HP5 vs TRI X

[Pioneer]

Anymore I scan then print. It really is not either or for me. Right now it is more convenient to scan and then digitally print. Once my darkroom is put back together and I have realigned my enlarger then I will be able to do both again. I enjoy both processes, and each can produce beautiful results, so I don't feel terribly limited.

 

[Photo_Smith]

The films are similar, contrast being a results of exposure vs development I have put a Tri-x curve on top of Ilford's filmcurve for HP5

Same developer, you can see practically there is little difference possible Tri x has a little more shadow detail (even that is subjective) Also that goes for developing times for D76 and ID11 too as they are almost interchangeable so starting points will be similar.

 

[--s]

i do my own processing, have my own darkroom, and i´m too dumb to see differences between the two films. all the rest of the whole process (from exposure to paper to enlargement parameters to presentation, if there is any) seems to matter much more. if there should be a difference in contrast, i correct it by gradation to my taste and so don´t care or even notice.

 

[Highway 61]

Same for me. I do everything the same. Even sometimes develop different films together in the same tank to see if I can ever tell a difference in the prints. I am still looking.

+1

HP5/HP5+, Tri-X, Neopan 400 : everything done the same for decades. Films always developed together in the same tank. Still impossible to tell which is which once developed/scanned/printed.

For some reason I still have to discover, the developing times provided around all are too short now.

D76 1+1 12'30" @20C. Continuous agitation during the first minute, then 5-6 agitations every minute. Stop bath (home made with white vinegar), fixing (Tetenal Superfix), rinsing, wetting, hanging, no wiping, leaving them dry overnight. Then scissors, crystal paper sheets, folders. Perfect negatives with no drying stains and no problem.

The only difference I ever found between those three 400 films was the price. When I began at the end of the 1970's, Ilford was cheaper so I went to Ilford. Then Tri-X got cheaper and I went to Tri-X. Then Neopan 400 came out and was even cheaper than Tri-X, so alleluiah for Neopan 400. Now Neopan 400 is definitely gone and HP5+ is incredibly expensive so I've been hoarding Tri-X.

 

[Pete B]

Highway61, Is that @ 400?
Pete

 

[DominikDUK]

I once read an interview by Michael Kenna in which he stated that he doesn't bring film with him when he travels and uses any B/W he can get his hands on at the place he travels to Fuji, Kodak,Agfa it doesn't matter. Style and the way we print influences the endresults much more than the emulsion choice

 

[Ansel]

I use manufacturers box times for both Tri-X and HP5. I do not find them to be similar looking films at all. Each has its own aesthetic. For 135 I have been mainly using Tri-X but for 120 HP5 and Tri-X are favourites. For me Tri-X is the best film ever.

 

[Highway 61]

Highway61, Is that @ 400?
Pete

Yes that is.

 

[ktmrider]

TriX paid my way through college. I developed my first film (4x5 from a Speed Graflex in 1966 as a high school freshman). In college, I was shooting for the yearbook and college newspaper then went on to work full time for a daily in NE Ohio for 15 months. It convinced me I did not want to do news photography for a living. Shooting color was a rare event during those times.

I ended up in the Marines and flight school. I never would have guessed I would be flying more then 35 years later. I usually kept a camera with me in the cockpit loaded with Kodachrome. It was a sad day when that film went away. Now, I am trying my hand at black and white again.

 

[ktmrider]

Differences Between D76 Straight and Diluted?

Differences Between D76 Straight and Diluted?

After developing my black and white film from the last year (TriX, HP5, and TMax400) in D76 1 to 1, can anyone tell me how using straight D76 would look? The main reason for 1 to 1 is so I do not have to replenish the developer or track rolls used. I remember from years ago that there were differences in the negatives between straight and diluted D76.

And I have decided to standardize on HP5 as I want to support Ilford and I like the way it dries. Am thinking M2, 35 f1.2 and HP5 for the coming year and my RTW trip (and a 90 Elmarit just in case).

 

[yossarian123]

I'm using straight D76 - I tried a few rolls at 1:1 but as soon as I tried it stock I switched over. It just had that "look" for me, doesn't matter what the film is. I've used it with Acros, HP5, Tri-X, 5222, & TMAX 400. The grain looks good (to my eye) and I really like working with reduced development times.

 

[mervynyan]

ID-11 and HP5 mostly, if I came across whatever is cheaper price by volume, sure.

 

[Rob-F]

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?

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.

My results have been similar to this. In theory, there should be no such thing as a film being "flat' or "contrasty." It should be possible to develop any given film to a desired gamma, or contrast index, by adjusting the development time. In fact, I recall reading an article by Sylvia Zawadski, the inventor of XTOL, in which she says exactly that. She said there's really no such thing as a flat film or a contrasty one. Yet, so many of us feel that HP5 is flatter, Tri-X is more contrasty. I'm going to guess that while it's true that changing the development time will yield any desired overall contrast, by which I mean the whole range from deepest shadow to the brightest highlight, that some films, like Tri-X, simply have inherently more local contrast than others in the middle tones. And I'm guessing that Tri-X is one of those films, and hence the snappier look.

One use for HP5 that I can think of, would be to tame the contrast of a sunny day. with its harsh, strong shadows. But then, why not reduce the development time with Tri-X?

 

[john_s]

If you trial both films you might find that one gives you better results than the other. The difference is likely to be because they haven't been developed to the same contrast.

Unless both are dev'd to the same contrast which will probably take two or three trials, you can't fairly compare them.

 

[Rob-F]

If you trial both films you might find that one gives you better results than the other. The difference is likely to be because they haven't been developed to the same contrast.

Unless both are dev'd to the same contrast which will probably take two or three trials, you can't fairly compare them.

What I'm saying is that even if you develop them to the same macro or "normal" contrast, there can still be a difference in micro (local) contrast; and I suspect that is why many have concluded that Tri-X is more contrasty (or will say it has more "snap" or "sparkle," etc.).

 

[lawrence]

Am I the only person who thinks that HP5 is significantly grainier than the current version of Tri-X?

 

[Pioneer]

Am I the only person who thinks that HP5 is significantly grainier than the current version of Tri-X?

Interesting comment lawrence. I went back and looked at some of my 135 negs from both films and can't see any difference that stands out consistently, either in contrast or in grain. But I don't use a lot of either film, and when I do it all goes into D-76 1-1. I didn't have any large prints to refer to but that may show it better.

 

[Platinum RF]

I have used both tri-X and HP5+, HP5+ is a better choice in today's digital age. aftet developing, hp5 is flat, better for scanning, tri-x is curling.

 

[Ljós]

Am I the only person who thinks that HP5 is significantly grainier than the current version of Tri-X?

No, and that's because in the case of HP5plus versus 400TX there is a generation difference. Some people here on RFF have a tendency to mythify (is that even a valid word? ;-)) Tri-X, and to overlook that Tri-X underwent a number of changes over the decades. 5063 was not identical to Tri-X made in the late 90ies, and the latest version (400TX) got a facelift, too. It is noticeably more finegrained than HP5plus.
Don't get me wrong: I love them all! I even liked the latest Tmax400, an amazing film. For me it came to the point where I thought that it would make sense for me to embrace the limitiations of 35mm, and not try to eke out the last ounces of performance. 400TX has (for me!!) neither the grit of the former Tri-X, nor is it quite as amazing as the latest Tmax 400.

Greetings, Ljós

P.S.: And a totally pragmatic reason: I like bulkloading with IXMOOs. Tri-X and Tmax400 by the 100 ft roll are MORE expensive than buying preloaded cassettes by the 10pack. With HP5plus, the 100ft rolls come significantly cheaper than buying factory loads.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . "flat' or "contrasty." ..

Ain't just theory. Admittedly there's curve shape, but mostly, it's the difference between those who know what they're talking about, and the rest.

Cheers,

R.