HP5 vs TRI X

K

ktmrider

Well-known
Local time
6:43 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
1,363
I just mixed up my first batch of D76 in years. The container lists all the Kodak film developement times but I have some HP5 as well. What times are you using for HP5, D76 1 to 1, and D76 straight up?

Have not shot HP5 before and have not used TriX in years. What differences, if any, will I see between them?

Have had a scanner in my office for years but have never scanned black and white film. It may just be time to buy the enlarger since I know that technology has not changed since my first roll of film in 1966.

Now the computer won't turn on.:bang:
 
The negs will look different than Tri-X, but will print very similar. Great film, and of course, THE classic developer (D76 is all I use except for the occasional Acufine). I use a gentle, twisty inversion....first for 30 seconds, then 2 inversions every 30 seconds, except for the last minute. Of course, my water is not your water, but I just looked through some negs that look very good, and they were at 68 degrees for 10 minutes. I only use it full strength. Here's what you can expect. Taken w/ a Super Ikonta W/ Novar lens and a yellow filter, HP 5 w/ D76. These look soft due to being rezzed down. In reality they're sharp as a tack.
 

Attachments

  • small ebay Super Ikonta III 2.jpg
    small ebay Super Ikonta III 2.jpg
    45.2 KB · Views: 1
  • small d2.jpg
    small d2.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 1
Have not shot HP5 before and have not used Tri-X in years. What differences, if any, will I see between them?
Click to expand...

HP5+ is sort of Ilford's version of Tri-X.
Tri-X is has somewhat higher contrast than HP5+; beyond that, the two emulsions are very similar.

I prefer the higher contrast of Tri-X but you reallu can't go wrong with either emulsion IMHO.
 
Do your own tests, but be open mined. Compare apple with apples. So, if you lower the EI of one film do the same with the other. I'm sure with these two similar films and a common developer you will find something that you PERSONALLY like that separates one from the other. In others words, which ever film you decide on make sure it is YOUR style.
 
^^^ Great advice!
I'm not as expert with these films using different types of developers as some of our other members.
Personally I like them both and consider them similar.
I develop with Rodinal and Tmax dev1:4 and have used only those two for years no (developers).

To me Tri-x is a bit more aggressive looking with stronger contrast. It's Punchier!
HP-5 has a sort of sparkle and more elastic tones from lower contrast.
I like overexposing and holding back development with HP-5.
You can really stretch out the tonal range in this way and achieve greater shadow details.
It's great having these films available.

Cheers!
 
ktmrider said:
..... Have not shot HP5 before and have not used TriX in years. What differences, if any, will I see between them? .....
Click to expand...

I am the outlier here in that I have prints made with Tri-X, Neopan 400, and some HP5+ mixed in but neither I nor anyone else can tell which print was made with which film.

My current exhibition series has 30 prints, about half shot on Tri-X, half on Neopan 400. While almost all were shot with 28mm lenses, 3 different ones were used. People here talk about the different characteristics of those three lenses. Yet no one has ever been able to discern any difference from one print to another.

I have a book with 47 photos. It contains not only the film and lens diversity but also a few digital photos that I converted to B&W. No one can tell the difference. And it was printed by a high end small run printer, not your ordinary Blurb sort of book, so it is not like detail was lost in the print process.

But again, I am standing out in the field mostly by myself.
 
I have experimented with a few films too, to be honest I find HP5 a little more error tolerant if you intend to develop at home (though D76 is really easy) and TriX to be a little annoying to scan, because it curls up like crazy
 
I'll back up what others have said, in that Tri-X curls like crazy (I flatten it beneath heavy books a few days before I scan it) and is punchier/snappier/contrastier than HP5.

You can print HP5 contrastier, I suppose, and maybe most won't tell it in the final print.

To me, the point of choosing a film and sticking with it, though, is to make it yours -- to get to know it well enough that you can not worry when you shooting with it, developing it and printing it...not think about it but just do it. Consistency is good, especially when you're crafting your image the way you do with film.
 
Colin Corneau said:
I'll back up what others have said, in that Tri-X curls like crazy (I flatten it beneath heavy books a few days before I scan it) and is punchier/snappier/contrastier than HP5.

You can print HP5 contrastier, I suppose, and maybe most won't tell it in the final print.

To me, the point of choosing a film and sticking with it, though, is to make it yours -- to get to know it well enough that you can not worry when you shooting with it, developing it and printing it...not think about it but just do it. Consistency is good, especially when you're crafting your image the way you do with film.
Click to expand...

i echo these comments. HP5 has always been a less punchy/contrasty/whatever emulsion when compared to Tri-X. I also find it an easier film for scanning due to the curling issue mentioned and the flatter tone curve,
 
Bob Michaels said:
I am the outlier here in that I have prints made with Tri-X, Neopan 400, and some HP5+ mixed in but neither I nor anyone else can tell which print was made with which film. .....
Click to expand...

I failed to point out in my previous post that for 12+ years I have exposed all iso 400 films the same and developed them exactly the same using the same developer.

Maybe that has something to do with all my prints looking the same regardless of which film was used.
 
Ilford in D-76 1+1 for 11 minutes if shot at ISO400
Ilford in D-76 Straight for 7.5 minutes if shot at ISO400

This is all at 68F or 20C. Adjust to suit based on your own results.

As recommended by Ilford themselves.
 
Rereaed the thread and see links to HP5 data. Thanks.

To me the big step is scanning vs a good old fashioned enlarger.
 
ktmrider said:
So, HP5 developement times vs TriX?
Click to expand...

For Box Speed(ish) I use the following…...

With Tmax dev 1:4 @20c
Tri-x 400-800 and HP5 400-800 I use 6.5 minutes with normal agitation for low to mid contrast scenes. (Agitation 30 secs to start and then 2 inversions every minute following)

Rodinal 1:50 …. 18 mins at 15-20C 2 30 inversion to start, 2-4 inversions at 7 mins.
Rodinal 1:100 ….1 hr stand at 15-20c 30 inversions to start, 2-4inversions at 30 mins.

Sometimes I eff it up .
 
Starting in 1973, I've used HP5 & 5+ as well as Tri-X. For years, either was a standard news film, as was Neopan 400. I've just settled on ilford, mainly because they still offer a 3200 film as well as black and white paper. I can't tell the difference in wet prints or scanned, so I decided to support a company that continues to offer a full range of black and white products. Silly? Perhaps, but that's my choice.As to the original question, either works just fine in D-76 although I prefer D-23.
 
Thanks. Does not look as if I have to get too wrapped up in the TriX vs HP5 debate or worry too much about developement. Now, scanning vs printing is a whole different story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom