Ilford HP5+ 400asa 35mm - 36 exp

Product Information

This film outperforms much of the competition in every scenario. When you need to capture all of the details in a scene, HP5 will not let you down. Even when pushed in low-light scenarios, the shadow details reproduced on this film are second to none. That’s one of the big reasons why I always store a roll of HP5 in my camera bag. Ilford HP5+ with Olympus Stylus Mju I. Bottom-right: contrast curves adjusted in post. Top-left: unedited scan (equalized). How much does Ilford HP5+ cost, and where to buy it. I think I overcompensated a little, and most of the results from this roll are entirely blown out. These were developed in 600mlwater/15ml rodinal with strong agitation across the first minutes, a bit more agitation in the middle stage, but the rest as before. Very little nuance in the highlights, and compressed dynamic range overall. The grain was less predictable than the Delta 400, which I think I preferred overall. Expired HP5+

In 1939, this was replaced by HP2, an ISO 200 offering. This only lasted for two years until being superseded by the imaginatively titled HP3 in 1941, which was rated at different speeds depending on when in its life cycle you bought it.This sequentially numbered HP range has remained at ISO 400 ever since, through the 1970s and 1980s in the form of HP4 and HP5, and on to today with the introduction of HP5 Plus in 1989. Speaking of push processing, there are a few examples above and later in this article, which show HP5 PLUS pushed to EI 800, 1000 but I have previously written about shooting and processing HP5 PLUS much further.

The HP line welcomed a newcomer in 1965: HP4. Available initially in 120 and 127 formats, HP4 was joined by 400 ASA 35mm rolls a year later. Both HP3 and HP4 were available concurrently until late December 1969 when a staged discontinuation of HP3 began. From my experience though, that’s the wrong way to look at it. The steady Eddie stats that make up Ilford HP5 Plus are analogous to the last part of its name. A positive, not a negative. All things considered, I really liked the results it gave me. The original Kentmere 400 film box branding said “Kentmere 400” on the side (white box and cassette label). The new branding reads “Pan 400” on one side and it has a pink-purple box design. (“Kentmere” is written on the other side). If Kentmere 400 becomes known as Pan 400 it is very easy to confuse this film with the Ilford Pan 400. They are different film from my own testing but no wonder people get confused! I thought I would mention it. AGFA Photo APX 400 vs Kentmere 400I think here you meant to say you told your camera you had *less* light than you really had, causing the photos to be overexposed. There are different ways to over expose film. A common way if you lab develop your film is to meter the film in camera at say ISO 200 and then ask you lab to develop the film as normal. For Kentmere 400 this would be at ISO 400 giving a +1 stop over exposure (as you metered at ISo 200)(thereby giving the camera +1 stops of extra light on each image). For me, that’s missing the point. I’m not saying it isn’t average. It is, but in a good way rather than bad. Nothing is outstandingly wrong and the attributes just seem to add up to more than the sum of their parts to give clean, sharp, and just really nice to look at results.

If you like this film, you can save a bit of money by buying it as a bulk roll . You’ll need a bulk film loader tool to do this and HP5+ in 50’ or 100’ variety . It’s okay to shoot HP5 with exposures ranging between ISO 200 to ISO 800 on the same roll with normal development. This film has an extremely wide latitude, and can tolerate a wide range of lighting scenarios without suffering any serious loss in detail. The best advice from Ilford is to overexpose HP5+ (ISO 200) in high contrast scenes, and underexpose it (ISO 800) when the scene has low contrast. It’s no wonder that this film is a steady photographer favorite out there. It’s so flexible, and creates stunning photographs in almost every situation. Note: All HP5+ scans in this article were shot on 35mm film and developed in Ilfotec DD-X which, according to Ilford, develops the finest grain and “best overall image quality.”Ilford was founded in 1879 in the English town of the same name. They are B&W royalty in the photography industry thanks to their 140-year heritage and their support for photographers with chemicals and development as well as film. In the mid-20th Century they produced several well-regarded camera lines (including one given to Princess Elizabeth that was later stolen!) but today they are focused on producing the best films and development processes that they can. I haven’t gone down that rabbit hole myself, but people do report good results from doing so elsewhere. Tri-X and HP5+ are often compared because of their similar age (80+ years on the market), box speed (ISO 400), and application (made for press photographers).

And let’s not forget that ISO 400 rating gives you plenty of speed to shoot in the potentially ever-changing lighting conditions out in the street too. I think also talk of “developing at 800” might be a bit confusing. You can’t really develop at an ISO – the development process doesn’t care what ISO the film is rated at. You either develop as per the normal instructions, or you push or pull by a number of stops – regardless of the film speed. HP5 is the most versatile film on the market. It can be shot in nearly any situation and still come away with mind-blowing negatives. Some other ISO 400 films, like Tri-X, get too contrasty at higher ISO values, but HP5 underexposes extremely well. In fact, Anchell and Troop’s The Film Developing Cookbook — a long-standing bible for film and printmakers — suggests that HP5 is the best film on the market for pushing to ISO 1600 and 3200.Hey Jennifer, you have some really nice and interesting examples here, which do a great job of illustrating what’s possible, especially the impact of pushing. I’m usually a colour shooter, but now I feel inspired to load up some HP5 and have a play! When you’re pushing film this far, most film developing recipes will tell you to Stand to Develop, or Semi-Stand Develop your negatives. Stand developing is when you use a highly diluted developer, and gently agitate the solution for the first minute, and then leave the solution to sit undisturbed for the remainder of the development process. Semi-stand is a similar process but with additional gentle agitation every half hour or so. Take a look at this guide to learn how agitation methods can change the look and feel of film. As a baseline, I develop fresh, box speed exposed film in a two-reel tank with 600ml cold water (anything between 15-19 degrees, whatever the cold tap gives me) mixed with 9ml rodinal. I agitate for twenty seconds, tap for any bubbles, and then leave to stand for half an hour. I do a single inversion and a gentle horizontal “rolling” agitation for a few seconds, which prevents bromide drag, and then leave to stand for a further forty minutes. Cold water rinse to stop, and then a two bath fix. I have a longer write up about this semi-stand development method on Emulsive. I tried a roll of the Delta 400 along the same lines, at box speed, and using but the results were underwhelming. Expired Delta 400, EI400, close crop