Ororaro
Well-known
At this point in my photographic journey, I think I prefer HP5.
Ilford HP5+ vs. Kodak Tri-X 400!
- Thread starter Magus
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 71
- Views 29K
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Windwalker57
Established
I always used stainless reels and tanks. I can't even load the plastic ones. Jobo gets a lot of good press. I have also sold a lot of Paterson over the years.
Quick question- Do you loose speed when HP5+ is developed in HC110? Old Tri-X in D-76 1:1 lost density, so I exposed at 250 or 320. I also found that excessive agitation greatly increased contrast at the loss of detail.
Quick question- Do you loose speed when HP5+ is developed in HC110? Old Tri-X in D-76 1:1 lost density, so I exposed at 250 or 320. I also found that excessive agitation greatly increased contrast at the loss of detail.
Thea
Established
I have never got on with Tri X, my images were flat and grey, but like the quality and price of HP5, if I develop at home I always use Rodinal. If at uni we use ID11
At the moment I have a batch of APX 400 (Agfa) which is a lovely film - not too grainy, but very contrasty. It comes up a treat in either developer too. If I could find more I would buy in bulk.
I never got on with Delta 400, and it really doesnt like Rodinal.
I also use PanF(Ilford) 50 but mainly for pinhole and MF.
At the moment I have a batch of APX 400 (Agfa) which is a lovely film - not too grainy, but very contrasty. It comes up a treat in either developer too. If I could find more I would buy in bulk.
I never got on with Delta 400, and it really doesnt like Rodinal.
I also use PanF(Ilford) 50 but mainly for pinhole and MF.
markinlondon
Elmar user
Windwalker57, excess agitation is definitely your enemy with HC-110 in my limited experience. It's very energetic. Try cutting your current agitation regime in half to get box speed with good highlights. For some reason it seems to work. I'm still learning with this developer, the results defy logic sometimes.
Windwalker57
Established
The formula for ID11 is very close to D76
Thea
Established
I am reliably informed that ID11 IS D76, just different company who make it.
Windwalker57
Established
It was an Ilford tech rep that suggested cutting down my agitation with Kodak products, he pointed out that Ilford products preferred slower agitation, its in there tech sheets. He said that Kodak was going for hard edge sharpness, Ilford products were designed to give a longer tonal range. I have since learned patience.markinlondon said:
Windwalker57
Established
I(lford) D(eveloper) (formula #)11 may actually be older than D-76, with Kodak modifying it enough to not be an infringement. Usually interchangeable with D76 for developing most panchromatic films, same time/temp charts.Thea said:
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
May I ask what film speed rating and developer dilution you use for HP5+ in Rodinal?Thea said:
Cheers
Vincent
markinlondon
Elmar user
Windwalker57 said:
The classical formula for D76/ID-11 can be found here. This is identical to the formula given in all my old photographic manuals (1930s to 1950s). I think the current Ilford formulation is closer but Kodak developed it first to obtain the definition required for movie soundtracks if my reading doesn't lie. Modern Kodak D76 has been modified to allow packing as a single powder.
julio1fer
Well-known
Just to get back in thread, I like both. Currently I am using a bulk load of Tri-X and a 10 pack of HP5 in 120 size, because these are what I can get where I live.
I develop both in D-76 1:1 and shoot at 400 or 800 EI.
I develop both in D-76 1:1 and shoot at 400 or 800 EI.
Over the years I've used a lot of Tri-X and various developers, with D-76 1:1 and Edwal FG-7 plus added Sodium Sulfite both very satisfactory. I only used Ilford HP-5 once in 1981 to try their new thin-based 72-exp roll, and it looked fine with FG-7 mixed up with plain water.
But I moved away from both films until a few years ago when I wanted high speed in medium format and chose to standardize on Diafine when souping conventional films. I was disappointed with Tri-X Prof (320) at EI 1000, rather harsh tonality though good shadow detail. In a bag of miscellaneous film that came with an eBay purchase there was a roll of 120 HP-5 so I shot it at EI 800 and was surprised at the nice tonal qualities brought out by Diafine.
I have not shot any since, but I think the Ilford film bears more use whenever I'm looking for that kind of speed. Thus, another vote for HP-5....
But I moved away from both films until a few years ago when I wanted high speed in medium format and chose to standardize on Diafine when souping conventional films. I was disappointed with Tri-X Prof (320) at EI 1000, rather harsh tonality though good shadow detail. In a bag of miscellaneous film that came with an eBay purchase there was a roll of 120 HP-5 so I shot it at EI 800 and was surprised at the nice tonal qualities brought out by Diafine.
I have not shot any since, but I think the Ilford film bears more use whenever I'm looking for that kind of speed. Thus, another vote for HP-5....
iml
Well-known
I like HP5+ in 120 format, don't get on with it in 35mm. For 35mm, Tri-X in Xtol for me, I like the results from 200 to 6400, and no other film I have used is so versatile.
Ian
Ian
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
ChrisN
Striving
And Neopan 400?
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Two Examples, HP5+ and Tri-X
Two Examples, HP5+ and Tri-X
Post deleted by posters request
Two Examples, HP5+ and Tri-X
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
First off, I prefer Tri-X. I recently scanned some old HP5+ negs. They were very nice, but I didn't like them quite as much as TX, but it wasn't anything to worry about. And I have no clue what the processing was, though I suspect it was Rodinal. In any event...
Both films are not "true" 400 speed films, IMO. The "old" Tri-X was definitely EI 200 no matter what developer. I do not believe that developer makes much difference in terms of "true" film speed.
ALERT: THIS IS NOT THE START OF AN ARGUMENT ABOUT "TRUE" FILM SPEED!!!
My developer of choice for both in the "old" days (70s through mid-80s) was HC-110 Dil. H. TX in HC-110 gave shadow detail up to your elbow, wonderful middle value micro-contrast, and smooth highlights. The grain was quite reasonable and tight, though not up to Rodinal standards for acutance.
Today I have standardized on Rodinal for all my b&w, though I am very close to experimenting with Robert's (Honus) Rodinal/X-tol recipe.
I would really like to experiment with HP-5+ some more and see how it differs from Tri-X, but I just don't have the time right now to do controlled tests. Plus, for some strange reason Ilford films are not readily available here in Rochester. Go figure.
Tri-X, HC-110 Dil H. ca. 1986; Toronto
Both films are not "true" 400 speed films, IMO. The "old" Tri-X was definitely EI 200 no matter what developer. I do not believe that developer makes much difference in terms of "true" film speed.
ALERT: THIS IS NOT THE START OF AN ARGUMENT ABOUT "TRUE" FILM SPEED!!!
My developer of choice for both in the "old" days (70s through mid-80s) was HC-110 Dil. H. TX in HC-110 gave shadow detail up to your elbow, wonderful middle value micro-contrast, and smooth highlights. The grain was quite reasonable and tight, though not up to Rodinal standards for acutance.
Today I have standardized on Rodinal for all my b&w, though I am very close to experimenting with Robert's (Honus) Rodinal/X-tol recipe.
I would really like to experiment with HP-5+ some more and see how it differs from Tri-X, but I just don't have the time right now to do controlled tests. Plus, for some strange reason Ilford films are not readily available here in Rochester. Go figure.
Tri-X, HC-110 Dil H. ca. 1986; Toronto
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
Is this a Rodinal / Xtol mix? Sounds interesting...Trius said:
Vincent
Similar threads
