De_Corday
Eternal Student
That's been my experience as well, HP5+ vs 400TX.
HP5 vs TRI X
- Thread starter ktmrider
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 50
- Views 12K
That's been my experience as well, HP5+ vs 400TX.
Koolzakukumba
Real men use B+W
BLKRCAT
75% Film
I haven't had good results with HP5+. Its always been grainy and not what ive been looking for.
However Tri-X fits the bill perfectly.
again, just me.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Difficult to see the difference between the two, not sure that HP5 is 'grainy' well not more than any standard cubic fast film.
IMO HP5 is a wonderful film with long tonal scale and a delicate mid range.
Also note: ID11 is the same as D76 or as near as-starting times can be almost interchangeable.
Sultry by Photo Utopia, on Flickr
Rolleiflex, HP5+ Rodinal 1:50
IMO HP5 is a wonderful film with long tonal scale and a delicate mid range.
Also note: ID11 is the same as D76 or as near as-starting times can be almost interchangeable.
Sultry by Photo Utopia, on Flickr
Rolleiflex, HP5+ Rodinal 1:50
Vics
Veteran
Pete B
Well-known
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
^ "Roger" in your previous remark ( re; Rob-F ) am I correct in saying that the remark
concerning local ( or micro ) contrast holds water, so to speak ? It's just a question,heaven knows I've much to learn. ( It helps reduce the dark closet frustration level.) Peter
concerning local ( or micro ) contrast holds water, so to speak ? It's just a question,heaven knows I've much to learn. ( It helps reduce the dark closet frustration level.) Peter
Koolzakukumba
Real men use B+W
I think that would be a difficult one to prove. If Tri X had greater micro contrast then it would probably show more grain than HP5+.
Ronald M
Veteran
ID11 and D76 are the same times. So is final result.
Get you time from HP5 and ID11 from the data sheet on Ilfords web page. These times and agitation are perfect for a diffusion enlarger/ #2 paper. Subtract 10% for condenser. They conveniently list times for non Ilford developers and they are way too long, although the Ilford times are perfect.
If you have valuable images, run a test of 6 exposures ,12" of film, from a new roll.
Skipping around different films is the worst thing you can do. Pick something you can get easily and stay with it unless it is odd ball like Perutz.
I don`t like grainy films, so I do not use them. To each his own however.
Get you time from HP5 and ID11 from the data sheet on Ilfords web page. These times and agitation are perfect for a diffusion enlarger/ #2 paper. Subtract 10% for condenser. They conveniently list times for non Ilford developers and they are way too long, although the Ilford times are perfect.
If you have valuable images, run a test of 6 exposures ,12" of film, from a new roll.
Skipping around different films is the worst thing you can do. Pick something you can get easily and stay with it unless it is odd ball like Perutz.
I don`t like grainy films, so I do not use them. To each his own however.
Michael I.
Well-known
from what I gather (in 35mm) kodak stuff is punchier and more contrasty and ilford (i mean classic grain films) is softer.
J. Borger
Well-known
When looking at scans on screen i see differences between HP5 and Trix.
But when i look at my prints (digital or wet) i am realy hard pressed to tell what is what ....
I choose HP5 for MF because is is easier to work with, nice to spool ,dries very flat an has no pink cast.
For 35mm i prefer a sharper film with less grain like tmax 400.
But when i look at my prints (digital or wet) i am realy hard pressed to tell what is what ....
I choose HP5 for MF because is is easier to work with, nice to spool ,dries very flat an has no pink cast.
For 35mm i prefer a sharper film with less grain like tmax 400.
Similar threads
