Ilford HP5+ vs. Kodak Tri-X 400!

I think it's obvious from this thread that development practices have as much to do with film preference as the film itself. I personally like Tri-X, but that isn't to say I don't like HP-5. I prefer Tri-X in D-76 1+1 over HC-110, but will freely admit that's because I already know how to get what I want with D-76.

I like Tri-X because I can shoot I from 200 EI to 3200 EI and know what I am going to get. I certainly don't think Tri-X at 200 EI is ideal any more than I think shooting it at 3200 EI is, but to each their own. Again, it's largely a factor of development practices and other, perhaps irrational, preferences.
 
When I inquired of Robert about his Rodinal/Xtol recipe, he replied as follows:

I have used 3 different formulations (using a 300 ml steel tank):

Low Dilution:
Rodinal 1+50 + Xtol Stock
(6 ml Rodinal + 300ml Xtol)

Medium Dilution:
Rodinal 1+100 + Xtol 1:1
(3 ml Rodinal + 150ml Xtol + 150ml water)

High Dilution:
Rodinal 1+100 + Xtol 1:4
(3ml Rodinal + 60ml Xtol + 240ml water)

I normally develop at about 90% of the time for the equivalent Xtol dilution listed on the Massive Development Chart.

The only Tri-X example I have posted thus far is this one:
www.flickr.com/photos/_honus_/446893394/
This was developed with the High Dilution @ 68c for 12.5min.
 
The OP and several other people have mentioned Neopan 400. I'd like to hear some other people opinions on this film.

I have used Tri-X in HC110 (dilution F) and I liked the results. I have also done Neopan 400 in the same way and T Max400. (Never used HP5+). Initially I loved T Max400 but have moved away from it to Neopan. Tri-X I like it's just that I like Neopan better.

I've also had my local lab do all these films in D76. For me I prefer the results with HC110 but the results are close to the lab done D76.

I have tried Delta 400 and didn't like it.



Mike
 
The Fuji films are creeping up on me it seems. Magus got me trying Neopan 1600, which I now like very much (shot it today, again), and the ACROS is another I'm slipping in the mix now and again. I doubt that I will replace HP5 with anything though, as I really do find it about perfect for my 400 needs.
 
sepiareverb said:
I doubt that I will replace HP5 with anything though, as I really do find it about perfect for my 400 needs.
Click to expand...

HP5+ is perfect for my 400 needs as well as my 800, 1600, and 3200 :)
 
I prefer the highlight gradation I get with Tri-X in Rodinal at 1:50. I also like the way the shadows fade quickly to black. I’m not really looking for the shadow detail which HP5 seems to excel at. Tri-X grain is more pleasing to my eye as well.
 
While discussing this preference for film, which developer used seems at least equally important, and perhaps the use of modern high contrast lenses vs. vintage lower contrast lenses, eh?
 
I've settled on HP5+ EI 200 developed in d-76 1:2 12 min @ 68 F for normal development. It really does push and pull nicely. I've never had a problem with flat negs - but for those with that problem, it really does sound like under-development.

I try to stay with one developer and one film for the majority of my shooting. Though I do use Delta 3200 and Fuji Acros for special situations. My reasoning is that I'm more likely to get the results I want if I work with the same materials.
 
BudGreen said:
I prefer the highlight gradation I get with Tri-X in Rodinal at 1:50. I also like the way the shadows fade quickly to black. I’m not really looking for the shadow detail which HP5 seems to excel at. Tri-X grain is more pleasing to my eye as well.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it a stated strength of the original Tri-X to be able to "dig into the shadows".
 
I think Magus's examples of Tri-x and HP5+ are perfect examples of the differences between the two films.

I have been very impressed with HP5+ in 120 pushed to 800. I agree with posters here there is something lush about HP5+ with it's wide tonal range and smooth but sharp texture. In non contrasty light it can sometimes look a bit grey and washed out but nothing a bit of a levels can't fix. I get mine developed at a lab at the moment so I wouldn't have a clue what they do to it. For a 400 film in 35mm I shoot alot of xp2 with mixed results. I like the speed and smooth texture you get out out this film for 35mm, but I think you give up a little tonality and richness compared to the conventional B&W's.



I have posted some of these examples before.


HP5+ at 800

417403338_f5e7484b67_o.jpg




440890509_50fd097d59_o.jpg





HP5+ at 400

411449931_c88fa2057f_o.jpg



Xp2 at 400


421104326_c5ba26a8bc_o.jpg




417583630_05ab299179_o.jpg
 
Thea said:
I have never got on with Tri X, my images were flat and grey
Click to expand...
The Witch! Burn the Witch! :eek:

Seriously, though: if you got "flat" images with Tri-X, development and/or exposure was probably to blame, not the film.

I like both Tri-X and HP5+

I didn't use to like HP5+, but now I find it to be very nice. I still think that Plus-X and FP4+ are better films, but Tri-X just has that je ne sais quoi.
 
FrankS said:
Wasn't it a stated strength of the original Tri-X to be able to "dig into the shadows".
Click to expand...

That could be. I've only used the latest incarnation. Like you say, it also has a lot to do with the developer and lens.

Here's an example of Tri-X in Rodinal with a current version Summilux. I wasn't interested in bringing out the detail inside the car, but it has an overall tonality that I'm after.

455416203_1f7e8bfb8d_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Forget about camera brand, lens, film or developer: Bud, your photography clearly demonstrates THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of photoraphy - the photographer's eye!
 
Gabriel M.A. said:

"The Witch! Burn the Witch! :eek:

Seriously, though: if you got "flat" images with Tri-X, development and/or exposure was probably to blame, not the film."

Firstly I find it offensive to be refered to in this way. I dont go around insulting other who dont agree with my opinions, and therefore dont expect others to do this to me.

There is nothing wrong with the way I develop or expose my films - and I dont like the insinuation of incompetance.

Everybody has the right to express their opinions and preferences - or at least I thought that was the point of RFF.

I shall not be posting on this thread again.
 
Another vote for Tri-X, I just like the grain structure more...

In Perceptorl rated as 320 iso :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom