HP5+ the winner again! Very interesting because I never tried PanF 50, and probably won't bother now. Thanks for your effort of putting this together, might actually have saved me some money, as I was curious about PanF. For great details I like to occasionally pull Delta 400 at ISO 200 (mostly architecture), but I like the look and contrast of HP5+ generally more. This video confirms it.
This is a very educational video. I learned a lot from it. I appreciate all the time and effort that went into making it. The images were very helpful too. Thank you very much. RS. Canada
Hi Steve Another wonderful video! Always great to wake up on a Sunday morning to your enjoyable and inspiring thoughts. I, for one, loved the interlude. It's 6:15AM here in Florida. Got the Hasselblad out ready to see how Delta 100 handles palm trees in the dawn. Also a half roll of Velvia left. Should be fun.
Another great vlog, So nice to see that others struggle now and again, I definitely have those days occasionally, I’ve recently come back to Hp5 after shooting for a couple years with mostly Fp4 (which still sits right at the top for me) keep them coming Steve 👌
Have to agree with your conclusion, Steve. HP5 Plus is a great all-rounder that I can load into a camera for practically any situation. Pan-F Plus is more effective when I want certain exposures where reducing the ISO is preferred over using a ND filter, such as outdoor portraits with strobes, cityscapes with full sunlight, or images with water features (rivers, fountains, etc.). I like the tonality when it's pulled to ISO 12 or 25. Wonderful video, thanks as always!
Hi Steve. Back again at what you do best. I always enjoy your b rolls whitch can be as interesting as the main topic. This has been an interesting comparison between two comparably good Ilford films. Thanks for the video.
Hi Steve, delightful interlude and rather inspiring! Great comparisons, and the detail differences in the HP5 did come through the video. Glad to see there is such little difference in grain/sharpness etc. between the two films, and as you say, a little grain is a good thing! Cheers!
Very useful video..and agree with you for HP5 for B&W landscape photography, Delta100 more for closeups of vegetation and flowers when no wind at all. Pan-F in studio work (portraits. Flowers, still objects), and as you said, outdoor and indoor for architectural work.
Hi Steve. I didn't shot film for so many years that I consider myself new in film photography. I thought about trying HP5, now I know I will. Thank you very much for a very informative and helpful video.
That's so ironic Steve, I have just posted 2 films for processing a comparison between FP4 Plus and Pan F, kinda wish I'd have seen this before doing my comparison really. Used the same SQ-Ai setup. Interesting results, I do have HP5 Plus but am leaning towards the FP4 Plus at the moment. Thanks for posting yet another great informative video on 2 1/4 square shooting.
Nice review, thanks Steve. What surprises me is how good HP5 actually is! Cant wait for the new Acros either, I only have 1 roll of the original left now...........
For a while, I myself thought about trying a slower film because of the finer grain. People who often comment on landscape photography are of the opinion that a slower film with a finer grain is best for such photography. But for me, the grain is not a problem. On the contrary - I would prefer it to be more expressive. That's why I'll stick to the iso 400. It's more universal. The only problem may be photos with a long exposure. But a good ND filter can help with that.
Yep, the old trick of pointing the body where you want to be when you click, then twisting to pan the speeding . . . errrm . . . snail from before that point, clicking at your chosen position and then following through, past the chosen point of exposure. Of course, there may be different snail species which slither at different speeds (much like the well known African and European swallow conundrum) and this would also need to be considered . . . Possibly one of those astronomical-telescope steering-systems would have the right angular speed to automate the panning. ;)
Liverpool looks quite lively. I’d been thinking about using Pan F for MF studio portraits - and this video showed me I wouldn’t be wrong to do so. Many thanks.
Nice comparison! I tried Pan F recently and didn’t get particularly pleasing results, it had white spots that were particularly evident in the dark tones. I tend to go for FP4 or TMAX 100 for slow speed. TMAX 100 in 120 size in particular is a stunning film!
It is a tricky film Michael and I have also had mixed results in the past. I generally prefer 400 speed films for landscapes and have yet to use one I don’t like.
Another wonderful video, I trip up to London if free from inspiration, and invariably return with fewer photos that I like and much less cash. I use slower films solely for pinhole (mine is 11mm in 35mm equivalent and I kept getting my fingers in the pics on shorter exposures - solved when the exposure time is 10s of seconds!), and I find the smoothness and lack of grain less satisfying. It's almost as though the larger the negative the more seasoning is required to my eyes. Whereas in 35mm escaping grain is much more difficult. Anyway, good photos and I'm glad to see movement blur on a snail photo!
I know this is an older vid, but thanks Steve - very enjoyable and interesting. To my eyes they do have quite a different look, and it is great to have choices. HP5 is a really flexible film, and it just looks so good. I seem to remember the very first film roll I shot was a HP4 120, probably in something like a Diana, would have been 1966 or 67. We also used quite a lot of FP3. The current FP4+ and HP5+ have evolved a little from those early film stocks - but not that much - just shows how they got it right so long ago. BTW, I completely agree you need some grain to get the impression of sharpness - sounds wrong but it is so true.
I’m also of the opinion that most B&W films are broadly with most of the difference down to exposure and development. The Ilford range has always offered great choice and whenever I’ve enlarged 35mm negatives from the 1960’s they’ve looked terrific.
Hey Steve, are both of those films positive films that can be removed from the developer and scanned or are either of them negative films? I bought some HP5+ for my Zeiss Nettar to give a try (Have not exposed it yet). I wondered when developed if I have to do anything special prior to scanning? For negative films, how do you convert them to positive images. When I developed BW years ago, the enlarger for making prints did that but these days without an enlarger in the process I am not sure how that conversion happens?
They are both negative Philip and the scanning process inverts them. You can also digitise them with a camera but you then need to invert them manually.
