>I found Delta 400 only gave a small improvement in grain over HP5, and
>pushing was worse, so I stayed with the older film. Perhaps this new
>material will be more tempting. The Luddite in me hopes not, I love HP5.
>Like Tri-X fans would say, it's a great compromise (IMHO).
>Simon E.
>________________________________________________________________________
That mirrors my experience. I started on those Ilford "value packs" that
have 2 rolls of HP5 and a packet of Ilford Multigrade IV Deluxe Paper.
Since then, I've dabbled with Tri-X, TMAX, and Ilford Delta 400 on both
Forte and Ilford multigrade papers, and I keep coming back to the HP5 for
various reasons. Despite it's being a strong 400 not recommended for lower
ratings, I routinely rate it at 200, 250 or 320 on the low end and 800 on
the high end. Ilford says it can easily go to 3200, though I've not yet
tried that. I really like having one film for both 35mm OMs and for 120
cameras. I develop the HP5 in Ilfosol S at 1:9. Rated from 200 to 400 I've
gotten results on 8x10's that friends swear look like I used 100 ISO. To me
the Delta didn't offer all that much (if any) improvement. Tri-X is good
stuff but it's more expensive than the HP5 for perhaps not as much
flexibility. TMAX didn't do so well with me, but I'm told that it does
better in chemicals specific to it. If you haven't tried it, Forte Salon
Warmtone RC paper is definitely worth a try. It's lighter weight than the
Ilford Multigrade IV, and therefore doesn't handle forced hot air drying as
well, but the Forte is currently my "people paper".
One other thing about the HP5 is that whatever it's acetate base is, it
seems to be less likely to crinkle and jam on the blasted metal film reels.
If you even slightly taper the ends though, it's strong enough to be pushed
right on the plastic JOBO reels even in 220.
Mike Swaim
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|