400 ASA film in 120 size

[cjbecker]

Fp4 is one of my favorite films, I shoot it at 160 and develop in a130 1-10 for 7.5 mins 75f

My other favorite film is tri-x 400 at 400 in a130, can’t remember the times.

Both make very rich blacks and glowing highlights.

Disclaimer, I don’t rate shadow very important.

 

[peoplemerge]

I thought someone might mention Bergger 400. I love it! I bought some, and it's sat in the fridge unshot for the last 2 years, so I have about 6 months to shoot it before it expires. Just knowing it's there keeps me cool on a hot summer day. So I have no idea if it's any good but it comes with it's own developer, so wow, I'm already impressed.


That's a true story, but jokes aside, I must complain about T-grain emulsions, especially the higher speed ones. I have never gotten along with them and have particular complaints about the lackluster shadows. I also have done sensitometric testing of Ilford 3200 and placed it at ISO 800 as well (last test was with DD-X). I want so much to get along with them, so let me float this theory and see if anyone can correct my thinking. I think my problem is that I actually shoot it at 800, and maybe I should try shooting it at 3200 and just let the curve stomp down the muddy darks so they're black, since I'm not going to like them anyway.

 

[pentaxuser]

I've never heard of this Ultrafine Xtreme before, nor have I seen it for sale at any of the usual UK suspects. Is it a US-market only product?

If the consensus is correct then don't worry. Ultrafine Extreme is available in the U.K. It's called Kentmere. Still a problem of course if you are a 120 user. Ilford do not make Kentmere in 120

pentaxuser

 

[Eric Rose]

Delta 400 is my pick

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

HP5 is my main film, and I've shot a lot of TMY-2.... I've recently shot a few rolls of Delta 400 and it has really perked my interest. I shot it at EI320, developed in Pyrocat-HD, and it was lovely.

 

[Eric Rose]

Delta films in PyroCat-HD are a match made in heaven. I guess I should be more specific. I have only used Delta 100 and 400 with PyroCat-HD. Delta 3200 is just not my cup of tea.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Delta films in PyroCAt-HD are a match made in heaven.

Do you have times for Delta 3200 shot at 3200.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

HP5 is my main film, and I've shot a lot of TMY-2.... I've recently shot a few rolls of Delta 400 and it has really perked my interest. I shot it at EI320, developed in Pyrocat-HD, and it was lovely.

I've had good results in the past with Delta 400 and Pyrocat-HD, but more recently have found D400 / XTOL to be a more challenging combination to pin down. TMY-2 is probably an unsurpassed product. However I've got a few rolls of HP5+ in to try as I've never really given the film a good go in 120.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've had good results in the past with Delta 400 and Pyrocat-HD, but more recently have found D400 / XTOL to be a more challenging combination to pin down. TMY-2 is probably an unsurpassed product. However I've got a few rolls of HP5+ in to try as I've never really given the film a good go in 120.

HP5+ in replenished XTOL in a Jobo processor [so there is constant agitation] required one more minute than Ilford recommended for HP5+ in XTOL in a small tank. Ilford's development times are notoriously less than actually needed. Some recommend to use the Ilford times for double the ISO of the film you want to develop.

 

[Eric Rose]

Do you have times for Delta 3200 shot at 3200.

Sorry no. I can't remember the last time I shot Delta 3200. If I need that kind of speed I pull out the digicam.

 

[pentaxuser]

Ilford's development times are notoriously less than actually needed. Some recommend to use the Ilford times for double the ISO of the film you want to develop.

We may be straying away from the thread but I think your last line applies only to D3200 and not Ilford 400 speed films and even then only if the film is being developed for a speed greater than say 800/1000. For instance I cannot recall the rule you quote above( a good rule for D3200 in my experience) being applied to HP5+ at speeds above its box speed but maybe others can chime in here

pentaxuser

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I have found the Ilford recommend developing times for Delta 400 to be correct in hc-110 but I have had quite a lot of trouble getting high (good) contrast negs out of HP5 and hc-110 following recommended times. I ended up exposing at 800 and pushing a stop based on the box time to get contrast even close to Tri-X. Perhaps the problem is the box time, and even then only for some developers so not everyone would notice it. Would be interested in others experiences here as well.

There is a photographer on Flickr named Paul Greeves that uses almost exclusively hp5 in perceptol and I quite admire his results. Every time I see one of his pictures it makes me want to get hp5 but then I remember I can barely ever get good results from it!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

It is tempting to simply use TMY-2 as a 400 speed option. With regard to the UK market ILFORD HP5 Plus and Fomapan 400 are about the same price for '120' film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

TMY is a superb product. I shoot it in everything from 35mm to 8x10. Excellent shadow separation, long scale, very fine grain for a film this speed, combined with very good edge acutance; true 400 speed. But it's not a good film choice for people who don't want to meter carefully, especially the shadow values. It has a steep unforgiving toe; but that is precisely what gives this film so much dynamic range. In other words, it's not a good film if you're the type of person who expects "latitude" to cover carelessness, but a great film if you know how to use a meter properly.

