpiness.
Which developer do you use it with? I’ve had various experiences with the grain depending on the dev. solution.
@@noahvonhatten It would have been lab developed, so pretty sure D76. I saw in David Hancock's HP5 video he got some very impressive results from it with some devs, but I'm not able to do home development, so I'm unlikely to try it again any time soon. But also, iso 400 is a terrible choice where I live. 800 is barely fast enough for indoors, and that's assuming your shooting something that can't move. And given the limited shutter speeds of most film cameras, 400 outdoors means shooting at like f/16 or f/11 all the time.