Are you taking into account the film reciprocity for the longer shutter speeds? Thought I'd ask since I didn't hear you mention it. After seeing your resaults, I may have to give some of these film stocks a try...been sticking with Delta 100 for B/W for a while.
Certainly with the bigger formats it makes less sense to use a slow film. I have found in 4x5 and 8x10 that HP5+ is perfect unless I want a lot more contrast which favours FP4+.
Great video..I myself have shot, PanF to shoot landscape. They came out very good. Also shot architecture photos like Victoria Memorial and few memorials of people made of black stone. They came out quite sharp and clear. So, I guess, if you can do a portraiture with PanF, it should be a great film.
I decided a short time back to spend a lot of time with Pan F in an “attempt” to master this film. I personally am not overly impressed with the tonality I see displayed using this emulation. Research has shown me that ISO 32 is an ideal starting point but the choice of developer is crucial. After trial and error I believe I am starting to see the tonal range I am lookin for using a dilute solution of W2D2+ pyro/metol mixed at 1-1-100 instead of the recommended 1-1-50. 11 min. @ 20c with low agitation. Not only are the shadows in check but the highlights have a beautiful soft glow.
Pretty much any B&W film can be made to perform well given the right exposure and development and all side by side comparisons are a compromise at best. The medium speed films are more forgiving in nature and can give good results without too much effort whereas slower materials need a lot more care and attention, as your tests have shown.
Steve thanks again for this interesting review. I ve trued some Pan F rolls, and really I didn't find a real advantage on med format. Another thing is that your scanner is definately a good one, but it is not a film scanner. I'm afraid wouldn't consider it as a benchmark to judge the sharpness .
Fair point about the scanner but I used it to show the typical quality a home user can expect. Both films would show an improvement with the likes of a Flextight or Coolscan.
I used to shoot HP5+ in the glory days of film. I had some very good results when I developed mine in ID-11 and I had some control over the grain with different dilutions. If I wanted a really sharp image with grain I would develop in ID-11 at a 3 to 1 ratio and then, of course, I would extend the developing time greatly. I really liked the original FP4 as well.
A great combination Cameron, I’ve often used it at 1:1 and also like the look of it developed in 510 Pyro. It’s such a versatile film that if no other options were available I could live with it for every situation.
Pan F is not necessarily a contrasty film. How it’s developed and processed is important. It’s also important to meter properly. Pan F in D76 1:1 is very smooth.
To your great video I’ll just chime in here to say: because I live in Texas (lots of sun, very bright) and sometimes shoot with older folding cameras (with slower tops shutter speeds), I rely on Pan F a lot. :) I’m never unhappy with the results I get.
Thank you for this video. I am a bit puzzled about this comparison, because you don't say anything about your treatment of the films after having made the exposures, and one could wonder why Ilford makes the effort to produce the Pan F if the difference between the two films apparently are so small.
Hi Bjoern. There are so many variables when it comes to processing B&W films that nobody could ever hope to cover them all. That said, faster films are inherently more grainy than slow materials such as Pan F. For my own uses I find 400 speed films ideal for landscape work in medium and large format where the grain is not intrusive. I also like a little bit of texture in the image as it renders most subjects sharper than a very smooth film. When it comes to 35mm film a slower material is often a lot more pleasing to the eye. Pan F would also excel for different subject matter such as portraiture. Hope that helps 🙂.
I’m liking the HP5 images more, seems more contrasty. Good to see your thought process going through each shoot too, those frustrating shoots can be a bugger sometimes !
I think HP5+ has almost perfect tonality and the grain pattern is very appealing. A fairer test would be to compare them in 35mm format where the finer trained film has a better chance of showing the virtues of smooth tones.
I used the 100 on 4x5 and 400 on roll film. Quite a grainy but also classic looking film that needs careful handling when wet if you don’t want scratches.
Steve O'Nions I’m not brave enough to develop my own film yet, I get my lab to do it. I’m using Rollei infrared at the moment. Nightmare to handle too !
so the main take here is that there's little difference in the look between the two films but pan f does have an edge over hp5 when you're trying to get motion blur from a snail
Great idea and even better results. iked the street shots too, the performer was a character (woory if the misses ever found her bra. Oh yeah, your conclusions were helpful.
Steve, I saw your replies to comments here regarding the choice B&W film, and agree with you. There is no film that is adequate for all situations. Many, many parameters are involved when making the choice on stock film to use, especially for B&W..the film that's fit it all does not exist and will never do. Unlike, color slide film for landscape photography, where the choice is limited to just a few, for me they are Velvia 50, 100, Provia 100, since Koda home 64 is gone. Ektachrome 100, now. Not saying that there isn't some other films, that's just my preferences.
i love how you caught the word street in the background of the guy preforming. do you always go for your maximum depth of field? could you have had everything in focus with the big leaves and snail at f8 and 2seconds, with the 50iso? you were probably just wanting keeping your comparison consistent, i understand, but im not sure ive ever heard the words f5.6 in your videos.
Hi Chris. I really did need a small aperture to get the leaves in focus due to how close I was working to the subject. Had I backed up slightly I would have been able to open up slightly and get a faster shutter speed but even the HP5+ exposure was just quick enough to freeze any motion. I will often use f/11 or f/8 for long shots with little foreground interest and the lens performance here is uniformly superb. I admit that I rarely use open apertures in the landscape and perhaps I am missing opportunities by doing this. Thanks for posting.
It was pretty close Marvin and I think the scanner has made quite an impact on the final results. I’ll probably redo the comparison but with 35mm film where Pan F really shines and possibly make the enlargements in the darkroom too.
I've tried Pan F a couple of times this year but each time it has come out with white speckles all over the negs (well, dark speckles on the negs, white speckles in the scans). I tried altering my process but it made no difference. I'm sticking to Delta 100 for the foreseeable future.
