[ThatDeafGuy]

I'm just rambling here.... many thousands of years ago my go-to film was HP5, sometimes I switched to FP4 in the summer months. For more than a year I've had my head down with scanning all my old negative sheets and have noted some secondarily decent shots let down by slightly dodgy focus.

So...... I've planned a trip back to my old stomping grounds armed with a few 35mm cameras, all Pentax obvs, and a tripod to re-take the shots taking into account that the passage of time has changed how the areas will look. It will be in October.

One camera will be fed with Portra 400, that's a given. The other (and more important) one I'm hmmm-ing and ahhhh-ing over. Do I stay true to my younger self and load with HP5, do I instead load with FP4 for less grain or do I dabble with Delta 100 or even Delta 400.... the scenes are by and largely woodlands, forests, dales, vales and hills.

The struggle is real....!

*screams silently*

[LaHo]

Go with FP4+ and a yellow filter on sunny days. Use tripod only if you have to. Enjoy.

[tuco]

Of course you need to shoot both film types to decide for yourself. Hearing a bunch of my favorite film type answers I guess could be helpful.

HP5/FP4 are cubic grain films. Both have a good latitude and yield a beautiful tonal scale. Delta 100/400 films are a newer tabular grain film. They also have good latitude and yield a beautiful tonal scale as a general description for the film types. With the tabular grain films, you typically can expect finer grain for your ISO.

[StiffLegged]

For an important trip, stick with what you know. In my own case it would have been FP4, but I wouldn’t mess with an unfamiliar stock.

[pres589]

You said you'd have a "few" bodies, which I think means three, so I'd say one with Portra 400, one with FP4, and one with HP5. Use whatever feels right at the time.

[pacerr]

You're contemplating a rare opportunity to make some useful and apparently well controlled film comparisons. Not a common thing today.

Consider adding a few other common film choices. The additional time and expense would be a small fraction of the overall effort and the results no doubt appreciated by many. Perhaps including a few 'economy' films would highlight the relative difference in savings?

[ThatDeafGuy]

You said you'd have a "few" bodies, which I think means three, so I'd say one with Portra 400, one with FP4, and one with HP5. Use whatever feels right at the time.

Ah yes, my third is a tiny Auto 110 camera that is for shots relating to a side project. Probably using Lomo Tiger with that one.

---

Last edited by ThatDeafGuy; 09-17-2021 at 02:20 PM.

[tuco]

I'd add it sounds like you may have to re-discover HP5+ since it sounds like you were shooting the old HP5 a thousand years ago.

[ThatDeafGuy]

You're contemplating a rare opportunity to make some useful and apparently well controlled film comparisons. Not a common thing today.

Consider adding a few other common film choices. The additional time and expense would be a small fraction of the overall effort and the results no doubt appreciated by many. Perhaps including a few 'economy' films would highlight the relative difference in savings?

Sadly not this time around, my list of shots to re-take is quite significant and reliant on October weather. I don't wish to make the trip harder than it is.

---------- Post added 09-17-21 at 02:19 PM ----------

I'd add it sounds like you may have to re-discover HP5+ since it sounds like you were shooting the old HP5 a thousand years ago.

Ah, I used HP5+ & FP4+, although predominantly the former.

[mtgmansf]

If you ever plan to make larger prints or view images on a very large screen, my vote is for Delta 100. FYI, I have made beautiful B&W conversions from Portra 400 color scans which quite surprised me, so - at least in my mind - one film works for all intended purposes, although for top quality B&W and for very low grain and great tonal range, Delta 100 gets the nod...(developed in straight Ilford DDX).

[ZombieArmy]

FYI, I have made beautiful B&W conversions from Portra 400 color scans

tbh I've made black and white prints in the dark room from Portra 400 negatives before to good effect.

[ThatDeafGuy]

tbh I've made black and white prints in the dark room from Portra 400 negatives before to good effect.

This is more to keep them in balance with my earlier Ilford-based work, my Portra shots will be for a different project whilst away.

[ChrisPlatt]

How long ago?

In 1989 Ilford replaced HP5 film with HP5 Plus.
IMO negatives from the two films are noticeably different in appearance.
The newer Ilford film is considerably lower in contrast.

To reproduce a similar look today I would recommend Kodak Tri-X.

Chris

[ThatDeafGuy]

How long ago?

In 1989 Ilford replaced HP5 film with HP5 Plus.
IMO negatives from the two films are noticeably different in appearance.
The newer Ilford film is considerably lower in contrast.

To reproduce a similar look today I would recommend Kodak Tri-X.

Chris

From 1990.

I have had a "Sod it!" moment and have just bought batches of both HP5+ & FP4+, it will all get used over time.

[Jonathan Mac]

I love FP4+, I think it's my absolutely favourite lower ISO B&W film, but for higher ISOs I find Delta 400 far superior to HP5+. So I would use FP4+ as my slower film and Delta 400 as the faster one.