Topic: One camera, one developer, 3 films

[Indofunk]

I recently acquired 2 rolls each of Delta100 and FP4+. Since I only have 2 rolls each, and I don't know their expiry status (though they look pretty new), I'm just going to shoot them and develop them as closely as I can to a "recommended" scheme (read: massive dev). I shot a roll of each on a recent California trip, and my my are they different! Here's a quick comparison to my go-to Tri-X, which I now shoot at EI800 and develop in HC110B for 8 minutes, and I am consistently pleased with the results.

So now for the shootout. The camera: Olympus XA. The developer: HC110. The films: as follow


Tri-X@800, HC110B 8min


Delta 100, HC110H 12min (massive dev said HC110B 6min, I usually develop TMax100 in HC110H 12min, so it all checks out)


FP4+ 125, HC110H 10min (massive dev had 3 conflicting dev schemes, so I went with the dilution and time that I use for Tri-X @400, under the assumption that FP4+, as a traditional grain emulsion, is roughly equivalent to Tri-X)

So now my own observations. Using Tri-X as a baseline, Delta 100 looks like it has a soft "glow", almost making it look like it's soft focused. Also a lot less contrast than Tri-X.

FP4+ is quite a beast. It vignetted all my shots (especially skies ... is it less sensitive to blue than Tri-X?), and is super grainy and contrasty. "High accutance" I think is the technical term. I'm leaning towards blaming my development scheme for this. 10 minutes with agitation once every minute might be too much? Anyone else develop FP4+ in HC110? I also recall that the couple of rolls of expired FP4+ I shot turned out very similarly, so maybe it's expired? In any case, I don't think I'll be trading my Tri-X for FP4+ any time soon

All in all, these Ilford films are nice. Brighter whites than Tri-X, but overall not as pleasing to me as Tri-X. Delta 100 is more to my liking, though I wish it was a little more contrasty. Maybe I can agitate it more than 1x per minute, or use a stronger dilution of HC110?

[Late Developer]

Hi Peter.

Nice set of shots and an interesting experiment.  However, although I seldom shoot anything slower than EI 400, if I were to do so, it'd be FP4+ on the basis that I haven't experienced either the level of vignetting or the grain that you've got.  I've always found it to live up to its "incredibly fine grain" claim and be very forgiving in terms of shadow and highlight detail. I like Delta 100 but prefer the 400 version - especially if I'm using MF.  Here's the Ilford technical fact sheet for FP4+:

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216115141521.pdf

HP5+ would be a better comparison for Tri-X as they at least have the same box speed and started out as very traditional medium speed traditional B&W stock. TMax is also a nice film but my current favourite is XP2 Super - at which some photographers can get a bit sniffy as it's C41 not traditional B&W.  However, as PeterR demonstrates very well, it can be processed in traditional chemicals. It's also EI 400 and would, I believe, stand up well against Tri-X as it has less grain and is punchy when you want it but quite forgiving as well.  You can see examples in the Photo Essays thread (my Bologna set).  I shot the East Anglian Railway on TMax 400 and that (I think) really suited the low contrast conditions that day.

Don't get me wrong, I really like Tri-X but I suspect that, for some reason, you haven't quite managed to get the very best out of the Delta 100 and FP4+ you've tried.

[John Robison]

Ah, the limits of technology. Really hard for me to see, on my laptop, the difference between the three films. Your written impressions are more valuable than the samples. HC-110 is all I have for developing film and I usually try the thin 60:1 mix first as a one shot.

Just about, actually now that I think about it, all of my 35mm B&W is past date (shame on me for not shooting more). The oldest is bulk Pan F that expired in 2009, it seems to work though, if I expose at ISO 25.

Right now I'm fighting with myself whether I should get some of that new Film Ferraina P80

[Indofunk]

Hi Paul, I'm Satish

To be clear, I've shot HP5+ before, and also XP2. I like both of those films at box speed (haven't shot them faster or slower) and developed in HC110. Actually, I remember preferring XP2 in Rodinal for some reason. I just figured since I got these 2 new emulsions, that I'd try them out just for the hell of it. I hardly ever shoot slower than 400 myself, so these are mostly just for educational purposes I do agree with you that I've somehow mucked up the development or used a type of developer that these films don't particularly like, but it's the only developer I have and I'm not about to buy a whole new developer just for the two remaining rolls I have I do welcome opinions on how I can better utilize HC110 with these guys, as I have one roll of each left.

[02Pilot]

Are those straight scans? If you haven't already, look at the film comparison link I posted a while back; all three of those films in HC110 are represented there, so you can see how you think your results compare to the test shots.

