Ilford HP5 400 35mm

Southdowns

Southdowns

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,820
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Got my first shots on this film back from the lab today (don't yet have the stuff for home processing/scanning, though it's on its way), and was initially disappointed with the results because of what look like huge amounts of grain, thinking the lab might have over-sharpenned them. However, I'm wondering if it's actually normal for this film; certainly a Google image search brings up a lot of very grainy shots alongside plenty that are less so, though maybe that depends on format and resolution?

Also, if I apply Silver Efex Pro's "Ilford HP5 Pro" filter to a digital shot of the same subject, it adds similar amounts of grain, again telling me its a characteristic of the film.

Is HP5 an especially grainy film? If it is, and I don't want that, what alternatives would give me better results without too much extra cost? I've ordered some Formapan 200ASA; what is that like?

I guess the ultimate test would be to home scan the negs when I get my scanner, to see if I can get better results than the lab did. That said, can it be related to the developing process and therefore be on my negs?

Sorry for all the questions :). Below is an example of one of the shots, as well as a 100% crop of the same image. I can remove a lot of the grain in LR, but post processing digitally kind of defeats the object in my mind!

80710004 by MarkBerry1963, on Flickr

20140425-003938 by MarkBerry1963, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
It is a grainy film. I tend to stick to Acros 100 which has excellent detail and fine grain, unless I really need the speed.

A standard lab scan may be sharpening a fair bit which accentuates the grain, try a scan for yourself.
 
Wowza, didn't realise it was so grainy. I have just come home with three rolls of this in 120 format. Oh well, it's getting shot now!
 
I stopped shooting HP5 when I discovered Ilford XP2. OK, not traditional B&W as C41, but the grain is so much finer than HP5. Wonder how grainy pushed FP4 is by comparison?
 
HP5 is grainy, but no more than other 400ISO films. And it's all very dependant on the developer/agitation/scanning/sharpening. Grain is beautiful anyway. :p



 
You'll probably find the Foma 200 just as grainy to be honest as the 200 rating is very over-optimistic in my experience, and the results can be a little hit and miss sometimes - its a film that you either like or don't.

One important factor is, did you underexpose the film as that will naturally increase the grain?

If you really don't want grain too much then try Kodak T-Max 400 or 100 as both of them really are quite low grain (I'll find an post some example of the 400 later). Also try Tri-X 400, which is similar to HP5, but I've never found it to be especially grainy (the grain which is there is actually quite complementary). As an example here is some of it in 35mm (Minolta Dynax 5, 50mm, yellow-green filter, f2.8, 1/4000th, developed in Paterson Aculux 3, scanned on a Reflecta Proscan 7200):

View attachment 10276

And an unsharpened 100% crop of the full scan (bearing in mind that would be the same size as approximately a 16.5" x 11" print at 300 ppi):

View attachment 10277
 
Last edited:
HP5+ is a grainy film but I think there is something else going on in your shots, either with the developing or the scanning. The contrast look also looks very flat too, so I wonder about your exposure. I shoot a lot of HP5 because I like the grain. I develop it in Ilford LC29 @1-19, I have had the effect you are experiencing once when the fixer was really cold and the developer had been overheated. There are others in the group here with much more experience of developing film who I am sure will have a view. Below are a few of my shots onHP5, grainy yes but not like the ones above and I think more typical of HP5's characteristics.

11195577183_934c20ef2b_b.jpg


11195390334_8de684f2ab_b.jpg


11738302503_4339c09f77_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Used to use HP-5 and Tri-X (Kodak's equivalent) back in the late '70s and both were quite grainy, especially when pushed! When I wanted the speed but not the grain, I used to use XP-1 which delivered the goods and was finer grained than the traditional emulsions even when developed in B&W chemicals rather than C-41.

TBH, I never really found grain that obtrusive - it was simply a fact of life back then, particularly when we needed the speed.
 
None of the examples posted since are (or seem to view) as grainy as the OP's image though, to which I am quite relived. I have just loaded a roll. Just need something to shoot now. :/
 
Bear in mind that old formulation Tri-X (the stuff of classic photojournalism and almost all eponymous black and white photos) is completely different to the Tri-X you can buy now. It was reformulated so there's no point in comparing!

HP5 is definitely a more grainy film compared to the Kodak and Fuji equivalents. For a finer grained Ilford film, you need to use Delta 400.

@gazmorton2000 it won't be as grainy in medium format, because of the larger negative. You'll be fine!

As the others have said, the sharpening will also have increased the grain, and also it will be dependent on the developer they used as well.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
None of the examples posted since are (or seem to view) as grainy as the OP's image though, to which I am quite relived. I have just loaded a roll. Just need something to shoot now. :/
Click to expand...

You're shooting 120, are you not? Grain is far less of a problem in medium and large format photography than in 135.

