Summary I love this film so much. I like Kodak Tri-X 320, and used it for quite a while. I had it calibrated nicely in 4x5 and medium format so I could use the zone system, and I was never disappointed with it. However, I decided to switch in order to show my support to Ilford, and ended up hooked on HP5. Now I use it for 90% of my small-format black and white shooting and about 80% of my medium format black and white shooting. I use it about half the time with sheet formats.
What I like about this film is that its inherent level of contrast works so well with the way I like to make my prints. I have never had a really hard time printing anything I have shot on HP5. It is, as advertised, medium contrast. This gives you so much room to tweak it to be exactly the film you want it to be. I have rated this film anywhere from 64 to 6400 in order to get the level of contrast I want, and this sort of tweaking always works so predictably (as it does with Tri-X). Lower speed films are harder to get low in contrast, and higher speed films are harder to get high in contrast. I guess it is a personal choice, but this film seems to cover most situations for the things I shoot and the way I like to shoot them.
I also enjoy its overall look so much more than Delta or T-Max. It is so much more journalistic and classic looking. Delta and T-max are perfect and bland. Really good for capturing every detail of something as sharply as possible, but totally lacking in any sort of "bite", or "character".
Honestly, the film has all the same strengths that Tri-X has as far as versatility and tweakability. I would be hard pressed to recommend one over the other. It's really the shooter who matters. I simply like the contrast of the HP5 a little bit better, and I like supporting Ilford instead of Kodak.
Strengths Low inherent contrast, but not too low like Delta 3200. High malleability. Its real strength is in its versatility. Most situations can be handled on this film to produce highly acceptable results. A total workhorse, just like Tri-X.
Weaknesses The only one I can think of is that sometimes it is too fast if you want certain effects from using slow shutter speeds and/or wide apertures. If you want the sharpest of the sharp, this is not the best choice, but that is a given.
Similar Products Used Kodak Tri-X 320 in 120/220 and sheets, and Tri-X 400 in 35mm.
Customer Service Ilford was very good in my one experience with them.
Summary Good all-purpose film. Hard to screw up and very versitle. Pushes well, easy to print, good latitude. Works well with a variety of developers.
It's a real work-horse that gives consistent results. I think it give nice rich blacks and decent tonality for a 400 speed film. Grain is nearly invisible, very good for a 400 speed film.
I developed this in D76 at 1:3 for 20 mins recently just to try it (usually 1:1 or use DDX) and got very good tonality(?) comparable to T-Max 100. But this is /definately/ a ymmv thing, and I place very little stock in anecdotal info about various film/developer combos when I read about them on the web. Suggest you do the same.
I like this film rated at 400. It pushes well, but (call me crazy) I prefer to rate and develop Ilford 3200 at 1000 than push HP5. I like the "desaturated" look of 3200 better. It's a unique aesthetic.
I digress. Very good film. I always have it in the fridge. Good show, Ilford.
Strengths Versitile
Nearly grainless in 120
Nice rich blacks
Tonality rivals T-Max 100 in D76, 1:3 for 20 minutes(?) (Need to try that one again...)
Weaknesses None really.
Similar Products Used Just about all 120 black and white available except the Fugis (Have that in the fridge, just haven't gotten around to it yet...)
Customer Service I like, respect, admire Ilford's commitment to black and white photography.
I will alway by Ilford (and Agfa) for this reason alone. Support the black and white film companies!
Summary I screwed around with Kodak B&W films for a while. I started with TRI-X, and then I tried T-MAX and then Ilford's FP4, yadda yadda yadda. I didn't have any serious problems with any of them, but I was only getting acceptable results, nothing spectacular. Then comes along HP5 and it blew me away. I get predictable and spectacular results every time now. I will shoot no other B&W film besides HP5. It may be ISO 400, but I get smooth, ultrafine grain that can hardly be noticed at 11x14+ enlargements.
Strengths Awesome grain. Predictable results.
Weaknesses ...
Similar Products Used Kodak TRI-X, T-MAX, Ilford FP4, random others...
Summary Everything I put on this stuff looks like it's come from some sort of timeless age of innocence. It's just lovely. Great for architecture. Took it round America, Canada, Portugal and it brought the mood of each home. Plenty of detail on a 645 negative, and enough on a 35mm to make 8"x10" prints.
Strengths Mood
Weaknesses It's probably just me, but I sometimes get a faint purple cast left on the negatives (Aculux developer). Doesn't stop it printing lovely, though.
Summary HP5 is an excellent all-round B&W film with high acutance & good contrast control. Grain is visible but not obtrusive. It holds detail & shape much better than high-speed emulsions such as TMZ3200. It is very easy to process & print.
HP5 seems to be easier to find in Australia than Tri-X - although many consumer labs stock T-Max films at inflated prices. T-Max films are also harder to process & seem to block up highlights easier with my darkroom system.
Strengths Sharpness (for a 400ISO film)
Tonal range & handling of contrast
Easy to handle in the darkroom
Reasonably cheap
Weaknesses Grainy in continuous-tone areas
Similar Products Used Tri-X
T-Max 400 & 3200
Customer Service Ilford products are very easy to find in Australia, and are economically priced when compared to Kodak B&W materials.
(26 views/week)
5 of 5
5 of 5
4 of 5
4 of 5
