zauhar
Veteran
I'm not surprised this has happened to someone having viewed some of the pictures added to this thread - some really great shots.
I'm hoping I'll have some time this afternoon to get out and test a roll or two
Simon, again, the photos are wonderful, but would they be that much different with Tri-X?
I had one side-by-side comparison of my own a while back of Tri-X and HP5, and I though there was more detail in the shadows with HP5 using the same exposure. But of course, I developed the Tri-X in Rodinal and HP5 in HC110 (always experimenting!), so how can I really compare?
Later on RFF I saw a better side-by-side of Tri-X and HP5, which revealed (I thought) better shadow detail for HP5 - I was confirmed! But then the OP started embellishing the story with mention of inconsistent post-processing, etc. So what to make of it?
Randy
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Hi Randy
Very different to Tri-X...or even a little different to Tri-X? - I certainly couldn't tell you what brand emulsion was being used by viewing. Just as I can't, personally, tell the difference between which brand lens somebody has used. Of course, with film there are so many more factors that affect the overall end product that comparisons are very hard to make. You may know me well enough to know I'm not really too concerned about such things but this thread was intended simply to a) get people sharing their HP5 experiences and b) to improve my processing knowledge, or at least give me a good starting point concerning this film as my history with it has been pretty poor.
I'll leave the 'spot the difference' malarkey to those that know better...or think they do:angel: and just concentrate on picking up any tips that may make my blind fumblings slightly less like a teenagers first date
Very different to Tri-X...or even a little different to Tri-X? - I certainly couldn't tell you what brand emulsion was being used by viewing. Just as I can't, personally, tell the difference between which brand lens somebody has used. Of course, with film there are so many more factors that affect the overall end product that comparisons are very hard to make. You may know me well enough to know I'm not really too concerned about such things but this thread was intended simply to a) get people sharing their HP5 experiences and b) to improve my processing knowledge, or at least give me a good starting point concerning this film as my history with it has been pretty poor.
I'll leave the 'spot the difference' malarkey to those that know better...or think they do:angel: and just concentrate on picking up any tips that may make my blind fumblings slightly less like a teenagers first date
zauhar
Veteran
Simon, I am supportive of the thread, in fact I have followed it with interest. This has just provoked some philosophical speculation. I have enjoyed playing with different film and developers, but how much does that help me achieve better images in the end? Time is perhaps better spent on improving agitation, which I now better understand the significance of?
(Yeah, "Agitate for the highlights" finally sunk through my skull.)
I am finding SO many reasons to avoid work today!
Randy
(Yeah, "Agitate for the highlights" finally sunk through my skull.)
I am finding SO many reasons to avoid work today!
Randy
Highway 61
Revisited
The only differences that I can see between Neopan 400, Tri-X and HP5+ regard their per roll retail price. I either buy this or that given which of the three is the cheapest at the moment when I need some film stock. Unfortunately the prices of HP5+ in 135 are getting crazy and it's hard to find rebates on packs. So I have been sticking to Tri-X for a while, which can now be found for almost half the price of the HP5+. When you buy 50 rolls at once it makes a difference.
Everything exposed at box speed. D76 1+1 for 135, D76 1+3 for 120 (D76 is not free, either).
Absolutely no visible difference between 1+1 and 1+3 for 120 I reckon.
Keep it simple. Expose well and do not under-develop.
Do not rely too much on "The Massive Dev. Chart" developing times : they are all off for about 30% missing off the correct developing time.
Here is a photo taken on HP5+ in 120. Developed in D76 1+3, 20 minutes at 20°C :
(Bloor Street West, Toronto, May 2011, Rolleiflex 3.5F)
Everything exposed at box speed. D76 1+1 for 135, D76 1+3 for 120 (D76 is not free, either).
Absolutely no visible difference between 1+1 and 1+3 for 120 I reckon.
Keep it simple. Expose well and do not under-develop.
Do not rely too much on "The Massive Dev. Chart" developing times : they are all off for about 30% missing off the correct developing time.
Here is a photo taken on HP5+ in 120. Developed in D76 1+3, 20 minutes at 20°C :
(Bloor Street West, Toronto, May 2011, Rolleiflex 3.5F)
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Highway 61
Revisited
I can find Tri-X at EUR 3,90 a roll with local pick-up (so this is flat with no shipping costs), and HP5+ fetches EUR 6,40 a roll at the same shop...
I do not practice any bulk rolling...
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Highway, where are you located? Good price on that Tri-X!
Ljós
Well-known
Exactly, bulkloading is the cheapest way to use HP5plus in Germany, but Tri-x is actually more economical to buy in film canisters than to bulkload. Amazing pricing scheme on behalf of Kodak...
