FP4+ & HP5+ = everything's photographed. It's like a pair of almighties 😎

when i was learning black and white in the mid 80's i used FP4 exclusively. i found it a bit soft and i went harder than i was happy with, with the paper. when ilford brought out delta I tried a roll of that and loved it. it was perfect for me. i started of using ilford chemicals but by the time i was using delta i was using agfa chemicals. it gave me the results i wanted every time.

Brilliantly timed for me, Boss! I've just been bitten by the 120 bug, coming from a Sigma dp0 and needed to see where to start with film. Having watched quite a few of your previous video's I erred with the FP4 & HP5. Huge thanks to you.

Thanks for this excellent analysis and examples. I learned a lot.

Lovely video. Would be great if you can also compare these two with their Delta counterparts.

Great review and great video. Thank you. RS. Canada

I have been using FP4 since I first got into photography in the 1970s. I now use both FP4 and HP5 and the occasional Kodak Ektar for colour.

That was great advice, back in the 70s that is what Bill Gedney told me when I took his class!!!

The first b&w film I shot a couple of years ago when l got back into film was FP4 in 120, and coincidentally the FP4 was the first film I developed myself in D76. I love it, it prints nicely, HP5 does as well, but l find that l like Delta 400 in Xtol the best, at least for printing. Some of the shots I've printed from a 120 Delta were just ubelievably good!

I started shooting film again this autumn after about 20 years of just digital. I shot lots of film back in the 90:s but always color and always had them processed in a lab. Now I only do B&W film (for color I use digital) and I develop and print them myself. I've only shot 400 ISO so far as it's dark and often overcast in the winter here in Finland so I need all the sensitivity I can get just to get decent shutter speeds. I started with Kentmere Pan 400 as it was on sale and I knew I'd be wasting a lot of film at first so got the cheapest I could find. Mostly I've been shooting HP5 in both 35 mm and 120 and it seems to give good results. I develop my film with CineStill D96f as it's easy to use and seems to work just fine. I'm planning on trying some 100 ISO (I have a couple of rolls of Rollei RPX 100 I got on sale. I'm a sucker for a good value so I always buy what's on sale :) too as soon as there's sufficient light just to see if there's any advantage over 400. It's been sunnier this week and I'm on vacation so I shot two rolls of HP5 (one 35 mm and one 120) in last two days. Just finished scanning them (I scan all my negatives first to decide what to print) and there are some quite nice pictures there. I'll probably do some printing later today.

Thank you for revealing the films you suggest at the beginning of the video. Vid starts @<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="0">0:00</a>

I shoot mainly HP5, occasionally shoot coluor. I develop at home and love the contrast of HP5 and its wide latitude.

I love the grain. I will buy the HP5

My first film was Lomography's Berlin. Probably not the best for a first time but I quite like some of the shots. Since then I've done Ektar 100, HP5 and a couple of others. Definitely going to be keeping a few rolls of HP5+ in reserve at all times. Nice balance of sharp shots and grain.

I was raised on FP4and still love it. Every time I watch1 of you videos I want to get back into the darkroom. Many years ago I spent most of my time in the dark. These days I'm playing with youtube vids and learning so much from you sir! Film rules!

I shoot FP4 back in the day at 200 Iso and it was wonderful. I've got some 120 FP4 I hope to shoot soon. Love film.

As a beginner your video was fun to watch and packed with new informations. Picked up a Rollei 35S and HP5+ film for my first street photography adventure!

Ilford FP4 and HP5 are great films and reasonably priced too.

I was brought up on FP4 and HP5 in the 80s I bulked loaded it and developed it in either ID11 or D76 and when I was an army photographer both were standard issue still shoot some now again both versatile and pretty good results though my fridge had a bit of everything in it now from JCH tri x Foma 400 definitely a great starter film 👍🏻

Can't ever go wrong with either. XTOL is also my standard developer. Another good (cheap and cheerful) alternative for beginners is APX100 / 400. In fact, APX works wonderfully well with Pyro-510.

Thanks, this will be useful, saved. 🌱🌳☘🌏

I'd say start with any of the Kentmere films, good value budget films.

I have started using FP4+ for street. Too much light were I live and that way I can leave the lenes at around f5.6 or f8. Under the same conditions (EV17), I was at f11 with HP5.

