Low inherent contrast, but not too low like Delta 3200. High malleability. Its real strength is in its versatility. Most situations can be handled on this film to produce highly acceptable results. A total workhorse, just like Tri-X.

The only one I can think of is that sometimes it is too fast if you want certain effects from using slow shutter speeds and/or wide apertures. If you want the sharpest of the sharp, this is not the best choice, but that is a given.

I love this film so much. I like Kodak Tri-X 320, and used it for quite a while. I had it calibrated nicely in 4x5 and medium format so I could use the zone system, and I was never disappointed with it. However, I decided to switch in order to show my support to Ilford, and ended up hooked on HP5. Now I use it for 90% of my small-format black and white shooting and about 80% of my medium format black and white shooting. I use it about half the time with sheet formats.

What I like about this film is that its inherent level of contrast works so well with the way I like to make my prints. I have never had a really hard time printing anything I have shot on HP5. It is, as advertised, medium contrast. This gives you so much room to tweak it to be exactly the film you want it to be. I have rated this film anywhere from 64 to 6400 in order to get the level of contrast I want, and this sort of tweaking always works so predictably (as it does with Tri-X). Lower speed films are harder to get low in contrast, and higher speed films are harder to get high in contrast. I guess it is a personal choice, but this film seems to cover most situations for the things I shoot and the way I like to shoot them.

I also enjoy its overall look so much more than Delta or T-Max. It is so much more journalistic and classic looking. Delta and T-max are perfect and bland. Really good for capturing every detail of something as sharply as possible, but totally lacking in any sort of "bite", or "character".

Honestly, the film has all the same strengths that Tri-X has as far as versatility and tweakability. I would be hard pressed to recommend one over the other. It's really the shooter who matters. I simply like the contrast of the HP5 a little bit better, and I like supporting Ilford instead of Kodak.

Customer Service

Ilford was very good in my one experience with them.

Similar Products Used:

Kodak Tri-X 320 in 120/220 and sheets, and Tri-X 400 in 35mm.

price, easy to process, beautiful, all purpose film, could be pushed to 800 without problem

none, really.

I've tried many black and white films, and I have to say it's the best iso 400 film available now, even for portrait I like it, the grain is good, and it's still great pushed a t 800. If you need a reliable all purpose 400 film, look no further. Delta 400 is good too, but I've often been disappointed, probably because it's a bit touchy to process.

Similar Products Used:

Delta 400, 400 tmax.

- goes from 100 Iso to 3200 Iso, depending on how much grain you want

- none none to me, the perfect film

alround film, can be used for any occasion. might be a little rough on portraits but has so much ISO push-pull capabilites
I use Emofin two step development solution and this really goes well with the film.
can be used from 400-800 w/out push, push start at 1600.

Customer Service

not us

Similar Products Used:

Ilforf Fp4 Plus

Versitile Nearly grainless in 120 Nice rich blacks Tonality rivals T-Max 100 in D76, 1:3 for 20 minutes(?) (Need to try that one again...)

None really.

Good all-purpose film. Hard to screw up and very versitle. Pushes well, easy to print, good latitude. Works well with a variety of developers. It's a real work-horse that gives consistent results. I think it give nice rich blacks and decent tonality for a 400 speed film. Grain is nearly invisible, very good for a 400 speed film. I developed this in D76 at 1:3 for 20 mins recently just to try it (usually 1:1 or use DDX) and got very good tonality(?) comparable to T-Max 100. But this is /definately/ a ymmv thing, and I place very little stock in anecdotal info about various film/developer combos when I read about them on the web. Suggest you do the same. I like this film rated at 400. It pushes well, but (call me crazy) I prefer to rate and develop Ilford 3200 at 1000 than push HP5. I like the "desaturated" look of 3200 better. It's a unique aesthetic. I digress. Very good film. I always have it in the fridge. Good show, Ilford.

Customer Service

I like, respect, admire Ilford's commitment to black and white photography. I will alway by Ilford (and Agfa) for this reason alone. Support the black and white film companies!

Similar Products Used:

Just about all 120 black and white available except the Fugis (Have that in the fridge, just haven't gotten around to it yet...)

Awesome grain. Predictable results.

...

I screwed around with Kodak B&W films for a while. I started with TRI-X, and then I tried T-MAX and then Ilford's FP4, yadda yadda yadda. I didn't have any serious problems with any of them, but I was only getting acceptable results, nothing spectacular. Then comes along HP5 and it blew me away. I get predictable and spectacular results every time now. I will shoot no other B&W film besides HP5. It may be ISO 400, but I get smooth, ultrafine grain that can hardly be noticed at 11x14+ enlargements.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

Kodak TRI-X, T-MAX, Ilford FP4, random others...

Mood

It's probably just me, but I sometimes get a faint purple cast left on the negatives (Aculux developer). Doesn't stop it printing lovely, though.

Everything I put on this stuff looks like it's come from some sort of timeless age of innocence. It's just lovely. Great for architecture. Took it round America, Canada, Portugal and it brought the mood of each home. Plenty of detail on a 645 negative, and enough on a 35mm to make 8"x10" prints.

Similar Products Used:

Other Ilford stuff

Sharpness (for a 400ISO film) Tonal range & handling of contrast Easy to handle in the darkroom Reasonably cheap

Grainy in continuous-tone areas

HP5 is an excellent all-round B&W film with high acutance & good contrast control. Grain is visible but not obtrusive. It holds detail & shape much better than high-speed emulsions such as TMZ3200. It is very easy to process & print. HP5 seems to be easier to find in Australia than Tri-X - although many consumer labs stock T-Max films at inflated prices. T-Max films are also harder to process & seem to block up highlights easier with my darkroom system.

Customer Service

Ilford products are very easy to find in Australia, and are economically priced when compared to Kodak B&W materials.

Similar Products Used:

Tri-X T-Max 400 & 3200

Speed, cost, ability to push

Sharpness Grain

I'm going to part with the sentiment here and offer an alternative point of view. I don't care for this film. Too grainy, not sharp, and hard to get good contrast without pulling. For my uses (portraiture) a finer grain film is a much better fit. (iso100, T-grain films) For intentional sharpness loss, contrast loss, or grain structure appearance this film is fine (ie. fine art, specialized uses)

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

Delta, T-max

Very tolerant of over/underexposure Easy to process Not a lot of grain so you can still make good enlargements Good sharpness and contrast

Not grainless

This was my first ever B&W film and I still use it today. Why? Maybe because of the way it tolerates over and under exposure so well. It has not too much grain for 400ISO and it is very consistent for me ( I have never had any trouble processing this film myself and even when I get the lab to do it it still turns out great). I'd recommend this to anyone just starting out but its the way to go even if you've been in photography for 10 or 20 years.

Customer Service

Not needed for film

Similar Products Used:

A lot of Ilford, T-Max, Fuji Velvia and Sensia, Kodak Tri-X

Flexibility, pushability.

Let me begin by saying that you have to take some of these reviews with a pinch of salt. There are so many variables involved from getting a picture from exposure to print, that it makes casual comparisons almost meaningless. Especially if reviewers are developing & printing themselves. I have taught darkroom & I have both experienced myself, & also seen in others the ability to use poor judgement & then blame it on the film/developer/enlarger etc..... Almost any modern B&W film can produce wonderful results if used skillfully. Differences between particular films are actually quite subtle & best understood by the experts. OK on with review..... This is an all time great B&W film. The reason for this is that it has great latitude, grain & contrast, & is therefore very flexible. This film was developed when most cameras didn't have a built-in light meter. Photographers would set their exposure to a general level indicated by a hand-held meter or pure guess-timation & then "work around it". This type of shooting requires a flexible emulsion. I would personally recommend this film to anybody starting into B&W; especially if you intend to do your own developing & printing. I've personally had better results with this film than any other B&W, no doubt because of it's innate forgiveness ( a virtue we should all try to cultivate ). If super slick grain is your goal then go for FP4 (asa 125).

Similar Products Used:

KODAK, AGFA, fUJI,ETC.....