New favorite film? HP5 vs Delta 3200 ~ Ilford ~ Bronica SQ-Ai
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- Today, a little experiment. I shoot my favorite film ever, Ilford HP5+, and compare against a film stock I had only shot once but liked a lot: the grainy Delta 3200.
Which one is better?!
Download the original TIFF files:
Ilford HP5+ (550MB): drive.google.c...
Ilford Delta 3200 (550MB): drive.google.c...
---
Get my new eBooks for free:
Examples of the PNW: aows.co/public...
Lightroom CC Workflow: aows.co/public...
---
Website: aows.co
Blog: aows.co/blog
---
Instagram: / aows
Instagram 2: / aows.jpg
Twitter: / aows
Facebook: / aowsphotos
-----
GEAR I USE
-----
Film Photography
Bronica MF Camera - ebay.to/2hbnHYo
50mm f/3.5 - ebay.to/2he6QRi
150mm f/4 - ebay.to/2x99l1i
250mm f/5.6 - ebay.to/2wqkrPP
Shutter Release Cable - amzn.to/2u4x7eb
Holga MF "Toy" Camera - amzn.to/2wC8Xni
Scanner - amzn.to/2wqqyU3
Digital Photography
Sony a6500 - amzn.to/2hdiQm1
16-70mm - amzn.to/2KLKxj0
70-200mm - amzn.to/2ke4X8O
Accesories
Tripod - amzn.to/2IAKlWV
Lee Filters Holder - amzn.to/2heE3vF
6-stop ND filter - amzn.to/2y0JBjV
10-stop ND filter - amzn.to/2f4C64c
15-stop ND filter - amzn.to/2xhtMZ9
ND Grad filters - amzn.to/2x3nAWy
Videos, a combination of:
Sony a6000 - amzn.to/2IFL3hV
16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 - amzn.to/2xa5pxe
21mm f/1.4 - amzn.to/2feWJOW
35mm f/1.7 - amzn.to/2u3oKjd
Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 - ebay.to/2G9oUuc
Minolta to Sony adaptor - amzn.to/2FX35L8
55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 - amzn.to/2wCturZ
Memory card for 4k - amzn.to/2hejBLt
Cage - amzn.to/2fwvcWh
Microphone - amzn.to/2xhjSq4
Tripod - amzn.to/2xhv4mV
Mavic Pro - amzn.to/2xt2rDD
RX100ii - amzn.to/2y9Xltd
Misc
Backpack - amzn.to/2jET5zf
---
Vlogging about photography (mostly landscape) and all kind of camera gear, digital and analog.
I have some time for experimentation before my next trip, so I decided to compare my favorite film stock ever, Ilford HP5+, against another film I liked a lot the only time I shot it: Ilford Delta 3200. Do I have a new favorite?! I'd also know about your favorite film stock, and why. I might be comparing more films in the future, this was fun.
me sigue gustando el hp5+.
Pero como es eso que los disparas a mismo parámetro,no se supone que al ser el doble de sensible,tienes que disparar a la doble de velocidad?
sobreexpones la película?
lo siento me he perdido un poco
Me lo podrías esquematizar,a veces,más bien a menudo me vuelvo obtuso
Depende lo que quieras hacer. Aquí estoy comparando las dos películas a 1600 porque es la velocidad que mejor me viene para mi estilo de fotografía. Más lento (por ejemplo, 400) y me sería complicado disparar con poca luz sin tener que meterme en largas exposiciones, más rápido (por ejemplo, 3200) y me sería complicado sacar fotos de día (la cámara sólo llega a 1/500). Espero que así quede un poco más claro :)
An excellent video from start to finish, I'm tired just watching it. I see your videos going to the next level. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you, Dashan! I really appreciate it :)
You’re teaching us to...try! try! try! Thanks for all your video!
That’s all there is to photography. Thanks, Alberto!
A fascinating video, and I love the dogs! I wonder if there is a little camera shake on the Delta shot with the basket ball hoop? But the result is interesting and surprising. Great you kept in the bit in the rain, too many photography videos show everything working out well, real life isn't like that. Well, my real life isn't, and it seems neither is yours! Nice one.
Great find!! Watched a couple of your videos today and really enjoyed them. Lovely B&W images and great commentary. Thanks!! Jason.
Thank you, Jason! I'm glad you like them :)
Your Delta 3200 shots are going to lack contrast because you pulled it. Everything I've ever read has said not to pull Delta 3200. You would have been better off pushing Delta 400 to 1600 or just shooting Delta 3200 at box speed and properly metering to avoid underexposing. Delta 3200 is a beautiful film. I enjoyed your video.
Thanks! You are right, pulling will produce less contrast. I shot it at 1600 but developed for 3200, so I was really overexposing it by 1 stop. I mixed things up in the video and said I was pulling it, I was wrong. The contrast is not a huge deal since I can increase it afterwards, but the lack of sharpness is more concerning. I must have done something wrong. I still have a few rolls of Delta so I'll be doing more testing. Thanks for your comment!
@@aows my Delta 3200 shots lack the sharpness I get from the 400 speed films. I find it lends itself well to portraits for this reason. Especially portraits with soft light. I absolutely love the grain from Delta 3200.
I've always heard Delta 3200 is more like ISO 1000 - the box just gives you longer exposure times to compensate - essentially "tricking" you into pushing your film. Same with Kodak TMax 3200 (Really an ISO 800 film). So I don't think shooting Delta 3200 @1600 is bad idea per se. No doubt the HP5 looks better in this comparison and in my experience you don't gain much if anything shooting Delta 3200 @1600 over HP5 @3200. I think the bigger mistake made in this video was using Ilfotec HC (what dilution). ID-11 is a good all around developer that pushes well but really if you are pushing and shooting highspeed film you should be using Microphen. HP5 rated at 1250 developed in Microphen had yielded some of the best high iso B&W negs I've ever seen. The grain is there but it's really sharp and the edges are well defined.
I was about to say exactly this but for once was smart enough to see if someone else had already stated this..:)
Nice video. I am new to shooting film and still trying to wrap my head around shooting at box speed vs over or underexposing, then comes the pulling or pushing in the processing phase. Now, since all parameters impact the results, wouldn't it be fair to say that those results you've gotten were shot in an overcast day with even but very low contrast light environment? I am trying to understand. Shooting at 1600 allows you to have slower shutter speed and the convenience of a shallower depth of field. Am I getting this right? Thanks for the video :)
Pushing = More Contrast / Pulling = Less contrast
Not surprised by your results.. interesting tough! Great work!
You are right, Gaetan. I wasn't surprised either, even though I was expecting Delta to be sharper than that. I might have done something wrong.
When mirror jams... try putting in the darkslide and remove the back - then flip multiexposure to try to get out of it?
It seems really unintuitive that a tabular-grain, natively high iso film such as delta is grainier and lower resolution than the old school cubic-grain, natively 400 speed film hp5+.
Hp5+ is such a remarkable film and I have had excellent results from 100 to 3200 iso in hc110.
What a beautiful colorful fall day..... i couldn’t have used a B&W film such a day.....
It's always a good day for B&W :D
Hp5 in medium format (D76 stock), RPX 100 for 35mm up to 400 in the darker season.
I‘m planning to switch to FP4+ for the next bulk load.
But pushing HP5 should be added to the list. I like the results very much.
BTW: you live in such a pleasing and inspiring countryside. And I had a constant grin in my face watching your dogs 😍😍😍
Yes, it is beautiful around here. And I'm thankful every day for being able to go for a walk with those sweet dogs :)
I love HP5 pushed, 1 and 2 stops. I tried to push it to 3200 once and loved it as well. Not a lot of grain. It just seems to handle everything. I will be trying even higher pushes next time.
Thanks for your comment, Michael!
Perhaps .... comparing :
HP5 400 with Delta 400
Shot At 1600
So it’s a fair comparison...
Only used delta once , i processed it as instructed , as i did with HP5, Always found delta a bit grey low contrast , compared to others, tried printing using multigrade filters on pearl paper still not good ,
Try shooting Delta 3200 at 6400. It's great contrast there.
what an insightful video! i just love film photography!
i love shooting at 3200
really enjoyed watching this!
thanks for sharing this amazing content with us
Thank you, I'm glad you found it useful :)
I've heard Delta is actually a native ISO 1200 film, so 1600 shouldn't really be pulling it.
Yes delta's box speed is pushing the stock (can't remember what the native iso is tho)
I think I've read the same, somewhere.
Native is 1600 iso
I had a similar experience with Delta 3200, it's very grey and muddy at 1600 and still somewhat at 3200. I bet it would look great at 6400 though. My favorite film stock overall is Tri-X, I like it at box speed or pushed. HP5 is only for pushing (for me) and I love Fp4 but it can be a bit too contrasty at times or too slow in MF. Tmax 100 has insane dynamic range for when it's bright out, Tmax 400 is fantastic if not too clean and both exhaust fixer pretty quick. I haven't shot much Delta but it seemed surprisingly grainy for a t-grain film.
I think you'll like Tmax P3200 when it comes to 120 someday and if you get a chance try out Ultrafine Xtreme 400. It's got a very nice grain structure (a little smoother than Hp5) with very nice contrast and pushes well, plus it's cheapppppppppp
Nice, thank you for the insights on those film stocks! There are a few I haven't tried yet, like Tmax or Ultrafine Xtreme. I did like Tri-X a lot when I used it in the past, but it's 50% more expensive than HP5 and that makes a huge difference for me. I agree about FP4, too contrasty. I have 4 rolls and I don't really feel like shooting them, but I should haha.
I will be checking out that Ultrafine Extreme. Thank you again!
My favourite 120 films: fast - Kodak Tri-X @ 800 in Diafine, slow - Acros in Rodinal (but ...). I really liked HP5+ at box speed esp. for portraits in nice difused light (window light). I still cannot find another slow film good enough to replace Acros. FP4+ is fine but ... Foma - I have bad luck probably but all films were scratched. I really liked the Rollei Retro 400S in Rodinal recently and will test the Retro 80S version as well I think. A film I would really like to test is Bergger Pancro 400. But I mix the new films only occasionaly in order to keep my workflow. Just today I developed HP5+ @ 400 in Rodinal 1+100 65min. stand dev.
I loved Tri-X the few times I used it. What keeps me coming back to HP5 over and over is the price. Replacement for Acros, I'd say Pancro could do the trick. I shot it once and it was very nice... but the negatives were so curly that I didn't want to try it again. I had to leave them under a bunch of books for days and still, they would not lay flat. Really hard to scan.
Amazing video, keep it up!
Hi, thank you for this Video. With App you use for light messure?
Interesting comparison, particularly for me as I use HP-5 as my standard film. I have not seriously tried to use it pushed to 1600, as I rarely have such need. Nicely to know the quality of the push option.
Hey, Randall! I love HP5 as well, and even more when pushed. I used to push it just 1 stop, it looks amazing. But I've been trying 2 stops as of lately, I think I will keep doing it for a little bit longer. Love the grain and the contrast.
Interesting results. I wonder if using a different developer would give increased sharpness on Delta 3200 - maybe something like Ilfotec DD-X which is designed for delta films? Can’t speak from personal experience as I have only developed Delta 3200 in Moersch Tanol which only gives 1000ASA but good sharpness.
I wonder the same. I was surprised to see those results. I've never used DD-X but from what I've read, you are right, it should produce sharper images. My go-to combo is HP5 and Ilfotec HC, so maybe it wasn't a fair comparison in that sense either. Thanks for your comment!
DD-X is great with both Delta and HP5+. I've mostly been using tri-x 400 for a couple of years with D76 powder and the few rolls of HP5+ I've put through have turned out just fine. Tri-x forgives me when I'm too not thinking.
Hello Adrian! Nice video! You always use slow, agitation in development process?
Thanks, Andrew! I do. 30 seconds every minute, slow agitation.
What music did you use? Its fantastic.
I'm currently using Ilford FP4 for medium format and HP5 for any 35MMS work. I'm looking for less grain in medium format though and I like the versatility of HP5. I would be interested in seeing a detailed video on your development process with Ilfotech HC.
Do you find FP4 grainy? I've shot it a few times in the past, but I'm not sure about how it'd compare against HP5. I might have to do that comparison. I do love HP5 for that versatility, it will handle whatever you throw at it. And yes, developing my film is a video that's on the list ☺️ Thanks for your comment!
@@aows I don't find FP4 grainy at all. I think of it as clean and creamy looking. I develop in Xtol though which is considered a solvent developer and has the effect of smoothing the grain. My all time favorite was Fuji Acros but it was discontinued so I settled on FP4. Looking forward to your developing video as I never had any luck with Logitech HC. My negs came out too dense and didn't print well in the darkroom.
@@jasturbo02 Acros is a very nice film. It's not for me, though, since I like contrast. I still have one roll and I'm saving it for a special occasion :) I'll be shooting FP4 soon, since I have a lot of it. Have you tried pulling it?
Jason Ritchie good to hear someone else has gone to FP4 after using Acros previously. I tried a bunch and although nothing can replace neopan100, FP4 comes closest in my opinion
I am planning to compare HP4 Plus vs HP5 at their box speed and develop with Rodinal. Supposedly HP4 have to be more contrast film and I love long exposures. If shot at their box speed Delta should give you sharper and cleaner image.
That'd be an interesting comparison, I might be doing it as well. Let me know how it goes :) From the few times I shot FP4, I'd say yes, it shows a higher contrast, almost too much for me. I have a few rolls on the shelf so I will be giving it another try soon. About Delta, I guess... I was surprised to see those results, they weren't sharp at all.
Normally, the slower the better, right? In these conditions you can shoot at ISO 400 without a tripod. Delta 3200 is for low light. I used it to photograph a blind musician at Threadgilll's in Austin under existing light. I rated it at 1000. As I remember, aperture was f/2 and shutter speed was 125. I always wonder about rating a film much higher. The film's sensitivity is fixed at manufacture. All you can do is increase contrast and grain. Under flat light such as you encountered, that might not be so bad, since the scene needs a serious contrast boost. It's much easier to simply shoot HP5 at box speed and increase development enough to produce the contrast you want. Recommend films: for all tripod work or other controlled conditions, FP4. With perfect processing (XTOL 1 + 3 with continuous agitation for the first minute and one inversion thereafter), rate it at 125 using an incident meter in the scene's key light. For standard processing, rate it at 80. For low light, Delta 3200 rated at 1000. For everything else, Tri-X. Tri-X is tricky to expose properly. Set your meter to 400. For bright sunlight or other high contract scenes, read a shadow with an incident meter (or a grey card with a reflective meter) and set the camera to the meter's reading minus 1/2 stop. For medium contrast conditions (soft shadows outdoors), read a shadow and set the camera to the meter's reading. For flat light such as open shade or the conditions you encountered, take an incident reading and set the camera to the meter's reading. This assumes that you are shooting for print. If you set your camera's meter to 400 and just shoot, you will end up with consistent underexposure, that sooty look, with lots of ugly grain. I prefer Tri-X to HP4 for anything with people in the picture. HP5 produces a more silvery look in the highlights which looks great for animals - they take on a kind of glow. If Tri-X were not available, HP5 would be the default. But Tri-X will not let you down when you're photographing on the run if you make sure to give it enough exposure.
HP5 is definitely one of my all time favorites. Probably my favorite of all time in BW was Kodak Plus-X but it's no longer made. I recently bought a couple rolls of Ilford FP4+ to try out as I've heard it might be comparable. Have you tried FP4+?
I have, indeed! I find it more contrasty than HP5 and it's definitely got a look I could see myself using. But it's too slow for what I want it for, I usually push HP5 to 1600 and that gives me a flexibility FP4 simply doesn't have.
@@aows yeah pushing FP4 to 1600 is probably unrealistic haha
Druga sprawa ze błędy negatywy poprawia się w odbitce, czy to w skanerze czy pod powiekszalnikiem.
I love T-Max P3200 myself but alas it isn't available in 120 :/ (just 35mm). I didn't have much luck with Delta 3200 for some reason. For films available in 120 and above though, for me it's HP5 and T-Max 100. I've been testing Pancro 400 and want to try it in 4x5. I find it a bit too grainy in the smaller formats at least with the developers I have used so far. However the tones are gorgeous! Very different from HP5 or Delta 3200 though. It can come out a bit flat (though not always in my tests) but yeah just really good tones. I also like Rollei IR 400 when I want to play around. As a normal BW film it's pretty good too! IR can be hit or miss (I'm trying to fix some scans of some 4x5 negatives I shot on IR just yesterday in fact). Since you can't easily meter for IR there is some guess work, but when you nail it, oh man it's so cool!
Thanks for sharing that, Tim! I shot Pancro just one (120) and never tried again because it was a nightmare to scan. I had never seen such a curly film before, it wouldn't stay flat even after a few days under heavy books. I did like the tones, though.
About IR photography, I've only tried once (that same IR 400) and loved the results. As you say it's almost a guessing game, at least when you are getting started, and I'm also not sure how to fit that work with the rest of my photography. Maybe a separate, independent project.
Anyway, thanks again for your comment!
Sad thin here is this is not even a comparison.... pushing and pulling two different films is like trying to eat an apple like an orange and then wondering why they taste different ... next time at least expose them for their proper iso/ manufacturing intentions... and develop them at “N” for at least a level playing field, lastly , the developers you use for this test should not be high acuteness types ... because they are too harsh and your loosing tone in between ... in no way am I a tech person ...
when I heard you were exposing them both at 1600 I should have not even finished the video ... but because I like you and your work , I continue to watch
Hey, Joseph! I say in the video it wasn't a fair "comparison". I shoot at 800 / 1600, so I wanted to see what I could get from those two film stocks at that speed. 400 is too slow for me, and 3200 is too fast.
I was just trying to find out which food would be better for me for breakfast, the apple or the orange. I wasn't expecting them to taste the same.
Thanks for watching, though :)
Hi, two things - As I know Delta 3200 is actually labelled P3200 (P from Pushed). 3200 is factory pushed speed, it is in real 800 or 1600 (i am not sure) film only a bit factory-prepared for pushing. So using it as 1600 is what i was adviced to by mu mentours. And another thing - Delta is Tgrain film. It looks a bit like digital. And it is quite pointless for me to use film that looks like a digital - easier (and cheaper) is just to use digital. That`s why i love HP5 plus. Box speed and pushed all way up to 1600. Mostly a bit overexposed (about 2/3 EV) It gives me a look of old 50`s photo, that old style. Not only grain but contrast and darks too. Just love it. Nad in facy it is cos that recipe dates back to 40-50 and it is only a bit modified,
Emulsja fotograficzna sklada sie z chalogenków srebra różnej wielkosci (rozmiar jest odpowiedzialny za czułość [iso] filmu, a także za kontrast. Mniejsze chalogenki większa przestrzeń pomiedzy nimi - większy kontrast i odwrotnie.
