Ilford HP5 v. Acros v. Eastman 5222 XX

[dave lackey]

2015 marks my return to photography and while the typical family snapshot and odd situations work easier with a digital camera in my pocket, I am jumping in the deep end of the pool with film. Mostly shooting with the M3 and M6 and the R8.

So far I love XX and will be loading cassettes from a 400' roll in April. I love the look of the images from this film. I have also been shooting Acros with the M6 and the look is totally different and beautiful. Yes, these are two films I will continue to explore.

Then I see there is Ilford HP5 and HP5 plus at BH Photo but I have no idea the difference between the two.

Please POST your photos of all four/or any of these films for a better idea of how these films work for you. Your thoughts and experiences are coveted as well!:angel:

 

[noimmunity]

Double X used to be my main film.

I think that Rollei RPX 400 or Bergger 400 rated at 250EI might be closer than HP5. But I cannot speak from personal experience because I haven't tried them myself.

 

[sebastel]

hi dave,

i'm pleased to read this, for whatever reason i'm not interested to investigate now.

as i only know acros a bit and hp5 quite a lot better, but don't know XX, i really can't fully comment on my personal take on it. (i like both acros and hp5 for their different looks, but i dislike developing acros, cuz it's rather demanding on the fixer - at least according to my personal experience).

but, since i have tried a number of developers and regimes especially on hp5, i have to tell you, that whatever other people may comment on these films, in the end you will need to try them out by yourself. only your own processing/environment/components will deliver the results that you are going to get, and no one can judge on your preferences.

concerning hp5, i'd like to add that it's worth a try. in the old times, i loved it in microphen. nowadays, i'm also very happy with it in LC29. rodinal may not be the best choice, but it still has a rather unique effect.

cheers,
sebastian

 

[Nokton48]

Tri-X (or HP5+) I often shoot at the same speed as XX, but I prefer the XX tonality.
HP5+ replaced HP5 many years ago. I often develop Tri-X and XX together, in the same tank. Comes out fine for me.

Acros I have not explored, but I would like to try some, especially in 6x9cm 120 in my Plaubel Makiflexes. What I have seen does look truely beautiful.

 

[dave lackey]

Acros, raw scan, pre-post processing:

I will try some XX from the M3 in a similar photo, but it may be a week before I can get it posted. Never tried HP5. Is HP5 similar to Tri-X?

 

[Nokton48]

Nearly identical

 

[dave lackey]

This is the look that I am getting so far with Eastman 5222 XX, a bit more "retro", which I love:

M3 with XX:

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Here is only HP5+ on BH web site:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...N=4294548524+4291407242+4130468181+4130468157

Examples of HP5+ :


With goggled Summaron 35 3.5. by Ko.Fe., on Flickr

HP5+ negative on Kentmere RC paper.


by Ko.Fe., on Flickr

40K of them, but some are on MF.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/342830@N20/

another HP5+ group, but with some amount of similar images.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/69646333@N00/


No, HP5+ isn't similar to Tri-X. Grain is different on negs scans.

The only similarity I have noticed is in developing. To me it seems to be needed extra fixing time, but not as long as Tri-X. Curling is not as bad as on Kodak and backing isn't so purple.

 

[Fotohuis]

Bergger BRF400+ E.I. 320 in HC-110 (B):

Zorki-6 with I-61 Zebra.

 

[Nokton48]

Eastman Double-X 5222:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNvzNWuzI9Y

 

[Nokton48]

"Schindler's List" was filmed on Eastman Double-X 5222:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIp_8RNNX4k

 

[dave lackey]

Eastman Double-X 5222:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNvzNWuzI9Y

I agree with the movie itself, it was one of my very favorites! But going back and watching the black and white intro, it stunned me that it was not digital and the dark scenes were amazing. And to think the very same film goes into my Leica M bodies. And soon my Nikons!

😀😀😀

 

[Nokton48]

I agree with the movie itself, it was one of my very favorites! But going back and watching the black and white intro, it stunned me that it was not digital and the dark scenes were amazing. And to think the very same film goes into my Leica M bodies. And soon my Nikons!

😀😀😀

Yep, Kodak has manufactured XX continuously since 1959.
As far as I know, they changed the formulation just once, to add a lubricant to make the film glide more easily through those big Hollywood 35mm movie cameras. I wonder if "Young Frankenstein" was filmed on XX? I watched the DVD the other night, and I'll bet it was.

 

[dave lackey]

Yep, Kodak has manufactured XX continuously since 1959.
As far as I know, they changed the formulation just once, to add a lubricant to make the film glide more easily through those big Hollywood 35mm movie cameras. I wonder if "Young Frankenstein" was filmed on XX? I watched the DVD the other night, and I'll bet it was.

1959? Good year as I remember it.😀

Odd, though, last night I spent some time thinking about what film was used for Casablanca in 1949. Never did figure that one out but it must have been something other than XX! What ever it was, they went all out for the film noir look and since the entire movie was shot in Burbank, it actually was a wise move to hide the props and other things that look authentic in the movie.

XX has captured my imagination.😎