Your PanF is expired. You probably can't read the "Ilford Pan F Plus markings etc" along the borders of the developed film neither. With Pan F specifically, you really need to use fresh stock and develop as soon as possible after exposure.
@@SteveONions No, just Pan F. I normally shoot either FP4 or Delta 100, developing with all Ilfotec chemicals (DD-X, Ilfostop, Rapid Fixer and Ilfotol) and using the manufacturer's guidelines. I've found other examples online of people having the same problem with Pan F but no definitive causes/solutions. One suggestion was that it could be caused by over-fixing, which could've made sense with my first roll, but I eliminated that the second time by using fresh fixer and exact timings. Perhaps in future I might try again with a different developer.
Morning Steve. I am pretty much like minded on film choice. HP5 pretty much lives in the FE2. I like to carry it out and about, without the tripod. HP5 and FP4 carried in MF and LF. I do try other films from time to time though. Having just finished a year with D400 in 35mm, I have gone back to HP5. Nice film, but I prefer HP5. The Interlude to Liverpool was 'Boss' IMHO one of the best city's in the world. Something for everyone :) Cheers Diz
Well, I didn't use Pan F for the moment but I can tell you actually I put the first roll in my Canon A-1 :) So I was curious about your conclusions. Indeed I agree with them comparing your pictures, but please allow me to place one suggestion. Maybe Pan F needs a bit over exposure to develop more sharpness. Just an estimation, don't know whether or not that's true. It just look like that for me if I'm thinking about the Agfa APX 400. This film needs a touch more light get nice pictures with good contrast. It would have been interesting make a comparison with different exposure settings. Nevertheless a nice comparison though. Thank you!
Mornin' Steve. Another very interesting video - many thanks. Please can I ask, what developer do you normally use for the mono films? And do you usually stick with box speed? I tend to drop the ASA by a stop for all my mono films - mainly FP4 and HP5.
Hi Ray. I typically use ID11 or HC110 and prefer to base exposures around box speed. I always add an extra frame at +1 or even +2 to ensure a choice later but if the first frame has sufficient shadow detail I’ll use that one. This works best for scanning where a thin negative is easier to work with unlike the darkroom when I want more shadow detail.
@@SteveONions Thanks for that Steve. I tend to develop in Ilfotech HC or my own 2-bath, and I concentrate on shadow detail. I'll try a thinner neg for scanning.
Hey Steve ... I thought to start with your advice on chemistry ... It's time for me to reload with film and chemistry ( I lost my darkroom in the 2018 Northern California fires BTW) I want to try Ilford HP5+ and FP4+ ... what is your recommendation for developer. My developing experience is only with Kodax products. I just need general purpose, not good enough to get specific nuances from developer formulas etc. Is ILFOSOL3 a good pick?
You’ll be absolutely fine with Ilfosol 3 or any other general developer, I typically use HC-110 because it is highly concentrated and lasts a long time.
Hello Steve, My I ask how do you expose that spot reading for the shadow in the picture of the branch? Directly in zone 3 maybe? So - 2 stops? Thank you for all the effort you put into this videos.
It was a Zone 3 Christian, I always meter an area with significant shadow and place this at -2 stops. As a safety measure I take another frame with an additional stop of exposure just in case my metering was wrong and also to cover me if the film is damaged later.
Hi Steve! It is strange to see you in a city... I guess it is not the place you like to be, you're not Daido Moriyama... It's a great video, I think Ilford PAN F 50 is more interesting in 35 mm, for to have a really fine grain, and make beautiful prints with a small format. Greetings! Keep going, I really enjoy your vidéos (and your photographs).
Well, in my experience slower doesnt mean better, bnw films usually have the best performance around asa 100-200, lower speed films like the pan f is essentially over exposing and under developing, if you want truely smooth looks try delta100.
I think maybe 35mm is where Pan F would shine. The smoother skies in landscape would have a bigger effect. Plus 35mm faster lenses, more d of f at a given f No. that would help with the speed.
I usually shoot HP5 on 35mm & delta 100 on medium format. Not shot much pan f? mainly shoot 35mm handheld & mf on tripod, wondering which film to choose when I start large format?
I also like to work handheld with 35mm David. For large format I can whole heartedly recommend HP5+, it will give you more manageable shutter speeds when using tiny apertures.
Hi Johan. I will use coloured filters but sparingly. I like to use yellow with blue skies and sometime orange or red too but they also have an impact on shadows. The green is interesting but very close to the look of yellow and it is more dense so slower shutter speeds.
5:27 i cant remember the movie but that reminds me of a WW movie where they had to hold a bridge at a place like that... and an old lady lived there couldn't stand the noise of the war lol
Most interesting. As to your scanning process, are you using a camera or a scanner to record images off the film ? I'm thinking about returning to B&W processing of film which I did many years ago
Hi James. I am currently using film scanners but also experimenting with my Panasonic G9. The later is definitely sharper but I’m still trying to decide if I like the look and workflow better than the scanning approach.
@@SteveONions I shoot 35mm. It seems to me that it may be difficult to eliminate parallax problems using the camera as scanning tool. At one time I bought a Pentax 6 x 7. It was too big to carry it around. So I sent it back. My compliments to you for using large format. Enjoy your discussions...tally-ho. You know that you are a true film nut when you admit that the developing chemicals are a joy to sniff.
Good video Steve and nice to see the two films side by side. I've noticed the V700 scanner seems to lower the contrast in some films. When I scan PanF with the Minolta it seems much better but it can also make some films appear too harsh. I suspect it's the light source in the two scanners. Have you had any experience of this?
Thanks Robin. I find the v700 to be very good with HP5+ unlike some dedicated scanners such as my old Coolscan V. Pan F isn’t too bad unless you have dense areas such as bright skies and they can be more difficult than the faster film. I’ve found the Minolta to be pretty good but then again I have the earlier non LED version.
I’ve tried the 100 and 400 Jonny, I quite like the old fashioned look they have but the surface is very delicate when wet. The 4x5 is excellent value too compared to Ilford.
@@SteveONions Thanks for answer. I do have one more question (this one is more on the topic of this vlog). Have you experimented with contrast control of your negatives with push&pull? I believe the contrast control is the main intention of Ansel's zone system. By putting the shadows into the zone, which won't get affected by p&p and putting the highlights to the zone which will get affected by p/p the most (and calculating the desired effect), you should able to use the whole latitude of the film no matter the dynamic range of the scene. This would be most useful with b&w large format photography, like this exact vlog. Do you think you'd experiment with that? I'd be really curious about the results.
I do on occasion manipulate films by changing exposure and development times but do not follow a strict Zone system approach. It is only really possible with sheet film unless you have multiple backs for your medium format camera and dedicate each to a specific contrast level. I was discussing the zone system with an Ilford master printer some years ago and he stated that multi grade papers had largely made it redundant - his prints were superb and he always developed his films to the same time and temperature. I will push film in dull weather and add development time and similarly (occasionally) pull a film and reduce development but if you are working with a digital scan it isn’t that important. If you are making darkroom prints it is a lot more important to tame the contrast at the time of capture.
Interesting how the Pan F didn't present much advantage, Steve. I expected it to be snappier. Plus slowness of it. I'm going to stick to FP4 and HP5 in the foreseeable future. I also wanted your opinion on FP4 with Rodinal. I am having difficulty to control highlights. Would you advise to just reject this marriage and use ID 11?
I also expected a bigger difference but the scanning could be partly responsible for this. A darkroom print would be a better test. Regarding FP4+ I can definitely recommend ID11 which seems like it was made for this film (and HP5+).
@@SteveONions It's just came to me, Steve, - I usually scan my 35 mm with Nikon d 800 E with the devise called Nikon ES-1(or 2 variety) Slide Copying Adapter. And with that I really saw difference between those Ifords, I think ;)
I am currently experimenting with digital camera scanning too and there is a considerable difference in sharpness. I need to do more before deciding which way to go.
@@SteveONions Good! Many people say that this method is comparable with drum scanning. Nikon d850 already has some features in the menu for this, such as converting negatives into positives right in the camera.
HP5+ the winner again! Very interesting because I never tried PanF 50, and probably won't bother now. Thanks for your effort of putting this together, might actually have saved me some money, as I was curious about PanF. For great details I like to occasionally pull Delta 400 at ISO 200 (mostly architecture), but I like the look and contrast of HP5+ generally more. This video confirms it.
I think a test in 35mm is called for 👍
Sunday morning, a good cup of tea and a new relaxing video by Steve~ .. Life's good sometimes. (°-°,)
This is a very educational video. I learned a lot from it. I appreciate all the time and effort that went into making it. The images were very helpful too. Thank you very much. RS. Canada
Thanks Richard 👍
Hadn't expected that minimal a difference. Good one. Thank you Steve.
I think it would be more marked in a darkroom print at 16x20” Koen and also if I shot 35mm.
Cheers from Seattle! Another Sunday morning with a cup of joe, and Steve!
Thanks Adam 😀
Awesome comparison. I agree with you on not needing too clean images. A bit if grain adds character
Thank you Steve, really appreciate your videos. Looking foward for the next ones!
Thanks Ricardo.
Hi Steve
Another wonderful video! Always great to wake up on a Sunday morning to your enjoyable and inspiring thoughts. I, for one, loved the interlude. It's 6:15AM here in Florida. Got the Hasselblad out ready to see how Delta 100 handles palm trees in the dawn. Also a half roll of Velvia left. Should be fun.
Thanks Jeff and enjoy shooting the Delta and Velvia in the Blad 🙂
Another great vlog, So nice to see that others struggle now and again, I definitely have those days occasionally, I’ve recently come back to Hp5 after shooting for a couple years with mostly Fp4 (which still sits right at the top for me) keep them coming Steve 👌
You can’t go wrong with either film Adrian, I’ve used all sorts over the years but cannot find fault with the look of either FP4+ or HP5+.
Have to agree with your conclusion, Steve. HP5 Plus is a great all-rounder that I can load into a camera for practically any situation. Pan-F Plus is more effective when I want certain exposures where reducing the ISO is preferred over using a ND filter, such as outdoor portraits with strobes, cityscapes with full sunlight, or images with water features (rivers, fountains, etc.). I like the tonality when it's pulled to ISO 12 or 25. Wonderful video, thanks as always!
Thanks Michael. I’d also rather use a slow film than apply ND filters and it is also a good film in dull conditions to boost the contrast.
Hi Steve. Back again at what you do best. I always enjoy your b rolls whitch can be as interesting as the main topic. This has been an interesting comparison between two comparably good Ilford films. Thanks for the video.
Thanks Philip, it surprised me how close they were.
Hi Steve, delightful interlude and rather inspiring! Great comparisons, and the detail differences in the HP5 did come through the video. Glad to see there is such little difference in grain/sharpness etc. between the two films, and as you say, a little grain is a good thing! Cheers!
It was a little surprising but then again the scanner has a lot of influence on the results and I think an optical enlargement is in order next time.
STEVE, are you reading my mind? Fantastic comparison, Fantastic presentation ! Congrats! That is You Always!
Thank you Kristijan 👍
This video scared me Steve.....not used to seeing outside of the wilderness and in an urban environment! 😂
Very useful video..and agree with you for HP5 for B&W landscape photography, Delta100 more for closeups of vegetation and flowers when no wind at all. Pan-F in studio work (portraits. Flowers, still objects), and as you said, outdoor and indoor for architectural work.
Hi Steve.
I didn't shot film for so many years that I consider myself new in film photography. I thought about trying HP5, now I know I will.
Thank you very much for a very informative and helpful video.
