Originally posted by Gooshin now, this was done with Ilford Delta 400 "professional", personaly i find this film waaayyy to grainy
currently i have a roll of Illford HP5 400, we'll see how that turns out.
The Deltas (and also higher ISO films) are meant to be tweaked in development...ie...Delta 3200 shot at ISO 1200. Or pulled...shot at 3200 developed for ISO 1600 etc.
Meaning...they have more latitude when it comes to processing than for actual exposure latitude. That's the price we pay for manipulation...also, what developer was used? I'm so jealous you get to use a Coolscan
HP5 seems to be the film for me. I have 2 rolls to shoot this week, but from all I've seen, I like it better than Tri-X. We'll see in practical use...
Originally posted by k100d isn't HP5 more like Tri-X i.e. more greainy?
It is. Using Ilford's DD-X creates a decently fine grain vs. the Kodak T developers. It seems to my eyes, though, that the grain structure is smoother in the HP5
Originally posted by Gooshin once this roll is done though i'm gonna stock pile on fuji neopan, my buddy shot with it and i like his pictures better than all the stuff that i shot so far.
Which ISO level? I have 2 rolls of 1600 to use, but I've heard good things about this film in general. Definitely let us know how you like it!