 

[john_s]

...... but I have had quite a lot of trouble getting high (good) contrast negs out of HP5 and hc-110 following recommended times. I ended up exposing at 800 and pushing a stop based on the box time to get contrast even close to Tri-X. Perhaps the problem is the box time, and even then only for some developers so not everyone would notice it.......

Maybe HP5+ and HC110 together is not a good combination. I remember reading Ryuji Suzuki saying that when it comes to development, HP5+ is a "hungry film" so maybe the sort of dilution at which HC110 is used just doesn't suit the film. It is, however, a lovely film in Pyrocat which of course is very dilute also. In the old days Tri-X in HC110 was marvellous, but I don't know about these days after the reformulations of that film. I've never understood why so many people have reported that HP5+ isn't contrasty enough: wouldn't one just develop longer?

 

[peoplemerge]

[ TMY is ] not a good film if you're the type of person who expects "latitude" to cover carelessness, but a great film if you know how to use a meter properly.

It could be the camera I last used to shoot, which was a vintage Rolleicord with an imprecise shutter.

Perhaps you could elaborate "how to use a meter properly." Given the majority of this thread concerns roll film shooting, which outside of controlled studio lighting means varied SBR, do you generally place one of the shadow zones, and let the highlights fall where they may?

 

[peoplemerge]

Also, are there good papers that match the film curves of TMAX? My limited testing suggests Ilford papers match Ilford films, Foma papers match Foma films; at least for traditional developers like HC-110. But Kodak doesn't make b/w paper any more, right?

 

[MattKing]

My T-Max 100 and 400 negatives get along very well with the Ilford and Oriental variable contrast papers I use.
Unless you are contact printing - and even then most likely - I think you will find that most modern papers are wonderfully flexible, and relatively easy to use with most modern films.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I use a variety of films and a variety of papers. I can make any of them dance together. The idea is to expose and develop your film to a versatile fashion, and then buy good quality papers. I learned on high-quality graded papers like Oriental Seagull G (the real deal), Brilliant Bromide, Portriga etc, but now mostly use high-quality VC papers. You don't have to worry about brand to brand matching. What does help is to match specific film curves to the scene contrast involved, but that takes a bit of experience to understand, and is also subject to specifically how you develop your film. TMax films are quite flexible in that respect.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In general tabular grain films, TMax or Delta, have very long and straight exposure curves and are have less reciprocity problems. I still use traditional grain films, Tri-X, HP5+, Portra.

 

[takilmaboxer]

And that's how you deal with the short toe: the long straight line enables you to add exposure and stay off the toe. With my old folders I usually take a second exposure with one stop added, just to be safe with the shadows.

 

[Colin Corneau]

.... I've never understood why so many people have reported that HP5+ isn't contrasty enough: wouldn't one just develop longer?

It isn't, frankly. It's a great film - there's never (in my experience) any problems with it, it's wonderfully flexible, it does just about everything well...I've just found that it's often kind of flat and (for me, and many fellow shooters I've talked about it with) one can only get a bit of snap to it by pushing a stop. That's my experience...keep in mind however that for many shooters and many scenes, a bit of soft contrast or flatness is just the thing.

 

[MattKing]

Sometimes, when people find a film either too "flat" or too "contrasty" it is because the rendering of that film doesn't appeal to their aesthetic preferences.
For example, someone who tends to prefer films that render highlights with a particularly notable amount of contrast and separation of highlight detail, may very well not like the performance of a film that is particularly strong at rendering shadow details.
In my case, I'm particular interested in how films render mid-tones. I expect that the long straight section of the characteristic curve in T-Max 400 favours mid-tone separation, and is at least part of the reason I like that film.

 

[jim appleyard]

I've never had a problem with the contrast from HP-5. Bronica ETR, Bill Davis' D2D two bath developer, EI 200.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Shadow separation is determined by the toe. Fact, not opinion. In a high contrast scene, HP5 cannot handle deep shadows without resorting to either overexposure or compensated development, each of which carries a penalty to both midtone and highlight tonality. If you just happen to prefer a particular look, that's fine. I happen to like both HP5 and TMY, but for different reasons. I've shot and printed an awful lot of HP5 in 8x10; I don't care much for it in smaller formats. But I had to resort to unsharp masking to reign in high contrast subjects in order to still hold excellent microtonality in the midtones. Compressed or minus or "pull" development just squishes everything together, flattening it; so I try to avoid that kind of option. There's just too much of a toe on HP5 to bag very long scale scenes without resorting to supplementary tricks. But the straight line of TMY, in the right developer, can go fully two stops or steps further down at full box speed. So, in effect, in some situations, it's a faster film too. But if you expect optimal performance, TMY has to be more carefully metered for the shadows. It's not a shoot-from-the hip film. On rainy days, under subdued or soft lighting, when I want a film better suited to quickie snapshooting, and don't mind a bit of conspicuous grain, Delta 3200 is one of my favorites. I rate it at 800, so really not that far off the current 400 speed topic.