If anyone is really worried about grain, I wouldn't be shooting the traditional grain films like HP5 or Tri-X, but the tabular grain films like T-Max, Delta, and Acros instead. That said, grain can be sexy, so don't always avoid it.

Edit: Oop, it seems @freecom2 beat me to a few of those points.
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone :)

OK, so it's a grainy film, but I'm not seeing the same kind of obtrusive grain in the examples above, though it can be difficult to compare at relatively low resolutions.

I think the exposure is OK, though it's possible it's a little overexposed - it was a very bright day, I had quite a wide aperture, and my camera has a max shutter speed of 1/2000. That said, the grain is the same in the shots I took inside without flash, where I was struggling to get enough light, so I don't think it's that.

Yep, I'll try a home scan as soon as I get my scanner :)

I need to learn about pushing/pulling film. I can only do it two ways with my camera; manual exposure, or by changing the DX code on the film, but would like to get my head around how to do it and what to do when I develop the films. Is there a tutorial anyone knows about re pushing/pulling?

Samuel, if the Forma 200 is optimistic at 200, does that mean I should try shooting it at 100? If so, I'll need to work out what that means I need to do when I come to develop it!

It's fun this!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
freecom2 said:
@gazmorton2000 it won't be as grainy in medium format, because of the larger negative. You'll be fine!

As the others have said, the sharpening will also have increased the grain, and also it will be dependent on the developer they used as well.
Click to expand...

skysh4rk said:
You're shooting 120, are you not? Grain is far less of a problem in medium and large format photograph than in 135.

If anyone is really worried about grain
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I am pretty new to film. I wasn't worried about grain, just didn't expect as much as in the original post.
 
PS, I agree grain can look fantastic; just not in the shots I have on this roll!!!
 
Southdowns said:
Samuel, if the Forma 200 is optimistic at 200, does that mean I should try shooting it at 100? If so, I'll need to work out what that means I need to do when I come to develop it!
Click to expand...

I would shoot it at 125 and develop normally with the standard recommended time, thats what I did when I tried it as I shot some on the roll at 200, and others at 160 or 125 with the 125 results looking the best when I developed it.
 
I'm currently experimenting with HP5, with a view to maybe moving to it from Tri-X as my day to day choice. This would be solely on the basis that I'm thinking about buying a bulk length and HP5 is much cheaper than Tri-X in bulk lengths. So far I've only shot one mediocre roll and I think the grain is more pronounced than Tri-X. I hope you haven't bought too much Formapan; I tried some 400 ASA - Yuk!

I've just worked out what a 100% crop is - one jpg pixel to one screen pixel ? I've also found scans from an earlier roll of HP5 that I shot in September and the grain isn't too apparent after all; it's a lot less than in your example.
 
It is a grainy film for sure, as people have suggested others are better for fine details.
I am a fan of this film especially because of its character :-)
 
That looks much more grainy than I am used to and I typically push HP5 by at least one stop. Will dig out some examples when I get home.

As a slight aside - why are you shooting HP5 for lab developing? I'd shoot XP2 and take advantage of the cheaper prices for C41 developing.
 
The problem sometimes is that people develop the film with accurate temperature control at 20 deg and then wash the film in cold water 12 deg witch causes the grain to become worse.

The example shown does look to have more grain than I remember HP5 having. What I have found is that I can get a better result from using my dark room rather than either of my scanners( Nikon coolscan /Epson V750). The scanners are too harsh on the grain as apposed to a defused light of an enlarger.
 
Thanks again everyone :)

Will, I wasn't actually shooting for lab developing; I was just shooting then worried about how I was going to get it developed afterwards! I didn't realise how expensive B&W developing is!

Anyway, got my scanner today, and despite not really knowing what I'm doing yet, tried four test scans at almost the same resolution as the lab (theirs was 2200dpi as best I can tell, mine are 2400dpi). Here are the results, which tell me this is all down to sharpening. Which is the "best" setting is debatable though!

Lab Scan:
20140425-003938 by MarkBerry1963, on Flickr

Home - No Sharpening:
USM=Off by MarkBerry1963, on Flickr

Home - Low Sharpening:
USM=Low by MarkBerry1963, on Flickr

Home - Medium Sharpening:
USM=Medium by MarkBerry1963, on Flickr

Home - High Sharpening:
USM=High by MarkBerry1963, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
That's really interesting Mark. I typically get over-sharpening in supermarket or high street scans rather than from a decent lab. I'd be inclined not to use the same lab again, go for process-only and scan your own. If you're looking for a low res scan, AG is usually excellent quality, the cheapest but often very slow. For process only there's only pennies between AG and Peak for one film, and the latter is reliably quick and usually excellent quality.
 
That looks very grainy too me, I haven't used HP5 but shots hundreds of thousands of rolls of HP4. A lot depends on how it's developed and scanned but that doesn't seem typical to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top