[Indofunk]

Are those straight scans? If you haven't already, look at the film comparison link I posted a while back; all three of those films in HC110 are represented there, so you can see how you think your results compare to the test shots.

Thanks. I can't get FP4+/HC110 to work, for some reason. But Delta 100 vs Tri-X seems really close to me. Except for the grain size, which makes sense since Tri-X is traditional grain and Delta 100 is a T grain. But I can't see if they posted exactly what dev scheme they used? That would be helpful...

[Late Developer]

Hi Paul, I'm Satish

To be clear, I've shot HP5+ before, and also XP2. I like both of those films at box speed (haven't shot them faster or slower) and developed in HC110. Actually, I remember preferring XP2 in Rodinal for some reason. I just figured since I got these 2 new emulsions, that I'd try them out just for the hell of it. I hardly ever shoot slower than 400 myself, so these are mostly just for educational purposes I do agree with you that I've somehow mucked up the development or used a type of developer that these films don't particularly like, but it's the only developer I have and I'm not about to buy a whole new developer just for the two remaining rolls I have I do welcome opinions on how I can better utilize HC110 with these guys, as I have one roll of each left.

D'oh....! Sorry Satish - my mind is elsewhere at the moment.  The problem with film stock, in my experience - fresh or out of date - is that how it's kept and how it's processed can provide wildly different end results.  I'm not sure why that surprises me but I'm at the point where I try to avoid out of date stock unless it's pretty recently out of date and I know for a fact it's been kept in a fridge.

I've just checked the fridge and noticed that I have a brick of FP4+ that is right on the date and, now there's more daylight and it's a bit warmer, I'm going to shoot a few rolls and develop it in Ilfosol-S (when I get some).  I've also got some just out of date EI 100 colour film that I must shoot.

[02Pilot]

Are those straight scans? If you haven't already, look at the film comparison link I posted a while back; all three of those films in HC110 are represented there, so you can see how you think your results compare to the test shots.

Thanks. I can't get FP4+/HC110 to work, for some reason. But Delta 100 vs Tri-X seems really close to me. Except for the grain size, which makes sense since Tri-X is traditional grain and Delta 100 is a T grain. But I can't see if they posted exactly what dev scheme they used? That would be helpful...

Is this what you're looking for? : http://www.merillot.fr/photo-graphie/tests-croises-films-revelateurs/revelateurs.php#hc110

[Pete_R]

I'm going to shoot a few rolls and develop it in Ilfosol-S (when I get some).

I think Noah was the last person to use Ilfosol-S. I think he used to use it for stereo photos (or something to do with seeing everything in twos). Current product is Ilfosol 3.

[Indofunk]

Are those straight scans? If you haven't already, look at the film comparison link I posted a while back; all three of those films in HC110 are represented there, so you can see how you think your results compare to the test shots.

Thanks. I can't get FP4+/HC110 to work, for some reason. But Delta 100 vs Tri-X seems really close to me. Except for the grain size, which makes sense since Tri-X is traditional grain and Delta 100 is a T grain. But I can't see if they posted exactly what dev scheme they used? That would be helpful...

Is this what you're looking for? : http://www.merillot.fr/photo-graphie/tests-croises-films-revelateurs/revelateurs.php#hc110

Perfect, thanks! Your French must be better than mine

[Late Developer]

I'm going to shoot a few rolls and develop it in Ilfosol-S (when I get some).

I think Noah was the last person to use Ilfosol-S. I think he used to use it for stereo photos (or something to do with seeing everything in twos). Current product is Ilfosol 3.

Cheers Peter.  I've got a bottle of Ilfosol 3, so I'm ready to go.......

[KevinAllan]

I'm moving towards standardising on FP4+ for everything mono except Infrared. I don't find it grainy at all. Here's a gratuitous medium format FP4+ example, developed in Rollei RHS D74 DC:

Deep in the jungles of Northumberland by Kevin Allan, on Flickr

[Francois]

Nowadays, 125 ISO isn't that grainy when compared to what it once was.
But you haven't lived until you tried some Pan-F+ on 120 film
If you do, you'll ask yourself where the grain went!

[Indofunk]

I'm moving towards standardising on FP4+ for everything mono except Infrared. I don't find it grainy at all. Here's a gratuitous medium format FP4+ example, developed in Rollei RHS D74 DC:

Hmm, maybe I'm developing it too long. I assume that's shot at ISO100? Maybe for the next (and last) roll I'll dev in HC110H for 7 or 8 minutes instead...

[KevinAllan]

Hmm, maybe I'm developing it too long. I assume that's shot at ISO100? Maybe for the next (and last) roll I'll dev in HC110H for 7 or 8 minutes instead...

Shot at ISO 125