Why ILFORD HP4 is more popular than FP4?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am actually comparing Kentmere 120 100 vs 400.  It is said that these are the cost-down of FP4 and HP5, likely by reducing the amount of silvery etc. According to the online review, Kentmere 100 is slightly less grainy and slightly more contrasty (but to my eyes, I think K100 has richer black).  It seems K100 would be more preferrable.

On the other hand, Ilford HP5 is more popular than FP4, similarly Kodak TRI-X is more popular than its 100 or 125, at least the 120 format. I know it is very subjective, but is the low light performance and exposure versability one of the main reasons?  

[pippy]

16 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

...Ilford HP5 is more popular than FP4, similarly Kodak TRI-X is more popular than its 100 or 125...is the low light performance and exposure versatility one of the main reasons?  

IMX the only plus-point of HP5 / Tri-X as opposed to FP4 / Plus-X is the higher ISO / ASA Speed when / if required by the situation encountered. Then again; I have always had a preference for fine-grain emulsions. For those who prefer their grain-clusters to be the size of golf-balls I'd expect a different point of view to be forthcoming....😸......

Philip.

Edited May 8 by pippy

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

I think HP5 and Tri-X are the default films of many who'll encounter different situations over a period of time while using a roll so it's a safe bet. And HP5, Tri-X and FP4 are ideal for photographers who know they'll get through a roll in a session and know the film speed they'll need. Of course you could have two cameras loaded with each speed, or if the light is too low for FP4 use a tripod or a flash. Some people like grain and some not, I like both according to what I'm photographing.

As always looking at what other people do on the internet is very subjective, some can make FP4 look grainy, and some specialise in minimising the grain in Tri-X. I've seen some great results from Kentmere and think it's got better over the years, but I always think back when it was almost strictly a cheaper film to learn with in schools and colleges and could be processed in any sort of developer at hand because the lower silver content evened out the results. So while an experienced photographer couldn't make Kentmere even better if developed sympathetically it does run out of headroom/tonal range eventually especially compared with FP4. But that's being picky, to be honest nobody else would know the difference if you showed them a photo made using a Kentmere film from FP4 or HP5.

Edited May 9 by 250swb

[Anbaric]

It's because many of us live in countries like the UK, where it's dark and gloomy because it rains all the time!

I think perhaps there's also a trend for emphasising the unique character of film in a digital world, so a bit more grain might be seen as a positive rather than something to be avoided.

[d4xycrq]

Ability to push, perhaps?  Some say HP5 looks even better at 800 or 1600 than box speed.  FP4+ is not a film that comes to mind when it's time to push. 

Once we had camera capable of 1/4000, 1/8000th of a second, shooting 400 even on a sunny day is not an issue.  Just a guess.  

 

[250swb]

42 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

 

I think perhaps there's also a trend for emphasising the unique character of film in a digital world, so a bit more grain might be seen as a positive rather than something to be avoided.

That's a good point, people want film to look like film. But some films have characteristics unique to themselves other than grain, especially slower films. Like orthochromatic films, Ilford Otho 80 (80 ISO) Ferrania Orto (50 ISO), or Rollei Ortho 25 (25 ISO, or films that show the infrared spectrum with either just a red filter or a full IR cut filter such as Adox HR-50 (50 ISO, Rollei IR400, or Ilford SFX (200 ISO). 

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I always preferred films with minimum visible grain (Panatomic-X was my go-to), but if you are shooting 120 handheld - many have f3.5 lenses (2.8 were more expensive) so ISO 400 is appealing. I often use PanF in 35, and got some in 120 - but in 120 find faster films more convenient. (but 120 Ektachrome 100 is what I prefer for color).

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, d4xycrq said:

Some say HP5 looks even better at 800 or 1600 than box speed.  FP4+ is not a film that comes to mind when it's time to push. 

It depends on what people mean by looking better at a higher ISO. Do they underexpose by a stop and then push the film by one stop? Or do they exüose according to box speed and then push the film for congrats reasons? Often, that gets confused. 

Sometimes, you must push the film by one or two stops because you are running out of light. However, that won't magically find the missing light in the shadows. It does, however, lift skin tones a bit, which can be helpful. A completely different story is pushing the film because you want higher contrast and more visible grain. That's what I do. I push for look reasons and not for light reasons. 