Thanks for all the great advice. I Recommend the SFLab beginners guide Film photography & printing to you all. I'm just waiting for blackout blinds for my man Darkroom. Then I will be taking pictures like a boss.Happy days

Wholeheartedly agree with HP5 Plus. I film for all seasons.

Both! Seriously hp5 makes you shoot more, i think. But i prefer Fp4

Love your channel. I wish you would've made prints of both film stocks.

I'm mainly a TriX guy so I'd probably go with the HP5.

From the digital scan comparisons of FP4 vs HP5, here is my quick impression as a rank beginner. First photo: FP4 has less grain, more contrast, and more resolution than HP5. Second photo: FP4 has slightly less grain and a little more contrast than HP5. Third photo: HP5 has slightly more shadow detail than FP4. Fourth photo: HP5 has better shadow detail, highlights, and exposure latitude. In this situation, HP5 did a good job as a portrait film. Making an 8x10 print from a 35mm negative is a bit of a stretch for that format. So, one would expect to see gain in prints made from HP5. Making 8x10 prints from 4x5 negatives would lead to much better results for both films.

I love HP5! When I was in photography school twenty some years ago, they had us only use TMAX 400. I think for a new beginner 400 speed is perfect for getting good first time results!

I’m more a Kodak shooter (just a matter of taste) but I use hp5 pushed to 1600, I really like it’s look. One il Ford film I discovered last year and use a lot, it’s the 50 iso (don’t remember the name... pan F something). A great film !

Here in the States, until the 1990s, the opposite was true -- Plus-X and Tri-X would be the only B&W films that were always on the shelf, and they're pretty much the American brothers of FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus (RIP Plus-X). I could count on Tri-X and Plus-X at places like Crater Lake and Yellowstone Park, and at small town petrol stations -- they'd have three kinds of candy bars, four flavors of soda pop, and either Plus-X or Tri-X film, though sometimes it would be 620 when you wanted 135 or 120 when you had a 620 camera. I'd never seen Ilford films until I was out of college in my 20s. In fact, where I first heard about Ilford was when I read about Pan F "filling the gap" between Plus-X (ASA 125) and Panatomic X (ASA 32). Kodak never offered a B&W film between those speeds (vs. *two* at ASA 125, Plus-X and "consumer" film Verichrome Pan).

Good advice. Ilford is a solid and reliable film. For beginners it's worth considering Kentmere if it's available. It's made by Ilford and produces excellent results but is a pound or two cheaper

I think I might have suggested Kentmere. In the UK it is cheaper than FP3 and HP5 - so mistakes are not so costly. And being Ilford it's good and readily available.

I'm going to throw a other suggestion out there. I'd go for kodak gold 200 if your only planning on scanning. The latitude in that film is quite huge, I've walked with it with no metering just estimating by eye and ended up with totaly useable images across the whole roll. I just find it takes actual effort to make an unusable slide. Now that you can pick up a c-41 kit so cheaply, and I think it's false information that its difficult, all you need is a cheap thermometer and a bath tub to keep temp. Cant say I've procesesed 1 roll out of hundreds that didn't turn out. The chemestry lasts ages too as long as you add a quick was between stages. Now I love good old school silver halide films and shoot them often, but I'd hazard to say it's more particular to get it right, not to mention for scans the slightest water mark or dust shows through without digital ice.

I tend to use the Ilford films for most of my mono photography. I had a project planned for last year that I did intend to shoot on Tri x until I saw the price. Making Ilford even more attractive.

Although I don't like hp5, you can go wrong with the fp4/hp5 combo for starters. Hard to not get an image with hp5.

"Welcome back to me channel!" This makes my day lately, as I slurp my morning eggs and coffee every morning 😈🤘 Boss, a quick question: I usually shoot medium format (an RB67) but I am looking for a smaller 35mm "daily driver". I was gifted a MInolta XD70 +50 1.4 and an OM 1 without a lens. The dilemma is: buy more lenses for Minolta (28 and 35) or sell the MInolta and get the same lens set for an OM? OM is so beautiful that I can't shake of the desire to complete that system. Cheers and thanks in advance!