Last thing is because one film is 8x slower then he other , of course one will be more grainy .... simple silver halide stuff .... but hen again that’s what was taught in the olden days ...
You are right. I was expecting those results, I just wanted to see it and what I could make with those negatives.
Hello Adrian. Have you ever shot Fomapan? I've shot their100 speed film couple of times and the contrast and grain is amazing and the film is is cheaper than HP5 i think. Hope you try it and would like to see you do a video on it. Love your work!
I have, but with a Holga so it doesn't really count as to see what I could do with it. I have a roll in the fridge that I'm hoping to use soon. Not sure about pushing it, though, have you tried it?
@@aows I accidentally pushed 100 iso to 400 and ended up liking it. It was a bit more contrasty i think. Hope to see you shoot your roll as well.
Basically you are comparing a tabular grain film (Delta) against a cubic grain film (HP5). Cubic grain films are the classic look of b&w film and generally preferred by people who like a little contrast, a little bit and who don't mind seeing the grain. Cubic grain films generally push better than their tabular counter parts. Tabular films are generally a little flatter tonally and have less pronounced grain. HP5, FP4, Tri-X, Plus-X are all cubic grain films. If you know you like contrast and classic grain structure a more useful test might be to shoot 2 rolls of HP5 and develop them in different developers. For pushing film and getting a nice contrasty negative you might want to try Microphen, ID-11 or Rodinal. Different developers make just as much if not more of a difference than different film stocks.
So, HP5 adds dogs to photos! Or is it delta that removes dogs?🤔
Haha, that's right :D
Delta is actually rated around iso 1000
Yeah, looks like it's around the 1000s, so shooting it at 1600 might have been pushing it, actually.
What light meter app is that
myLightMeter Pro
Interesting video, but to my understanding you saying that you "pull" the delta is wrong. Pushing and pulling is done in development, as with the HP5. You shoot it at EI (Exposure Index, not ISO. The ISO cant be changed for a film, it's a technical specification) 1600 and give it extra development. That's pushing it. What you do with the Delta is overexposing it by a stop in camera, but when you do not give it less development (time), it's not pulled, just overexposed. That's not taking into consideration what Delta 3200s native ISO is or anything else. Someone please correct me if i'm wrong, or I have misunderstood something.
You are correct, Rasmus. I mixed up a lot of things in the video, I was rushing it. The idea was to actually pull it, I exposed it at 1600 and wanted to give it less development time. I ended up going with a longer time (3200) to match HP5's time so I could develop both at the same time. I pushed HP5 2 stops and overexposed Delta by 1 stop, as you say. And you are also right about Delta's native ISO, from what I've read is closer to 1600 than to 3200.
Thanks for your comment!
Delta 3200 is made for poor lighting conditions, better used in close-up photography. Of course Hp5 wiil do better outside with a lot of diffuse light.
Rollei rpx and xtol
What are your thoughts on tri-x when compared to hp5?
I haven't shot Tri-X in more than a year, I know I liked it a lot but preferred the deep shadows in HP5. I will have to try Kodak's again, though. The only problem is the price, it's so expensive :S
poor dog, that water must be freezing
She'll do anything for a stick 😅 But the three of them get in the water very often even later in the winter. They don't seem to mind too much.
Con todos los respetos, tu acento inglés suena horrible... no entiendo por qué siendo español haces los contenidos en inglés... Es una pena porque privas al público de aquí que no comprende el idioma de entender unos vídeos que comparten unos conocimientos e ideas sobre fotografía muy buenos, y estás dando prioridad al público extranjero...
No sabía que el acento fuera tan malo 😅
Soy español *y* americano, de hecho empecé con la fotografía (y empecé este canal) cuando vivía en EEUU y conozco a más fotógrafos allí que aquí. En los vídeos más recientes estoy incluyendo subtítulos en inglés y español.
the video is too long
You are very much right, that's something I've been struggling with lately. I want to show and say too much and need to improve that. Thanks for the feedback!