A note to those whose opinions it is that differences between the films (in the way of endresult: a print) are negligible: maybe up to and including the 5063 Tri-x "old Tri-x" and HP5plus I would more or less agree.... but folks, Tri-x changed when it became TX400! Grain is quite simply noticeable finer than the old formula, whereas HP5plus has remained the same and is more old-school.
The new-and-improved Tri-x is, in my opinion, actually on all accounts a technical improved film (as compared to the old Tri-x), but then the new TMAX 400 is even more amazing if fine grain and resolution is what one is looking for - plus the new TMAX 400 is not as finicky processing-wise as the old one, so from a point of view of handling the robustness-gap between Tri-x and TMAX400 got smaller.
I used all three of them for longer periods of time, and could get all three of them to "work" for me. In the end I decided to embrace the analogue nature of film (embrace the grain ;-)), and HP5plus fills that ticket best - for me.
Greetings, Ljós
gsgary
Well-known
HP5 Only £50 for 100' delivered with the code they gave me
gsgary
Well-known
I was given 2 rolls of Tri-X 26 years out of date, here's 2 examples
in Rodinal
and another roll that i over agitated for grain to match the grain
in Rodinal
and another roll that i over agitated for grain to match the grain
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Sam,
I use 8ml of HC-110 + 3ml of Rodinal, the rest water ( this is for a 500ml tank ). Agitate the first 30 seconds, then 3x/min. Develop for 11.5 minutes. I shoot it at EI 320.
It's been awhile since I've developed it, as I haven't been in an HP5+ mood for quite awhile, so I hope that the info is accurate (I'm almost certain that it is). I'll double-check it in a day or two, though, and if I'm off in my times, I'll let you know.
presspass
filmshooter
Tried a roll of HP5+ in Xtol 1:1 over the weekend. Wet printed several frames, found the contrast just fine, the resolution a bit better than D-23, but more visible grain. Now what?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
DD-X or Studionol. Shorter development times will give smaller grain.
gsgary
Well-known
DDX and Ilfosol 3 are the ones i'm trying next
Maiku
Maiku
Simon,
I am going to ad that if you want HP+ to sing you must also consider your wet printing. What paper will you use? What enlarger lens will you use? What is exposure going to be? Etc! I think making it sing is going to be a three part process.
1. Your exposure when taking the photo.
2. How you develop the film (developer, time and agitation).
3. Wet printing or digital process.
Take all these factors into account to get the best out of it.
.
I am going to ad that if you want HP+ to sing you must also consider your wet printing. What paper will you use? What enlarger lens will you use? What is exposure going to be? Etc! I think making it sing is going to be a three part process.
1. Your exposure when taking the photo.
2. How you develop the film (developer, time and agitation).
3. Wet printing or digital process.
Take all these factors into account to get the best out of it.
.
yossarian123
Sam I Am
Thanks! I'll have to shoot a roll this weekend.
sanmich
Veteran
With the demise of Arista Premium, I am considering trying HP5.
I'm carefully following this thread, and I have to admit I'm not sure I'll do it anymore.
I'm not a fan of grainy pictures, and quite a lot of the examples here are quite grainy, despite their small size. I know there is nothing scientific about it, but I have a strong feeling that TX is smaller grained, or at least, I get smaller grains.
Is someone using Emofin by chance?
If I switch to Ilford, I may give Delta a shot too...
I'm carefully following this thread, and I have to admit I'm not sure I'll do it anymore.
I'm not a fan of grainy pictures, and quite a lot of the examples here are quite grainy, despite their small size. I know there is nothing scientific about it, but I have a strong feeling that TX is smaller grained, or at least, I get smaller grains.
Is someone using Emofin by chance?
If I switch to Ilford, I may give Delta a shot too...
ChrisN
Striving
No - that's 100 feet of film in a bulk roll - enough for 18 rolls of 36 exposures.
My advice for HP5 is to shoot it a 400 or 250, then develop in DD-X or Microphen for best results. I've learned to steer clear of Rodinal with this film.
redisburning
Well-known
if you like 400tx why not just shoot the Kodak branded 400tx?
Im willing to part with a lot of money to continue shooting my love (acros). Of course you could try the Fuji 400; neopan. I think it's better than 400tx but that's me.
Im willing to part with a lot of money to continue shooting my love (acros). Of course you could try the Fuji 400; neopan. I think it's better than 400tx but that's me.
sanmich
Veteran
Of course, this is a good option, and if I don't find a film that I like as much as TX in Emofin, I will not hesitate to do it.
Meanwhile, having a second choice, and also supporting Ilford, is very tempting.