I'm a big fan of both films, and it helps that, living in the UK, both are easily available and very affordable. Oddly though, I've shot very little FP4 compared to HP5 or even Pan F. Need to rectify this situation soon. Maybe later in the year when there's more light. As far as grain goes, I think the sandy texture of HP5 is very pleasing to the eye, and while it has similarities to Tri-X, the blacks aren't quite as "inky black" which helps in contrasty light. My preference is to develop in D76 <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="61">1:1</a>. It gives nice sharpness and contrast, but isn't so high in acutance that it exaggerates grain. I've tried HP5 and Tri-X in Rodinal, and every time it was a match made in hell. The negs always turned out really "grimy" looking. Some people use Rodinal for 400 speed films and get nice results, but I've no idea how.

I find HP5+ even a bit too nice when shot at box speed and developed in D76 stock. I‘m figuring out my times when cooked in caffenol. But my goal for this year is trying out the other classic b/w filmstocks.

If you're stateside, I highly recommend Ultrafine 100 or 400! Best bang for your buck imo, and the results are surprisingly great given its price! Outside of the States, I'd recommend either Arista EDU 400 or with Kentmere 400! Great budget friendly film that gives some great results when you treat it right!

Nice Video. go for HP5+ :)

Very nice presentation. For a beginner, I would recommend Ilford HP5 Plus in Perceptol rated @ iso 200. The grain is not much larger than FP4, just as sharp, and with a whole stop speed advantage in practical terms. The tonality is slightly compressed which is not a bad thing for the beginner as it can help tame the highlights. HP5 Plus is one of the most versatile films available today. It can be rated from iso 200 to iso 1600 with good results, and it takes a different look with different developers. A roll of HP5 Plus in 120 or a sheet of 4x5 is a thing of beauty. There are a couple of other wonder films available, but here I would stick to Ilford as they have stuck by film photography when both Kodak and most of all Fuji just packed everything up and went digital. Kodak have made a come back , but their pricing policies here in the UK are just crazy. What I used to pay for a box of 50 sheets of 4X5 film a few years ago, I am now expected to pay for just 10 sheets.

Couldn't agree more. HP-5 is brilliant for a first film and the faster shutter speed it affords will let you get a sharp shot easily. Especially hand held which is likely because a new film shooter most likely won't have a tripod...yet! Be warned ye mortals... The shots you get with this will be so good you will want to do it more and more and more still! Soon you will have a wall of cameras, an enlarger, and a lens collection you can see from space! Great film! Get a roll and have fun! Lest ye be warned...!

Superb advice. The biggest mistake new film shooters make is constantly 'flipping' between different films - you can never establish a benchmark this way, too many variables. Films are not craft beer, you shouldn't keep trying different ones!! Keep it simple.

FP4+ is my staple. But I preferred the FP4 before they 'improved' to the + version. HP4 was good, too, but I've never seen the point of 'street photography' and these days it's all landscapes. Used to use HP4 in the studio for portraits/glamour.

I use HP5 for everything 🤭 and soup it in HC-110 1+63. I'm never disappointed, this mix is bullet proof. 👌

I love TriX at 320 to 640, all genres. FP4 for industrial look. Tmax 3200 at 1600 for digital printing. TriX is hard to beat in darkroom printing. Acros for slow speed is amazing.

Can't disagree with FP4+ or HP5+. They're readily available, stable, predictable, flexible and good value. Big thing for me too is Ilford still sells them as 30meter/100ft bulk rolls, a huge cost saver. Some may prefer Tri-X, but it's often double the price of HP5+ in Europe. In the US Tri-X may make more financial sense. I think the recommendation of picking a couple of films likes these and sticking with them to get to know them is a good one. There's infinite fun to be had with different developers and times.

If getting it dev'ed, sure. If getting into dev yourself I don't feel FP4 fills a function at all that HP5 cannot do when pulled, FP4 isn't even very punchy at box speed imo. Pushing and pulling needs to be learnt at once anyways. So my choice is PanF for lack of grain or medium film speed punch, and HP5 for 50-200 speed flatness, 400-800 speed general and 1600-3200 speed grunge shadows.

HP5 is my absolute favorite film, so much so that I bulk load 35mm now.

