Fujifilm 400 neopan (35mm) VS (35mm)Ilford HP5+ 400

i have always used the ilford hp5+ black and white film for my work and i was just wondering has anyone used the fuji neopan 400? how does it stack up against the ilford, apart for the price, i no the ilford film is priced higher.. ((((35mm)))) thankssss :)

how much u paying for illford and where from?

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cat=1&type=1180&man=34&filterwords=&go=SEARCH&comp=

i usually just get it from http://www.silverprint.co.uk/ or jessops as its right around the corner from the college, both ilfords are around £4.oo :( thanks for the link btw, much cheaper

unless you are having it developed properly in the developer of your choice it's irrelevant. just buy the cheapest.
HP5 in HC110 dilution B was always a favorite of mine. would do a minimal agitation and extend the times a bit so the compensating effect was more pronounced. would print with a cold cathode head to get the most out of the dynamic range.
saying that rodinal heavily diluted was good too with the right subject. grainy as fuck but nice grain so it didn't matter.

how much u paying for illford and where from?

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cat=1&type=1180&man=34&filterwords=&go=SEARCH&comp=

Wow, talk about a blast from the past. I used both in college and preferred HP5 as I found it more flexible. www.7dayshop.com are very good (really good for memory cards too) They're not quick but are reliable and secure.

This is where I come in. Fuji Neopan is my favourite 400 ISO film. Its contrasty, but with noticable grain. I have never used a better film for capturing the skin texture of black people. The grain structure is tighter than HP5+. I think from prints of comparable subject matter, that HP5+ pushes further and has slightly better graduation. But I've used many 400 B+W films, and Neopan has been my favourite. Try it for portraiture in good sunlight, or overcast conditions, and you may never switch back. I won't, and can't.

It's a simple matter of personal preference - I always found HP5 to have the perfect balance of tone, contrast, detail and grain for my purposes - and that was just with a standard Jessops developer and minimal agitation at 1 minute intervals.

Never got on with the 120 version though for some unknown reason.

Tri-X ahem. BEST. FILM. EVER.

thanks for the website just ordered my ten batch of ilford, but the damm postal strike isnt going to help with my course work haha, i might go get a roll of neopan to see what its like

GA2G - " Try it for portraiture in good sunlight, or overcast conditions, and you may never switch back. I won't, and can't."

:D

time to get my night project underway :)

ah yer just though i might add --

im doing a self initiated documentary project for my portfolio, was thinking about doing going round all the bikes nights ie " south, west , north, south east and east east east london, so i may see some of you when i get my new flash and my lense repaired/replaced.

plus-x developed in pyro at low agitation/dilution in deep tanks. exposed using a modifed zone system. metered with a spot meter.
:halcyon days:

Tri-X ahem. BEST. FILM. EVER.

Cunt. You could be right though. Seriously.

My twin has done amazing things with Tri-X. I like it, but find Neopan better when rated at the stock 400 ISO. You were referring to the original 400 right, and not the newer 320 ISO version?

wow. indeed a blast from the past. i would agree with CC about Tri-X being the best film. loved it when i was shooting b/w. one film i've always liked, but found very difficult was Tech-Pan. almost no grain, but it's forgiveness for under/over exposure was dire. but when it worked....wow.

but with the original question, i think ilford hp5 is my preference. i liked the grain more than Fuji and I always trusted Ilford for b/w. used Fuji for slides. used Kodak for colour negs.