Comparing Ilford Black and White Film: HP5 Plus and Delta 400

Having predominantly used colour film for a few years, and with the ever increase in film prices, I thought it might be a good time to compare some black and white films in hopes of maybe trying to be most cost conscious.

Ilford's HP5 Plus has always been my go to black and white film stock, however I thought I would see what the difference was with Ilford's Delta400.

FILM USED:
Ilford HP5 Plus
Ilford Delta 400
________________________________________

More about Nick Smith
Instagram: @nicksmith_photo

Music Licensed through Epidemic Sound

#ilford #mediumformat #120

[Alberto-hjjp]

Really like this one, this is how comparison should be made

[stivensbanks]

Thank you so much.
This is a perfect video, mate
I can't say any word but perfect.
I usually use the PAN 400, but the Delta and HP5 are almost the same price, so I thought I'd see the difference between the two before buying. I couldn't have found another better video for comparison.
Again, thank you very much

[ElliotShayle]

It's very good to finally see some side by side comparisons being done properly!

But here's my question: since you're shooting medium format (lots of detail, relatively smaller grain in the final image), on a Hasselblad (the sharpest cameras out there), could it not just be the case that the rest of your setup was too good to see the difference 😅? Like, maybe at 35mm where grain is usually more noticeable, you'd see different sharpness characteristics between the 2 film stocks.

[Narsuitus]

Thanks for the comparison!

Back when Kodak declared bankruptcy, I looked for a 400 ISO black & white film to replace the Tri-X that I had been using. I performed tests similar to yours on Ilford HP5 Plus, Ilford Delta 400, and Fomapan 400. I selected Ilford HP5 Plus, but I do not remember the reasons why.

[chesslover]

Nick, I love your video, so professional and very useful too! In medium format, the difference between HP5+ and Delta 400 is small. I had trouble telling the difference between the images. If pressed, I would say, tone-wise, that the HP5+ images, because of their cubic grain structure, give the appearance of slightly more substance and atmosphere to the pictures over the Delta 400 images. Of course, Delta 400 has a little more sharpness, acutance, and finer grain than HP5+.

[rogerburgner]

Wow, these films are surprisingly similar. More similar than I expected. There were passages I liked better (slightly) in each film. One area that stood out to me was the distant grayish foliage in the first image, kinda on the right. I felt the middle tones in the HP5 had more detail to my eye. And also in the same image the sky as rendered by HP5, while a bit grainy, had more tonal variations to add interest.

[steveh]

I assume you used 400 ISO, and Ilford's recommended development time and DDX dilution for each. I perfer the HP5 for it's tonal gradation. More videos coming?

[randallstewart]

My own experience is with HP-5 and not with Delta. I am surprised, based on general reputation for the films and their technologies, that there is not more difference between the two. I was planning on testing Delta and adjusting it for my developer, but now I think not. While this is done with more thought and control than the vast majority of such YT film comparisons, the Delta is clearly more or "over" developed relative to the HP-5, thus the overall higher contrast. This pushes or lightens the mid- and higher tones a bit, making a direct comparison quite difficult as to tonality. The denser shadow areas of HP-5 suggest that it is a bit slower. Thanks for the effort put in and the information provided here.

[GrahamNorth-gh]

Well done Nick. Nice comparison keeping variables constrained.

[mynewcolour]

About as good a comparison as is practical. Thanks.

I’d love to see how each push to 1600 in Xtol (or the much more available Adox XT-3 or Bellini EcoFilm Developer)

[Andresen.]

Funny how HP5 is more contrasty than Delta, although Delta should be way more contrasty. Almost like the left image should be Delta with smaler latitude and higher contrast :) Nice comparison!

[GirdHerd]

I came to the same conclusion. I could be happy shooting either one.

[bubuche]

Thanks for the video. Out of curiosity, have you also tried scanning negatives with silverfast but using their respective film profiles?

[richardsimms]

Very, very well done presentation. Thank you. RS. Canada

[rvbsoundfactory]

Just, checked out the prices between the two films. 35mm is quite a difference. 120 not so bad. I'll be lucky to be shooting film at all soon at the rate it's going. Maybe a good time to give Kentmere 400 a try out!

[walkwithvictor]

Thank you for your video, it was very instructive (and you have a great voice!)

[Wiencourager]

I really love HP5. I always shoot it at 800 and develop in Diafine.

[cjmarshall]

Name on the tripod you use for your hasselblad?

[jamescassell]

great video! thank you so much :')

[NunoAlmeidaPhotography]

Hey Nick! Definitely a nice comparison video. I haven't shot Ilford in quite some time now, but I remember switching from HP5 to Delta 400 because I thought it was a bit sharper and not as flat looking.