If one starts their film experience with 35mm FP4/HP5 then they can continue with Ilford to 120 MF, 4x5 LF, 8x10 LF.... ULF. Don't know what other emulsions can take you on this journey. Today I shoot both in 4x5 (5x4). Only wish Delta 400 came in 4x5 (a personal campaign to leverage Ilford to change).

What is your take on Ilford Delta 100 and Delta 400? I've been experimenting with both here in the USA as well as FP4 and HP5. Also, my go-to camera store near where I live now sells Ilford's Kentmere line of films and I plan to try both the ISO 100 and 400 speed film stock in the near future. As someone who grew up shotting B & W in the 70s from high school onward, I really appreciate your content as it takes me back to the time when I was just starting out in photography. Over the last two years, I've purchased a Nikon N80 in very good condition, a Nikon F100 in very good condition and an F5 and F6, both in near mint condition. Watching your videos makes me want to shoot B& W film all the more. Please keep more of this great content coming! I am sure I am not alone among your subscribers who very much appreciate all of your efforts.

On the DSLR scan ones the FP4 did not look a sharp as HP5, which seemed odd since it looked finer grained, the HP5 had more contrast though in the ones of the young lady it did not seem so, so much, but the HP5 appears sharper in the KZfaq HD same with the lamp post. Maybe the focus was off for the FP4? It may have been shutter speeds if the F-stop was kept the same.

Is the Holga a good step in into 120mm? Seems like a good price 😅

FP4+ 125 in Adonal 1+25 is my choice

Kentmere film is reliable. Cheap as well. I've found most b&w film stock to be pretty solid, as long as you shoot it at speed and are aware that slower films are less 'punchy'. I have to admit that sometimes I've just had the wrong film in the camera for the conditions and ended up with several shots as undefined masses, usually when I've loaded 100 and ended up in a heavily shaded spot and failed to compensate enough. My fault not the films. The moral of this tale is always be aware of what film you have in, in a digital age you can't change the ISO for individual shots, one third of your exposure triangle is unmovable.

I'm curious as to what your opinion of Ilford's Pan F+ is.

Grain all day for me. HP5 it is. I actually don't like black and white in medium format - it's too clean!

Can u do a comparison on HP5 and Delta 400? I know they are G-grain and T-grain, but what are the differences between these two when come into real life shooting?

What are your thoughts on Fomapan 100-400

Is it just me or does the HP5 negatives/prints look sharper then the FP4?

Hello, I have a few questions. In a few months I will be going to an airshow and thought I would try to take some photos there. (I am by the way a beginner photographer), this is however a bit of a special airshow as it will be in the evening when it is just starting to get dark so the planes can fly with very visible pyrotechnics, lights and afterburners. I thought that since the planes will be moving *and* it will be a bit dark I should try a roll of high speed film (like ilford 3200) do you think that will be a good film for this specific situation. My second question is how you set the exposure settings when it is dark as I can imaginge that the camera's bult in light meter might not be the best for low light situations. The only way I can think of is to take some test shots on a digital camera with different settings first to see what works but I was just wondering if there was an easier way to do it. Thanks for the awnsers (Assuming you reply of course.) //A photography beginner.

Wouldn't such photographic films as rollei superpan 200 or fomapan 200 be a good middle ground for the iso 100 or iso 400 dilemma?

Hey. Can you make a video about how to shoot film with a flash. I dont know where to start :)

Yeah hp5+ loght is crappy and dodges movement better , bring a bit faster

I've always assumed but never asked, I assume High Street is what we might call in a small town in America as Main Street? Which is, not surprisingly, the most important main thoroughfare. Or possibly high street may refer to what we would call downtown which is the main business and shopping area of a more urban setting? And why is it called high street - evil weed smokers ;)

What's your opinion on Ilfords XP2 super 400?

i do love me some ilford film stock, but so far i have had zero success with their support. i've tried to get them to reply through both their web form and email and have gotten not so much as an acknowledgement.

Film for beginners? Kodak T-max and Tri-x 100% Ilford is good, but Kodak is totally foolproof and still the best.

You little bastard! Constantly telling us that you knew Stan, while we will never have the opportunity. But hen again, we know him a bit through you, right? At least that's what I am telling myself... Are we ever going to see a special about Stan?