Thank you Victor 👍
EXCELLENT presentation.
Thanks Steve! Really enjoyed it, very clear and informative
Thanks Simeon.
That's so ironic Steve, I have just posted 2 films for processing a comparison between FP4 Plus and Pan F, kinda wish I'd have seen this before doing my comparison really. Used the same SQ-Ai setup. Interesting results, I do have HP5 Plus but am leaning towards the FP4 Plus at the moment. Thanks for posting yet another great informative video on 2 1/4 square shooting.
FP4+ has lovely tonality and a bit more contrast than HP5+ but I really miss the extra two stops of speed on windy days.
Nice review, thanks Steve. What surprises me is how good HP5 actually is! Cant wait for the new Acros either, I only have 1 roll of the original left now...........
It is remarkably good for a film that has a reputation for being grainy, I think the smaller formats will show a greater benefit with Pan F.
Very interesting and informative vlog, Steve. Really enjoyed the Liverpool intermission.
Glad you liked it Terry.
For a while, I myself thought about trying a slower film because of the finer grain. People who often comment on landscape photography are of the opinion that a slower film with a finer grain is best for such photography. But for me, the grain is not a problem. On the contrary - I would prefer it to be more expressive. That's why I'll stick to the iso 400. It's more universal. The only problem may be photos with a long exposure. But a good ND filter can help with that.
You might want to try panning next time to get a sharper image of the snail.
Nice one, sharp snail and blurred foliage 👍
@@SteveONions Thanks for another excellent video.
Yep, the old trick of pointing the body where you want to be when you click, then twisting to pan the speeding . . . errrm . . . snail from before that point, clicking at your chosen position and then following through, past the chosen point of exposure. Of course, there may be different snail species which slither at different speeds (much like the well known African and European swallow conundrum) and this would also need to be considered . . . Possibly one of those astronomical-telescope steering-systems would have the right angular speed to automate the panning. ;)
Liverpool looks quite lively. I’d been thinking about using Pan F for MF studio portraits - and this video showed me I wouldn’t be wrong to do so. Many thanks.
Thanks Bernard, it would be a great film for portraits.
Nice comparison! I tried Pan F recently and didn’t get particularly pleasing results, it had white spots that were particularly evident in the dark tones. I tend to go for FP4 or TMAX 100 for slow speed. TMAX 100 in 120 size in particular is a stunning film!
It is a tricky film Michael and I have also had mixed results in the past. I generally prefer 400 speed films for landscapes and have yet to use one I don’t like.
Another wonderful video, I trip up to London if free from inspiration, and invariably return with fewer photos that I like and much less cash. I use slower films solely for pinhole (mine is 11mm in 35mm equivalent and I kept getting my fingers in the pics on shorter exposures - solved when the exposure time is 10s of seconds!), and I find the smoothness and lack of grain less satisfying. It's almost as though the larger the negative the more seasoning is required to my eyes. Whereas in 35mm escaping grain is much more difficult. Anyway, good photos and I'm glad to see movement blur on a snail photo!
Thanks Charles, pinhole if great fun and I agree that the smaller negatives do not suffer due to a little grain.
I got a lot to learn. Thank you again Steve
😀
I know this is an older vid, but thanks Steve - very enjoyable and interesting. To my eyes they do have quite a different look, and it is great to have choices. HP5 is a really flexible film, and it just looks so good. I seem to remember the very first film roll I shot was a HP4 120, probably in something like a Diana, would have been 1966 or 67. We also used quite a lot of FP3. The current FP4+ and HP5+ have evolved a little from those early film stocks - but not that much - just shows how they got it right so long ago. BTW, I completely agree you need some grain to get the impression of sharpness - sounds wrong but it is so true.
I’m also of the opinion that most B&W films are broadly with most of the difference down to exposure and development. The Ilford range has always offered great choice and whenever I’ve enlarged 35mm negatives from the 1960’s they’ve looked terrific.
Great blog! Slow film is probably will be good for waterfalls and smooth sea water
Very true 👍
@Steve thanks for your videos always interesting . What canale is that?
Jumped directly to 9:35 time stop of your video which is the most valuable part for viewers.
For you maybe Martin, others might like to have some context behind the test.
Hey Steve, are both of those films positive films that can be removed from the developer and scanned or are either of them negative films? I bought some HP5+ for my Zeiss Nettar to give a try (Have not exposed it yet). I wondered when developed if I have to do anything special prior to scanning? For negative films, how do you convert them to positive images. When I developed BW years ago, the enlarger for making prints did that but these days without an enlarger in the process I am not sure how that conversion happens?
They are both negative Philip and the scanning process inverts them. You can also digitise them with a camera but you then need to invert them manually.
Are you taking into account the film reciprocity for the longer shutter speeds? Thought I'd ask since I didn't hear you mention it. After seeing your resaults, I may have to give some of these film stocks a try...been sticking with Delta 100 for B/W for a while.
I do indeed allow for reciprocity with the Ilford films, the longer exposures were almost twice the metered reading.
Very informative film trial, had considered Pan F a while back in 5x4 but this
shows it would be a bit less flexible. Thanks 👍
Certainly with the bigger formats it makes less sense to use a slow film. I have found in 4x5 and 8x10 that HP5+ is perfect unless I want a lot more contrast which favours FP4+.
Pan F is not available in 4x5.
I'll be interested in using Rollei RPK 25 in 4x5!
S Baines Pan F is not available as large format sheet film.
Hello Steve, another great instructional video. Question, B&W film, ISO 400, do you over expose 1 stop, specially ISO 400 @ ISO 200 ? Thanks KB.
Typically yes Ken, I’ll always make at least one overexposed shot.
Great video..I myself have shot, PanF to shoot landscape. They came out very good. Also shot architecture photos like Victoria Memorial and few memorials of people made of black stone. They came out quite sharp and clear. So, I guess, if you can do a portraiture with PanF, it should be a great film.
