Comparing Ilford HP5+ to Kodak Tri-X

Arjay

Arjay

Time Traveller
Local time
5:09 AM
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
794
Location
Munich, Germany
View My Gallery
Freestyle's shipping charges for overseas customers are just unreal in relation to a 100ft roll of Tri-x ($34 for a $53 roll). The normal market price for 100ft of original-brand Tri-X in Germany is ~ $ 95,- w/o S&H.

I have just seen that various German internet retailers also offer HP5+ 100ft rolls at fairly reasonable prices.

Can anyone give me some hints about how HP5+ and Tri-X fare against each other?
 
Mackinaw said:
Why not buy a few 36 exp rolls of Tri-x and HP5+ and run a few tests?
Click to expand...
Well, sure.

But before I do, I still hope that someone in the uncharted reaches of the internet has asked himself the same question and has alreadey done some research...

BTW, the Freestyle offer computes to $ 2.94 per roll of 36 exposures (assuming you can roll 18 cassettes of 36 exp. film out of a 100ft roll). The currently cheapest offer for Tri-X in Germany is € 3.19 per 36 exposures (Macodirect) - that equates to US$ 4.24 per 36 exp. roll (at an exchange rate of 1.33 €/US$). I hope you understand now why I am asking the question.
 
Last edited:
$35 is about the minimum postage charge for any overseas shipment. Blame USPS, UPS or FedEx for the unreal charges not Freestyle. I sort of find it unreal that a '100 ft roll of Kodak film costs $100.
 
HP5+ and TriX are quite comparable in my experience with respect to speed, grain, resolution and tonality (all dependent on developer and technique).

Two key differences in my experience are that TriX offers slightly wider exposure latitude while retaining acceptable (to me) grain/contrast (ie more pushable - up to 1250 maybe 1600 vs 800 for HP5+).

If you plan to scan the film then HP5+ is far nicer as TriX's major downside is that it curls a lot.

If you don't absolutely need the speed and latitude of TriX then stick with HP5+, especially when considering the cost savings.

It is also important to factor in whether you plan to develop your film yourself (and what developers you want to use/are readily available - shipping chemistry across borders can be a PIA) or plan to use a local pro lab (in that case find out what their standard developer is as it might impact on your choice of film).
 
Last edited:
Arjay said:
<snip> Can anyone give me some hints about how HP5+ and Tri-X fare against each other?[/B]
Click to expand...

Arjay: Caution: my opinion differs from the mainstream here but it is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

I tested Tri-X, HP5 and Neopan 400 about ten years ago when I resumed photographing. I could tell no substantial difference between the three and began shooting Neopan 400 simply because it was the cheapest then.

So I have shot Neopan for about ten years but switched to HP5 twice for a few months when Neopan was not available at B&H. Then when Freestyle began offering the private label Tri-X I shot it for many months. Then private label Neopan became cheaper and I went back. I suspect when my Legacy Pro (Neopan) stash runs out that I will change to Arista Premium (Tri-X) again because of price.

I mix the rolls of all three and expose them the same. I develop them the same, frequently in the same tank. I cannot identify a difference between them.

There probably is some minor difference between Tri-X, HP5 and Neopan 400 as far as e.i., contrast and tonality. But this appears to be less than typical scene to scene variation and disappears in the normal process of making a print. I cannot discern any real difference in the amount or type of adjustments I always make when printing. I certainly cannot tell any difference between prints made with any of the three different films.
 
I have my negatives scanned, and having shot a fair amount of both, I usually can't tell the difference. However, if I had to say something about the 2, it'd be that HP5+ "feels" less rough than Tri-X. Hard to explain.

I haven't pushed either of them before.
 
Hm - all which I read here actually sounds quite encouraging with respect to HP5+.

Since developers and workflow have been commented by a few, I need to add how I work presently:

I develop silver halide films myself, using either XTOL (for pushing or when processing T-grain films) or Prescysol EF (a pyrocat type compensqating developer) when shooting Tri-X at box speed.

I have a clear preference for rich shadow tonality, so I usually shoot chromogenic BW or Tmax films at half their box speed (and I'm in some cases still unhappy about their shadow tonalities).

I scan all my film using a Nikon Coolscan V ED at native resolution, and do the entire remaining processing on my computer (plus printing via inkjet).

Would that change any of your recommendations?
 
I used to think that TriX was the best. And this summer Kodak disapeared from shops for a while and then it appeared again but USD 1.5 more for a roll (USD 6.0 in total)
But during that "TriX gap" I decided to try HP5 once again. I had tried it previously with different developers but was not a success.
I tried it with Pyrocat (1:1:100) and X-tol (1:3) stand development at 18-20C and I can say it fits ALL my expectations.
UPD Forgot to say that timing for development was taken from digitaltruth.com.
 
Last edited:
My std film is/was Neopan 400, but I have used plenty of TriX and HP5 plus of late. My observations in my usage has been that TriX has delivered far more pleasing prints most of the time.

HP5+ has slightly sharper grain and more apparent acutance
TriX is slightly finer grained
Both have about the same speed.
TriX has somewhat better shadow separation in both the brews I use (DDX and Xtol 1+2).

With the HP5+ negs I was having to mix high paper grades for shadow separation with pre-flashing to control highlights to get everything as I wanted. With similar scenes shot on triX I found the shadows better separated at more normal contrast grades.

TriX more readily gives classic reportage looking images IMO. HP5+ is amazing when pulled for extreme contrast scenes giving beautiful greys and glowing look. Shoot HP5+ in a low contrast scene at your peril! you can develop the hell out of it and you will still get a limited palette of greys.

All subjective and my opinion, but while I produced the prints I wanted from the HP5 negs, it was much harder work in the darkroom.
 
hey, turtle, for the first time in years a post in which i wouldn't change a word 😎

(okee, mebbe the "far" in "far more pleasing" was a slight exaggeration, depending on the wind direction and cloud cover)
 
I use Tri-X for the history. I would use HP5 happily.

And for whatever reason I use FP4 instead of Plus-X.

It's like that scene in the first season of Mad Men when they're trying to find out why people smoke certain brands, over others.
 
I print in a conventional (wet) darkroom, and print my contact sheets to "proof for black." Based on this and subsequent printing, I find HP5+ to have about 2/3 stop more speed than Tri-x or Neopan 400.

Tri-x is the most forgiving, as it retains a long-scale negative even if you underexpose or overexpose it—you will have to adjust your printing time and paper grade, but the information is likely there.

Dial in any of these three films with a good developer and it will make excellent images consistently. All these films are superb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Trius
Bulk Tri-X
Replies
6
Views
1K
Trius
Trius
Back
Top Bottom