I use exclusively Xtol. If I were using Rodinal, things would be considerably different. That said, I find HP5 developed at box speed uninspiringly grey. Giving it a mild push, e.g. developing it a minute longer, helps that tremendously. Kentmere 400 is much better than its reputation/marketing. It's not a cheap student film but a more affordable, still reliable 400 ISO film that can be had in several countries branded as Agfa APX 400 or Rollei RPX 400. Shooting it at box speed and pushing it mildly at ISO 640 makes it a great everyday film on a budget. Tri-X, however, looks good as is. I prefer Delta 100 over FP4 because it's a resolution monster. Shooting Delta 100 on the fatter side and giving it a mild push by developing it 30 seconds longer will bring the shadows to the edge but greatly improve the overall contrast and make it insanely sharp.

[Einst_Stein]

Thanks for so much wisdom.

I am planning the trip that involves on ship and in palaces, churches, in which either tripod is not helpful or not allowed, so I am coming from speed, but I also want to cover somewhat the non-speed characteristics. I am particularly hoping K400 has the advantages over K100 like HP5 over FP4. 

I was considering Ilford Delta 3200 (+ DDX), but it seems (and hope) K400 pushed to 1600 or 3200 may be a reasonable choice.

I think I will carry both K400 and K100, two film backs, with my Hasselblad SWC.  Ny default developer is either HC110 or Rodinal. I don't have enough experiences to push the film. Rodinal 1+100 with stand development come to my mind FOR PUSHING K400 (TO 1600 OR 3200), but more wisdom is needed.   

[oldwino]

I love Kentmere 100. It's a lovely film. The 400 version, though, seems to be lower resolving than HP5, and grainier. This is in a variety of developers (Xtol, Rodinal, diafine). 

If you are looking for an excellent 400 speed film, I'd recommend Delta 400. Nice contrast, very sharp, nice grain. Not a flexible as HP5, push-wise, but shot at 200-800, pretty great. 

[hansvons]

6 minutes ago, oldwino said:

If you are looking for an excellent 400 speed film, I'd recommend Delta 400. Nice contrast, very sharp, nice grain. Not a flexible as HP5, push-wise, but shot at 200-800, pretty great. 

Agree on Delta 400. Used to be a favourite. 

[Danner]

There are two reasons I shoot 5 times as much HP5 as FP4.  One, HP5 film speed provides +2EV in all shooting situations, and even in broad daylight, the over-exposure latitude makes ISO 400 serviceable,  Two, HP5 grain is noticeable and pleasant, which is what people are looking for in film photography these days.  Looking at some Tmax 100 negs/prints recently, and they aren't all that different from digital captures.  So, for B&W, I think the grain needs to be in the final print to satisfy the 'film' trend.

IMHO.

[250swb]

17 minutes ago, Danner said:

 So, for B&W, I think the grain needs to be in the final print to satisfy the 'film' trend.

IMHO.

I think there is a crossover even with fine grain. I use Adox CMS 20 II rated and developed at 6 ISO and the images you can get are ‘grain free’, just like when we were all celebrating 12mp noise free sensors not long ago. But it still looks like film, there are the tonal translations and even a bit of glow from having no anti-halation layer. 

[otto.f]

20 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Ilford HP5 is more popular than FP4

Not with me

[Einst_Stein]

I am not there to appreciate some special grain characteristics yet. I think that would be when I step into the advanced class. But I do not mind the grain of HP5 or Trix in 120 format. 
 

Looking more carefully on HP5 and Trix, it is clear their tonal appearance is a decisive factor that makes me ignore the grain disadvantage, if I can call it disadvantage at all. 

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, oldwino said:

I love Kentmere 100. It's a lovely film. The 400 version, though, seems to be lower resolving than HP5, and grainier. This is in a variety of developers (Xtol, Rodinal, diafine). 

If you are looking for an excellent 400 speed film, I'd recommend Delta 400. Nice contrast, very sharp, nice grain. Not a flexible as HP5, push-wise, but shot at 200-800, pretty great. 

The resolving power has not reached my concerns yet. Pretty much the same issue as the MP in digital.

To me what matters most is the exposure versatility and tonal appearance. I am convinced K400 has the exposure advantage over K100. What I am not sure yet is their tonal appearance. . 

Edited May 9 by Einst_Stein

[adan]

On 5/8/2024 at 5:30 PM, Einst_Stein said:

It is said that these are the cost-down of FP4 and HP5, likely by reducing the amount of silvery etc.

Given that the amount of silver in an entire roll of 35mm/120 film is ~0.37 grams, and the current market price for silver is $0.89 per gram, the value of silver is actually a miniscule part of the cost of a roll of film ($0.33 or thereaboutsfor the whole roll).