It is a very good film Shamik but not good enough (in 120) to move me from HP5+, partly due to the issue of shutter speeds 😕
I decided a short time back to spend a lot of time with Pan F in an “attempt” to master this film. I personally am not overly impressed with the tonality I see displayed using this emulation. Research has shown me that ISO 32 is an ideal starting point but the choice of developer is crucial. After trial and error I believe I am starting to see the tonal range I am lookin for using a dilute solution of W2D2+ pyro/metol mixed at 1-1-100 instead of the recommended 1-1-50. 11 min. @ 20c with low agitation. Not only are the shadows in check but the highlights have a beautiful soft glow.
Pretty much any B&W film can be made to perform well given the right exposure and development and all side by side comparisons are a compromise at best. The medium speed films are more forgiving in nature and can give good results without too much effort whereas slower materials need a lot more care and attention, as your tests have shown.
Thanks a lot. very nice informative video.
You’re welcome Gürhan.
Steve thanks again for this interesting review. I ve trued some Pan F rolls, and really I didn't find a real advantage on med format. Another thing is that your scanner is definately a good one, but it is not a film scanner. I'm afraid wouldn't consider it as a benchmark to judge the sharpness .
Fair point about the scanner but I used it to show the typical quality a home user can expect. Both films would show an improvement with the likes of a Flextight or Coolscan.
I used to shoot HP5+ in the glory days of film. I had some very good results when I developed mine in ID-11 and I had some control over the grain with different dilutions. If I wanted a really sharp image with grain I would develop in ID-11 at a 3 to 1 ratio and then, of course, I would extend the developing time greatly. I really liked the original FP4 as well.
A great combination Cameron, I’ve often used it at 1:1 and also like the look of it developed in 510 Pyro. It’s such a versatile film that if no other options were available I could live with it for every situation.
Always liked the contrast on yhe slower ilford stuff
Pan F is not necessarily a contrasty film. How it’s developed and processed is important. It’s also important to meter properly. Pan F in D76 1:1 is very smooth.
It is certainly flexible Charles and can be adjusted quite a lot in development but it is still inherently more contrasty than either FP4+ or HP5+.
To your great video I’ll just chime in here to say: because I live in Texas (lots of sun, very bright) and sometimes shoot with older folding cameras (with slower tops shutter speeds), I rely on Pan F a lot. :) I’m never unhappy with the results I get.
Thanks Laura. It’s rare that we get enough light to use slow speed films, 400 is typically needed in the UK.
Thank you for this video. I am a bit puzzled about this comparison, because you don't say anything about your treatment of the films after having made the exposures, and one could wonder why Ilford makes the effort to produce the Pan F if the difference between the two films apparently are so small.
Hi Bjoern. There are so many variables when it comes to processing B&W films that nobody could ever hope to cover them all. That said, faster films are inherently more grainy than slow materials such as Pan F. For my own uses I find 400 speed films ideal for landscape work in medium and large format where the grain is not intrusive. I also like a little bit of texture in the image as it renders most subjects sharper than a very smooth film. When it comes to 35mm film a slower material is often a lot more pleasing to the eye. Pan F would also excel for different subject matter such as portraiture.
Hope that helps 🙂.
I’m liking the HP5 images more, seems more contrasty. Good to see your thought process going through each shoot too, those frustrating shoots can be a bugger sometimes !
I think HP5+ has almost perfect tonality and the grain pattern is very appealing. A fairer test would be to compare them in 35mm format where the finer trained film has a better chance of showing the virtues of smooth tones.
Steve O'Nions Yes I agree, would be an interesting test in 35mm. Have you shot with Fomapan before ?
I used the 100 on 4x5 and 400 on roll film. Quite a grainy but also classic looking film that needs careful handling when wet if you don’t want scratches.
Steve O'Nions I’m not brave enough to develop my own film yet, I get my lab to do it. I’m using Rollei infrared at the moment. Nightmare to handle too !
I love Rollei infrared, shot some in 120 on Saturday but I admit the 4x5 is like handling rice paper.
so the main take here is that there's little difference in the look between the two films but pan f does have an edge over hp5 when you're trying to get motion blur from a snail
Agree, in your image I prefer a little grain in the sky of the HP5. Strangely gives appearance of more rather than less detail.
It does indeed David, the eye needs something to latch onto.
Great idea and even better results. iked the street shots too, the performer was a character (woory if the misses ever found her bra. Oh yeah, your conclusions were helpful.
Cheers Michael 😀
Steve, I saw your replies to comments here regarding the choice B&W film, and agree with you. There is no film that is adequate for all situations. Many, many parameters are involved when making the choice on stock film to use, especially for B&W..the film that's fit it all does not exist and will never do. Unlike, color slide film for landscape photography, where the choice is limited to just a few, for me they are Velvia 50, 100, Provia 100, since Koda home 64 is gone. Ektachrome 100, now. Not saying that there isn't some other films, that's just my preferences.
Thanks Roi.
Very interesting indeed. I thought I would have preferred the Pan F, but no I preferred the HP5.
Me too 🙂
good vlog as useful very nice views around cannel
Thanks Graham.
Would like to hear and see your experience on the difference between Black and White versus color. I more and more like the black and white image.
I generally prefer B&W Ruud but often for early and late in the day images I feel the need for colour.
i love how you caught the word street in the background of the guy preforming. do you always go for your maximum depth of field? could you have had everything in focus with the big leaves and snail at f8 and 2seconds, with the 50iso? you were probably just wanting keeping your comparison consistent, i understand, but im not sure ive ever heard the words f5.6 in your videos.
Hi Chris. I really did need a small aperture to get the leaves in focus due to how close I was working to the subject. Had I backed up slightly I would have been able to open up slightly and get a faster shutter speed but even the HP5+ exposure was just quick enough to freeze any motion.
