>>3652804>Why don’t you recommend HP5 for lab? I hear it’s a very good film.
It is, the problem is the lab not the film. In most labs, B&W film development happens the amateur way: by hand, in small tanks. Combine this with the fact that B&W process is not standardised like C-41, and it's up to the person to use a developer that matches well your film, use the correct times for it, agitation etc. . Many use just a single type of developer, not necessarily the most versatile one but one that has good shelf life and is not too pricey, to reduce costs. HC-110 is a popular choice.
So there's just tons of room for error, and it's expensive ($10+) for something that costs pennies in materials if you do it yourself. I'm not dissing the lab's price, if you have a person occupied for half an hour developing your film, you have to pay them a living wage. But the chemicals would cost you 50-70p to do it yourself, per roll.
So if you want guaranteed good results from a lab that you haven't tried before, just use XP2. Also it's an underrated and very nice film on its own right: tons of latitude, fine grain.>Which products are needed for at home development? Are the results comparable to the ones achieved at a lab?
Dev tank + reels, developer, fixer, wetting agent, a measuring beaker, thermometer, changing bag.
Secondarily some bits and pieces, like storage for your film (sleeves) etc.>Are the results comparable to the ones achieved at a lab?
Of course. And better. Cause you can use any chemicals you like for a particular look, you can play with pushing and pulling, check forums etc and use the correct times for every film, and so on.
Also an important aspect is scanning, which requires manual input (for instance setting black point and white point for B&W film), and no lab ever is gonna do that - unless you pay them dearly, they throw it on auto and whatever it is, it is.