Ilford HP5+ vs. Kodak Tri-X 400!

You really can't go wrong with either one. They're both very forgiving films that push and pull well. At the end of the day, it boils down to taste.

I used both for a while when I was getting into analog, particularly medium format. At the time I was shooting more Tri-X (5:1 ratio in favor of the Kodak), however no matter what I did, I could never get results that pleased me as well as HP5+, so the Ilford became my regular stock. I think part of me wanted to like Tri-X more only because everyone held it in such high regards. That's not to say it's a bad film -- hardly; it's just not my taste. I found it to be a little too contrasty for my liking and I seemed to like the shadow detail I got from HP5 more.

HP5+ in D-76/ID11, or if I had to use Tri-X, I'd develop in Rodinal.
 
I never really got along with Tri-X. Tried this, tried that and was never really happy with the results. HP5+ in ilfosol-S is the ticket if I want a 400 film. APX 400 in Microphen is a close second.
 
mmmm, HP5. Love that film. I've had less dependable results with tri-X, though I've had some good luck shooting tri-X at slower speeds.
 
Both are excellent, but I prefer Tri-X because of the higher contrast - HP5 looks a little flatter IMHO.

I developed both in Xtol. Several hundred rolls of Tri-X in Xtol 1:3. If Tri-X wasn't available I'd have no hesitation in using HP5 instead.

All in the past tense as I've not shot much film since getting an M8.
 
I'm a big fan of HP5+
I develop it in DDX and have had some great results. At 800ISO it works a treat for those loooow light situations.
I tried Tri X many years ago after reading so many articles praising it to the hills...but just never really got on with it.
 
I too like HP5+ although Tri-X is an awfully good film. Tri-X is has more contrast but HP5 better tonality to my eye. You can always monkey with the contrast post-development. I love the look of HP5 in Kodak HC-110. :)
 
Better luck with TriX - HP5 always made everything look like I shot on a cloudy day.

TriX in HC110 using compensating development (1:100 in semi-stand) to control contrast, especially for pushing, which is what I do most.
 
I love them both. Just for once I'm on the fence and I just buy one or other as the mood takes me. I suspect Tri-x is a more versatile film overall as it looks better (to me) if pulled. I also prefer the grain in Tri-x, tight and even, HP5 looks a bit more gritty when the grain is apparent. All this is of subjective.
By a strange coincidence, I got the latest Black and White Photography magazine today where Mike Johnston treats us to his opinion of the best developer for Tri-x. He thinks it's D-76 1:1 and that HC-110 is rubbish but I'm paraphrasing liberally here :) .
 
Whoops, I forgot my own developer choices in my rantette about MJ. I like both films best in stock ID-11 but mostly use HC-110 dil. H for tonality an because I'm a cheapskate who enjoys an easy life :eek: . Ilfosol S is nice too, pity about the shelf life.
 
sunsworth said:
Several hundred rolls of Tri-X in Xtol 1:3.
Click to expand...
At what iso speed do you rate your Tri-X? At box speed and below I prefer to use 1:2 dilution for slightly more contrast. 1:3 seems to be better for pushing, though.

Vincent
 
vincentbenoit said:
At what iso speed do you rate your Tri-X? At box speed and below I prefer to use 1:2 dilution for slightly more contrast. 1:3 seems to be better for pushing, though.
Click to expand...

Box speed, ISO 400
 
I've been using HP5 more and more. I used to be strictly a tri x man but when the price differential between the two became ridiculous I decided to give up on Kodak film. I'm very pleased with the richness I've got out of HP5, it's almost as if has more silver in it than the current incarnation of tri X. The one thing I've noticed is that the less I've chopped and changed with films the more I've gotten out of them. I don't develop my own film anymore - I shoot too much so I just hunt around for a lab I like, and then stick to one fast one slow film - HP5 is the fast one.
 
You are talking about THREE films because Tri-X today is a different beast than it was a few years back. The new Tri-X gives thinner negs seemingly optimized for scanning. I'd prefer the OLD Tri-X but HP5+ is closer to the old Tri-X than to the new version. Today's Tri-X looks too much like TMax. So I go with HP5+ in D76.....
 
Haven't used HP5+ much but can speak for the flexibility of Tri-X when it comes to pushing/pulling... To suit the light and shooting circumstances (or to achieve a specific look) I usually go for one of the following speed / developer combinations:
- iso 200 / Xtol 1+2 or Rodinal 1+50
- iso 400 / Xtol 1+2
- iso 800 / Xtol 1+3
- iso 1600 / Xtol 1+3 or Rodinal 1+100 (2 h stand development)

Have used HP5+ at box speed only, got nice tonality in Xtol 1+2 although the grain was more obtrusive and less pleasant than with Tri-X (for my taste).

Vincent
 
markinlondon said:
I love them both. Just for once I'm on the fence and I just buy one or other as the mood takes me. I suspect Tri-x is a more versatile film overall as it looks better (to me) if pulled. I also prefer the grain in Tri-x, tight and even, HP5 looks a bit more gritty when the grain is apparent. All this is of subjective.
By a strange coincidence, I got the latest Black and White Photography magazine today where Mike Johnston treats us to his opinion of the best developer for Tri-x. He thinks it's D-76 1:1 and that HC-110 is rubbish but I'm paraphrasing liberally here :) .
Click to expand...

Strange... In the 70's and 80's, I always used TriX developed in D-76 1:1 to control the contrast and get finer grain. I never could get acceptable results using HC110. Now, after all these years, someone publishes their opinion and it agrees with mine? Could I have been right all along?

I switched to Ilford HP5+ in the 90's, it had better highlight sparkle and better shadows. I gotta try this again, too much digital lately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom