Any one use both HP5 AND Delta 400/Tri X AND TMax?

[GarageBoy]

Does any one hop around and use both? Why?

 

[kxl]

Here's what I have in my freezer:

Tri-X, HP5+, Neopan 400 and Neopan 1600, and a few rolls of TMY

I stocked up on Neopan 1600 before they were sold out. The others I got when I found good deals.

Haven't seen good deals on Delta 400; otherwise, I'd get some too.

 

[p.giannakis]

I've been using Tri-X and T-Max, depending which one is on offer. I prefer the Tri-X but I don't say "No" to T-Max, especially if the price is right.
HP5+ and Delta are usually quite expensive compared to the other two so...

 

[Moto-Uno]

Have all of them in the fridge ( as I have for the past 5 years ) and still can't decide to stick to only one or two of them ! Perfectly satisfactory pictures have come from all of them at one time or another. And to add even more lack of commitment to the thread I've at least 4 different developers on hand and can't say I prefer any one over the other !
Peter

 

[Takkun]

The perfectionist in me prefers Tmax for fine-grain architectural work, but I've had Tri-X work well when I was shooting in North Philly.

But HP5 is my go-to for medium format.

I used to shoot HP5 a lot on 35mm, but I've never gotten anything good from it, so I switched to Tri-X on the off-chance I use a traditional grain film. Same with Delta.

 

[Tijmendal]

Although I love TMY, I rarely shoot it. HP5 and Tri-X are both staple. I like them both and I think they're similar enough to use interchangeably (let's not start this discussion...).
I've only ever shot a roll or two of Delta 400, simply because it's a lot more expensive, but I honestly feel like I should be supporting Ilford. I think they're really legit.

 

[Pioneer]

I use HP-5+ sheet film because grain is not an issue.

Normally I shoot ISO 25, 100 and 200 in my MF and 35mm cameras.

When I feel I need something a tad faster I will shoot a bit of Tri-X for the smaller formats. Since I roll my own I do shoot a bit of bulk HP-5+ 135.

To be totally honest though, when I need something fast I almost always shoot Delta 3200 so my supply of Tri-X in the freezer doesn't drop very fast. At ISO 800 it is beautiful, and it can obviously be pushed much higher when I need.

 

[shadowfox]

Because I like both 😀

 

[x-ray]

All are excellent. It really depends on what you like in your images. HP5 is more like original TX with a little more grain texture than the others with Neopan 400 and new TX looking very similar. Neopan may be slightly finer grain. Tmax is very fine grain, smooth and sharp. Tmax is very modern looking.


Both TX and Tmax have gone through an evolution. When Tmax was in its infancy I did trade trial testing for Kodak of both of the original emulsions, 400 & 100. I wasn't impressed with the early emulsions but the current offering is excellent. Kodak finally got it right.

I didn't do trade trial testing on TX but used thousands of rolls of the original from the 60's till it was changed a few years ago. The initial revised formulation didn't impress me but recently trying it I really like it again.

I also did trade trial testing for Ilford in the development of Delta 100 & 400. The delta emulsions also evolved and are exceptional films. I've shot many thousand rolls and sheets and like it very much.

 

[judsonzhao]

I have had the last 3, but literally been using tri-x and Tmax, although exposed 1 roll of Neopan 400. From eyes, Tmax 400 will be the best all-arounder, sharp and smooth, medium contrast and great DR. Neopan 400 is somewhat unique. Tri-x has the best contrast I think

 

[outbr3akxal]

I use both tri-x and hp5+.
Used more hp5 though but recently started using tri-x.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

They all exist because if the photograph is great, all of them work.
Translation:
They all exist because if the photograph is great, who the hell cares, for the eternity.
You asked why: it's true, because all of them are OK...
I think if one of them was clearly better than the rest, all the rest would have died long ago...
Grain and speed can change, and even more with different developers, but, at least in my case, I'd happily live with any of them for the rest of my life.
I guess my reasons for using both Tri-X and TMY are close to other forum members' reasons: the look of Tri-X grain in Rodinal and the look of TMY smaller grain in a solvent developer, depending on the scene and the mood I'm in... But when I get a good scene, I really stop thinking of all that... Anyone's great!
Cheers,
Juan

 

[Rob-F]

I've used them all. I prefer Tri-X for tonality, and the Delta films for tonality plus sharpness. Never could get HP5 to look right. Sometimes TMax looks good, but mostly lacks tonal richness (for me).

 

[telenous]

I've used the lot. At first curiosity, but later more to do with how each film responds to particular light conditions. For example, in the past I thought pushed HP5+ looked better in heavily overcast conditions, while now TriX seems to behave a lot better in sunny, contrasty light. For pushing around a couple of stops, Delta 400 and TMax 400 are good if you want to keep in check grain size. My impression is that they do benefit with use in AE cameras. (That's one reason why I don't really use them.) Pricing does play a role. There was a time when HP5+ was cheaper than TriX, now it's the other way round. I agree with the comment that a good photo will be a good photo in any stock, yet, more often than not, consistency in a body of work is not unimportant. These days I use TriX for everything between EI200-1600. Ilford's FP4+ and Pan F for slower than that, though I am still trying to figure out which one of the two is the optimal choice for me.

.

 

[Anthony Harvey]

Have all of them in the fridge ( as I have for the past 5 years ) and still can't decide to stick to only one or two of them ! Perfectly satisfactory pictures have come from all of them at one time or another. And to add even more lack of commitment to the thread I've at least 4 different developers on hand and can't say I prefer any one over the other !
Peter

I find myself in exactly the same situation as Peter (Moto-Uno) so brilliantly describes!

And yet after forty years I still keep trying to find what for me is the best film and best developer. I just don't seem able to accept defeat. Perhaps now's the time to stop thinking about it and take things as they come.

 

[DNG]

I use Tmax 400, in HC110-H (60:1) (20c 10.5m, agitate 2s-3s every 1m) (and at $4.50 a roll of 36x at Adorama, has a play also).

Because I have tried HP5, Delta 400 and Tri-X 400, and although I liked Delta 400, I like TMax 400 a bit more.

I like the slightly smother grain, and how Tmax Dries Flat. Although, the others dried fairly flat also..Mostly because the fine grain and lovely tonal range.

Your results may vary per water quality, tested base time, and agitation habits.

 

[crsantin]

I've used them all in 35mm but generally prefer HP5 and Delta 400. HP5 is so easy to work with, to shoot and develop, it's hard to screw it up. Delta 400 has a nice creamy tonality to it that I quite like. I develop everything in Ilford chemicals and use Ilford development procedures, never had a problem except for my own error.

 

[charjohncarter]

I like this discussion, I can't really comment because the only Ilford film I have used is SFX. I love this film but it is a specialty film. With so many films dropping off the end of the earth, it is helpful to me (and any others that are not used to one or the other brands) to have this discussion.

 

[marameo]

I use Tmax 400, in HC110-H (60:1) (20c 10.5m, agitate 2s-3s every 1m)

Hi, I too use HC110 and am wondering how I should adjust developing time for diluition "H" to pull TMY-2 exposed at 200 ISO in a very bright sunny and contrasty day. I think diluition H is great for acutance. Thanks