I will often use f/11 or f/8 for long shots with little foreground interest and the lens performance here is uniformly superb. I admit that I rarely use open apertures in the landscape and perhaps I am missing opportunities by doing this. Thanks for posting.
I saw more microcontrast on HP5 than on PanF, but more overall contrast (mostly visible in the second image) with PanF compared to HP5. Interesting!
It was pretty close Marvin and I think the scanner has made quite an impact on the final results. I’ll probably redo the comparison but with 35mm film where Pan F really shines and possibly make the enlargements in the darkroom too.
I've tried Pan F a couple of times this year but each time it has come out with white speckles all over the negs (well, dark speckles on the negs, white speckles in the scans). I tried altering my process but it made no difference. I'm sticking to Delta 100 for the foreseeable future.
Your PanF is expired. You probably can't read the "Ilford Pan F Plus markings etc" along the borders of the developed film neither. With Pan F specifically, you really need to use fresh stock and develop as soon as possible after exposure.
@@node547 Thanks for the reply, but in both cases is was brand-new fresh stock. It was also developed within 24 hours of exposure.
That is strange, I know Pan F likes to be developed quickly but you have clearly done this. Has it ever affected any other films?
@@SteveONions No, just Pan F. I normally shoot either FP4 or Delta 100, developing with all Ilfotec chemicals (DD-X, Ilfostop, Rapid Fixer and Ilfotol) and using the manufacturer's guidelines. I've found other examples online of people having the same problem with Pan F but no definitive causes/solutions. One suggestion was that it could be caused by over-fixing, which could've made sense with my first roll, but I eliminated that the second time by using fresh fixer and exact timings. Perhaps in future I might try again with a different developer.
I have heard that the emulsion of Pan F is very delicate and easy to damage so maybe a different developer or tank would be worth a try.
Morning Steve. I am pretty much like minded on film choice. HP5 pretty much lives in the FE2. I like to carry it out and about, without the tripod. HP5 and FP4 carried in MF and LF. I do try other films from time to time though. Having just finished a year with D400 in 35mm, I have gone back to HP5. Nice film, but I prefer HP5. The Interlude to Liverpool was 'Boss' IMHO one of the best city's in the world. Something for everyone :)
Cheers
Diz
Thanks Diz. I like slower films in 35mm at times and will do another test at some point.
Very helpful thanks
Well, I didn't use Pan F for the moment but I can tell you actually I put the first roll in my Canon A-1 :) So I was curious about your conclusions. Indeed I agree with them comparing your pictures, but please allow me to place one suggestion. Maybe Pan F needs a bit over exposure to develop more sharpness. Just an estimation, don't know whether or not that's true. It just look like that for me if I'm thinking about the Agfa APX 400. This film needs a touch more light get nice pictures with good contrast. It would have been interesting make a comparison with different exposure settings. Nevertheless a nice comparison though. Thank you!
Mornin' Steve. Another very interesting video - many thanks. Please can I ask, what developer do you normally use for the mono films? And do you usually stick with box speed? I tend to drop the ASA by a stop for all my mono films - mainly FP4 and HP5.
Hi Ray. I typically use ID11 or HC110 and prefer to base exposures around box speed. I always add an extra frame at +1 or even +2 to ensure a choice later but if the first frame has sufficient shadow detail I’ll use that one. This works best for scanning where a thin negative is easier to work with unlike the darkroom when I want more shadow detail.
@@SteveONions Thanks for that Steve. I tend to develop in Ilfotech HC or my own 2-bath, and I concentrate on shadow detail. I'll try a thinner neg for scanning.
Have you tried the Bergger Pancro 400 120 film? Bergger created quite a buzz several years ago with their sheet film. Now I see they have a 120.
I’ve never tried it Jeff, it has interested me though so I may buy a few rolls.
Hey Steve ... I thought to start with your advice on chemistry ... It's time for me to reload with film and chemistry ( I lost my darkroom in the 2018 Northern California fires BTW) I want to try Ilford HP5+ and FP4+ ... what is your recommendation for developer. My developing experience is only with Kodax products. I just need general purpose, not good enough to get specific nuances from developer formulas etc. Is ILFOSOL3 a good pick?
You’ll be absolutely fine with Ilfosol 3 or any other general developer, I typically use HC-110 because it is highly concentrated and lasts a long time.
Hello Steve,
My I ask how do you expose that spot reading for the shadow in the picture of the branch? Directly in zone 3 maybe? So - 2 stops?
Thank you for all the effort you put into this videos.
It was a Zone 3 Christian, I always meter an area with significant shadow and place this at -2 stops. As a safety measure I take another frame with an additional stop of exposure just in case my metering was wrong and also to cover me if the film is damaged later.
@@SteveONions great!
Thank you again and keep up your excellent work
Hi Steve! It is strange to see you in a city... I guess it is not the place you like to be, you're not Daido Moriyama... It's a great video, I think Ilford PAN F 50 is more interesting in 35 mm, for to have a really fine grain, and make beautiful prints with a small format.
Greetings! Keep going, I really enjoy your vidéos (and your photographs).
Totally agree Olivier, in 35mm Pan F is wonderful and I should redo the comparison with my Nikon system. Thanks for commenting.
Well, in my experience slower doesnt mean better, bnw films usually have the best performance around asa 100-200, lower speed films like the pan f is essentially over exposing and under developing, if you want truely smooth looks try delta100.
Delta is a very good option Marvin, I use it a fair bit in 35mm, sharper than Pan F too in my eyes.
I think maybe 35mm is where Pan F would shine. The smoother skies in landscape would have a bigger effect. Plus 35mm faster lenses, more d of f at a given f No. that would help with the speed.
I agree, a rerun in 35mm is on the cards 👍
I preferred the PanF images, which is a bit upsetting as I have just got into film and purchased the HP5! Oh well, I know what to try next!
Most films will work well if used properly Kerry and processing has a lot to do with the final look too.
I usually shoot HP5 on 35mm & delta 100 on medium format. Not shot much pan f? mainly shoot 35mm handheld & mf on tripod, wondering which film to choose when I start large format?
I also like to work handheld with 35mm David. For large format I can whole heartedly recommend HP5+, it will give you more manageable shutter speeds when using tiny apertures.
Thanks for another inspiring video!
Maybe a little of topic, but what´s your opinion on using color filters when shooting b/w?
Cheers from Sweden
Hi Johan. I will use coloured filters but sparingly. I like to use yellow with blue skies and sometime orange or red too but they also have an impact on shadows. The green is interesting but very close to the look of yellow and it is more dense so slower shutter speeds.
@@SteveONions Thanks for sharing your thoughts on filters! I've have to practise more, learn about when and when not to use color filters.
/Johan
HP5 all the way. I love it to bits...
We got to see Steves alter ego.
😀
5:27 i cant remember the movie but that reminds me of a WW movie where they had to hold a bridge at a place like that... and an old lady lived there couldn't stand the noise of the war lol
That’ll be ‘A Bridge too Far’ 😀
Most interesting. As to your scanning process, are you using a camera or a scanner to record images off the film ? I'm thinking about returning to B&W processing of film which I did many years ago
Hi James. I am currently using film scanners but also experimenting with my Panasonic G9. The later is definitely sharper but I’m still trying to decide if I like the look and workflow better than the scanning approach.
@@SteveONions I shoot 35mm. It seems to me that it may be difficult to eliminate parallax problems using the camera as scanning tool. At one time I bought a Pentax 6 x 7. It was too big to carry it around. So I sent it back. My compliments to you for using large format. Enjoy your discussions...tally-ho. You know that you are a true film nut when you admit that the developing chemicals are a joy to sniff.
Thanks James, I also find medium format a bit much to lug around for long walks.
Good video Steve and nice to see the two films side by side. I've noticed the V700 scanner seems to lower the contrast in some films. When I scan PanF with the Minolta it seems much better but it can also make some films appear too harsh. I suspect it's the light source in the two scanners. Have you had any experience of this?
Thanks Robin. I find the v700 to be very good with HP5+ unlike some dedicated scanners such as my old Coolscan V. Pan F isn’t too bad unless you have dense areas such as bright skies and they can be more difficult than the faster film. I’ve found the Minolta to be pretty good but then again I have the earlier non LED version.
@@SteveONions Thanks Steve. It wasn't just me imagining the difference then.
Steve, what are your thoughts on Fomapan 100/200/400 films?
I’ve tried the 100 and 400 Jonny, I quite like the old fashioned look they have but the surface is very delicate when wet. The 4x5 is excellent value too compared to Ilford.
@@SteveONions Thanks for answer. I do have one more question (this one is more on the topic of this vlog). Have you experimented with contrast control of your negatives with push&pull? I believe the contrast control is the main intention of Ansel's zone system. By putting the shadows into the zone, which won't get affected by p&p and putting the highlights to the zone which will get affected by p/p the most (and calculating the desired effect), you should able to use the whole latitude of the film no matter the dynamic range of the scene. This would be most useful with b&w large format photography, like this exact vlog. Do you think you'd experiment with that? I'd be really curious about the results.
I do on occasion manipulate films by changing exposure and development times but do not follow a strict Zone system approach. It is only really possible with sheet film unless you have multiple backs for your medium format camera and dedicate each to a specific contrast level.
I was discussing the zone system with an Ilford master printer some years ago and he stated that multi grade papers had largely made it redundant - his prints were superb and he always developed his films to the same time and temperature.
I will push film in dull weather and add development time and similarly (occasionally) pull a film and reduce development but if you are working with a digital scan it isn’t that important. If you are making darkroom prints it is a lot more important to tame the contrast at the time of capture.
digging your content ... and you use a Bronica SQ 6x6 so gotta subscribe just for that :D
try to push the HP5 to 800 or even 1600 .... gives a really dramatic Contrast with a very nice balanced Grain
Hey, do you publish the files for these?
Not at the moment David, I will in the future when I have developed my website further.
Fab vlog.
Thanks Paul.
where abouts is this Steve?
The canal is near Tiverton (Tarporley) Joshua.
Interesting how the Pan F didn't present much advantage, Steve. I expected it to be snappier. Plus slowness of it. I'm going to stick to FP4 and HP5 in the foreseeable future. I also wanted your opinion on FP4 with Rodinal. I am having difficulty to control highlights. Would you advise to just reject this marriage and use ID 11?
I also expected a bigger difference but the scanning could be partly responsible for this. A darkroom print would be a better test.
Regarding FP4+ I can definitely recommend ID11 which seems like it was made for this film (and HP5+).
@@SteveONions It's just came to me, Steve, - I usually scan my 35 mm with Nikon d 800 E with the devise called Nikon ES-1(or 2 variety) Slide Copying Adapter. And with that I really saw difference between those Ifords, I think ;)
I am currently experimenting with digital camera scanning too and there is a considerable difference in sharpness. I need to do more before deciding which way to go.
@@SteveONions Good! Many people say that this method is comparable with drum scanning. Nikon d850 already has some features in the menu for this, such as converting negatives into positives right in the camera.
The results may well match a drum scan and I have also done a little experimentation with exposure blending on velvia slides.
Might you not get more evaluation with proper film prints?
I would Terry. Now I have my darkroom fully functional I can do better comparisons 👍
12:04 i to me there is a lot mire sharpness and clarity in the panf
The video starts at 9:40
superbe
Thanks Kamel.
@@SteveONions you're welcome sir
Get on with it Steve
😀
Motion blur can show speed
Mr. Snail is fast
😀