Review 1600 ISO Film in 35mm

[Harlequin565]

I've been looking for a film I can shoot at 1600/3200 and have tried a few options, but this is mainly about comparing 3 films.

- HP5 pushed to 1600
- Kodak P3200 at 1600
- Ilford Delta 3200 at 1600
I have pushed Tri-X to 1600, but that gives quite a distinctive look which you might like, or might not, so it's very difficult to be subjective. I wanted something I could get relatively clean, neutral results from at 1600.

tl;dr - I prefer HP5 pushed to 1600 then developed in DD-X.

Caveat: All images have had their final NR and sharpening done. The forums soften images so really, this isn't a sharpness test, it's a grain review. How exciting..!

Kodak P3200
I bought quite a bit of this film when it came out and have shot it at 3200 and 1600. I have resisted developing it in DD-X mainly because the datasheets and reviews on the internet all seem to lean towards the best results being with HC-110. So... Here's the photo.

"daylight" in a sports hall during the village show.
First, this needed a lot of work to pull it back to something reasonable. The grain in P3200 is quite pronounced and I'm not a fan. Zoom in...

I am not a fan of T-grain films for exactly this reason, and I think it's probably why I ended up with HP5. The close up examination just gives a sharper, but uglier (to my eye!) grain structure. It loses it's "analogue" feel and becomes more like a poor quality digital shot. Not my cuppa.

Ilford Delta 3200
Another T-grain film

Works do on Tuesday. Pub during the afternoon. I shot both Delta 3200 and HP5 on the same outing.
Off the bat, I immediately prefer this to P3200

The grain is much softer and more forgiving - especially in the mid tones. I have yet to shoot this stuff at 3200 and will probably do a comparison to HP5, because I can see me using this again.
Lets look at HP5

Ilford HP5 Plus

I tried to find a photo that had similar areas to zoom in on but failed.


The grain is much more easily controlled here. I think the longer development in DD-X (13 mins vs 8 min for Delta 3200) has just kept the "angriness" of the grain under control and results in the sort of image most people get with HP5 Plus shot at 400 and developed in Rodinal.

With PP, I had to do more severe work with (in order) P3200, then Delta 3200 then HP5 to get decent results. As I'm sure you're aware, NR affects sharpness, so reducing the amount of NR retains more inherent sharpness in the image. The HP5 images look better to my eye because of this. The P3200 images always look "hard" to me with a gritty contrast that doesn't really appeal.

I know I've been hard on P3200 here and many people swear by it. Maybe I should try some in DD-X to see if I get comparable results, but I'm still finding that HP5 is almost a "wonder film" for flexibility and price all in one great package.

Your mileage may, as usual, vary...

 

[lindsay]

An interesting comparison. I have a couple of these films to try so I feel more informed about them now, thanks.

 

[Boots]

Thanks Ian, an interesting comparison. I agree with you that the P3200 is very "crunchy". The Delta looks, to me, to have quite a lot of halation, but without taking the same image in the same conditions (which is probably too boring for you, and us) we will never really know.

HP5 and DD-X, always seems to be a winner to me.

 

[Sky]

Thanks for that. I've been using HP5 and have been tempted to try a few others, but you've just saved me a few bob.

 

[Peter B]

Interesting review Ian, although I'm undecided about HP5+ in 35mm. Great in MF and LF, though. As a matter of interest, this is from the Ilford interview with Keith Moss https://www.ilfordphoto.com/in-focus-keith-moss/

AS THIS IS AN ILFORD INTERVIEW IT WOULD BE REMISS OF US NOT TO ASK ABOUT YOUR FAVOURITE ILFORD PRODUCTS. TELL US YOU FAVOURITE ILFORD FILM, PAPER OR CHEMS AND WHY?​

My favourite film is Ilford HP5 Plus, it’s totally flexible. You can push it up to 3200asa and pull it to 100asa. I love the contrast, the beautiful tone and fine grain it gives.


For chemicals it has to be Ilford Perceptol film developer for achieving sharpness detail and extra fine grain.

 

[Harlequin565]

The Delta looks, to me, to have quite a lot of halation

It does doesn't it.

This was similar with HP5



And looking back through my other rolls of Delta 3200 It does feel like it's more pronounced with backlit/lights-in-the-shot images. Interesting...

I'm undecided about HP5+ in 35mm

I tried HP5 in Rodinal, Ilfosol, XTOL and HC-110. It gave me results from awful to "decidedly average but ok for a cheap film". In DD-X though it's just miles better.
Your post also reminds me to update the title for 35mm....

 

[Kevin Allan]

A useful post - thanks, Ian. I prefer to stick with HP5 because:

a) There doesn't seem to be an alternative which is significantly better
b) It's easier to have one film that can be exposed at a variety of speeds rather than maintain stock of a different film just for low light work.

I'm also sticking with HC110 wherever possible; I've just but another bottle so I'm good for at least two years.