What is expensive is maintaining "laboratory conditions" in the manufacturing process: light-tightness, cleaniness, consistency of the coating chemistry (silver and gelatin), precision to fractions of a mm in laying down the coatings; creating the film base; cutting/slitting the films to size and punching the sprocket holes; and ancilliary items (35mm: cassettes and plastic canisters; 120: spools and printed/calibrated backing paper; and additional packaging for both. 

I suspect the paper backing alone (including printing, and attaching the film precisely) on my 120 rolls is more expensive than the silver they contain.

However, I suspect Ilford does have ways of saving money on those other areas, and particularly in the Kentmere silver chemistry. Slightly looser (1960s-era) tolerances for crystal/grain sizes and exact ISO (maybe a 1/4-stop variance vs. 1/10th stop for HP5/FP4). Maybe a cheaper anti-halation coating/layer. Maybe different (and less precise) sensitizing dyes (affects how even B&W films reproduce colors as grays).

I notice Ilford, for example, does NOT publish the characteristic (H&D) curves or spectral-sensitivity curves for Kentmere films - while they do for FP4 and HP5. Suggesting they are maybe a bit more variable with Kentmere, from batch to batch?

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1903/product/693/

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1959/product/2136/

In any case, I think Ilford also simply prices-down Kentmere (with a lower profit margin), as a "gateway drug" to induce people to acquire the film-habit. 😉

22 hours ago, 250swb said:

I've seen some great results from Kentmere and think it's got better over the years, but I always think back when it was almost strictly a cheaper film to learn with in schools and colleges and could be processed in any sort of developer at hand because the lower silver content evened out the results.

Yeah! A "vin-ordinaire" film!

What I've been waiting for, ever since I shot cheap Kodak Verichrome Pan 120 box-camera film in the 1970s (Ilford Selochrome being the equivalent, cheap, "Do your worst at exposing and processing me!" film).

My school handed out similar Agfa Isopan ISS 120 rolls like gumdrops, c. 1970, for use in Dianas, with "rolly-rolly" developing - no spools, no cans, no thermometer - just a sink with a triple tank in it (Dev - running-water - Fix).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Turn out the lights -  unspool the film - reach out and throw a switch on the wall that started an electric metronome: "Pop - Pop - Pop," 1 pop per second. Plunge roll two-handed into the developer tank and unroll-roll it back and forth between hands while counting off 300 "pops" - move hands and film into the water to rolly-rolly for 60 pops - move hands and film into the fixer to rolly-rolly for 60 pops - turn on light and then let film just float in fix for another 240 pops - back into water to just float there washing for ~10-15 minutes.

I have tried Kentmere 100 since it came out in 120 - does my Hassy/Zeiss lenses proud!

But I do have a few 120 rolls of FP4 and TMax 400 around as well.

[Einst_Stein]

I guess switching from enlarger-paper to scanner-digital can make some fundamental difference in film propertyies.  I hope, and hope it does not make much differences in the Film-look, and hope it makes film cheaper. 

All in all, I find Kentmere 135 format a nice film to shoot. The 120 format should be the same, but even better since grain is a less concern.  

I hope Ilford makes the right move that Kodak can follow.

Edited May 10 by Einst_Stein

[Mr.Prime]

The cost of the materials or processing may have nothing to do with positioning of Kentmere as a lower price film. It may all be about maximizing profits for Ilford. The lower priced film may allow them to reach customers not willing to pay more and therefore both the customer and the maker benefit. The higher priced film attracts customers who are willing to pay that bit extra for the comfort of knowing they get something they are familiar with and trust to be the best possible whilst the maker gets a higher profit margin. When both customer and maker benefit like this, you have a good situation.

 

I didn't look at the numbers but I'm wondering what is the basis for comparison in popularity between HP5 and FP4? - because if it's measured by square mm of film used or $ value sold there will be a big difference between 35mm film users and larger formats. In the larger formats the larger grain of HP5 no longer has such a big influence on the decision whereas for 35mm users it is one of the biggest factors - no ?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

BTW - on the original ISO 400 vs. ISO 100/125 question:

I do use ISO 400 (TMax) as my main 120 film. Even in bright daylight.

It has the grain of a traditional 100/125 film - e.g. Plus-X (RIP) - at the cost of pickier exposure and development requirements. But allows for shorter shutter speeds (I aim for 1/500th whenever possible with the Hassy SLR's "thunder-clap" shutter/mirror, handheld).

And for smaller apertures for more DoF, using the SWC. Which is "guess-focus" set on the focus-ring scale (a "Swedish Diana" 😁 ), and thus I use f/16 whenever possible.