Delta 400 or HP-5Plus?greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread
I am looking for opinions and subjective descriptions regarding the differences in appearance, tonality, etc. between these two films.
I have not yet taken the time to shoot the same subject at the same moment with each film and then compare the results. I'm hoping some of you out there have done this.
Is there a general rule-of-thumb that would guide one to choose tabular grain film under certain lighting conditions rather than the traditional grain-structure film?
-- Don Karon (email@example.com), May 27, 2002
There is very little difference between HP5+ and Delta 400. In terms of sharpness and grain, it's very difficult to see any significant difference. Subjectively, I do find Delta prints appear crisper at normal viewing distances, but closeup inspection with a loupe does not support any significant advantage in terms of sharpness or resolution. I prefer the tonality of Delta 400 over HP5+. It exhibits a slight rise at the shoulder which affords excellent highlight separation and an almost 3-dimensional look. For this reason, too, I like skin tones on Delta 400. Delta 400 may also have a slight advantage in terms of real speed, but both films offer excellent latitude and shadow separation.
The bottom line is, I think HP5+ is a great film and it was my first choice (and still is in 4x5) until Delta 400 was improved. I use Delta 400 now, but if it were discontinued, I'd survive quite happily by returning to HP5+.
-- Ted Kaufman (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 27, 2002.
Delta 400 shows a bit of a shoulder on the high end while HP5+ doesn't; this may make bright highlights a little easier to print.
I think Delta's slightly finer-grained; I tend to prefer it for 35mm but use whichever in larger formats.
These differences are _very_ slight.
-- John Hicks (email@example.com), May 27, 2002.
Here's a big difference between them: PRICE!
In 120 format the price difference is negligible. But when I think about buying 50 rolls of 35mm the difference is quite big. Now I see why many people talk about Tri-X these days... half the price of Delta 400. TMY is also very cheap.
It is as if Ilford did a great R&D job in designing the new Delta 400 casette!
I think many of us who think Delta 400 is great use medium format. My stock of 35mm HP5+ is going low and need to think about it... It seems that opinions about Neopan 400 is so mixed that I guess I should run a test...
-- Ryuji Suzuki (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 28, 2002.
I have used 120 HP5+ for years, and when the Delta films came out, I decided to give them a try. I would agree that the Delta films showed a slight increase in sharpness. But that was about it. They seem to have a thinner base and are more subject to curling. The price difference is also a factor to consider. I shoot a a lot of 120. I decided to stick with the HP5+. I develop it in PMK and have always had excellent results.
-- Don Sigl (email@example.com), May 30, 2002.