Is Tri-X 78% better than HP5?

Weird, here Tri-X is almost the same price as HP5 in 35mm 36 exposure rolls. In 120, Tri-X is about 72% cheaper than HP5!

Pherdinand said:
tri-x can be used in diafine at 1600 speed very well.
That is about the only thing i can come up with in its favour ;)
Click to expand...

I've had no problems pushing HP5 to 3200 :p
 
Brian,

The price on your local shop for TriX is quite high while for HP5 very good (I compare with prices on sevendayshop.com). Both are very, very capable films, when used with a suitable (for your taste and needs) developer, so it probably makes sense to go for the cheaper of the two, unless, upon trial, you find you absolutely loath it. But even then I think it's safe to say it will be the combination of film-developer that gives something you don't like. Change the combination and you may be surprised. Personally I like very much HP5/DDX but also pulled TriX in Xtol, Rodinal and Xtol/Rodinal. But I will go against the grain and say that for my taste HP5 pushes better than TriX.

YMMV. Or not. :)
 
Both films are "old standbys", both great - classic black and white emulsions. I like each for different reasons. Don't worry about the price difference. You're not buying these in bulk, I assume, and the difference in price is meaningless, really, if you're only buying a few rolls. Buy two rolls of each. If you're an amatuer, that'll keep you busy for a little while. See which one you like better.
 
Define "better". :)

I use HP-5 Plus more than Tri-X, but I still find myself buying Tri-X occasionally. it's different. It's better at some things, worse at others.
 
I sometimes get the shots on HP5+ that are so muddy. I've had a wandering eye lately, looking out for another film to settle on. I'm not one to jump around much! Is TriX any good in Xtol? Maybe that's the magic combo that's 78% better??
 
TRI-X and HP5 are the two films I use all the time. If you are sending them out to a lab, that will be your determining factor. When I send mine out to L.A. B & W Labs the HP5 is gorgeous. When I get it developed locally they do a much better job w/ the TRI-X. If you are mixing the chems yourself, it shouldn't take long to see which you prefer. I agree that you should stick to mostly one film, but you might want to experiment in the beginning to see which you prefer. The Neopan 400 is an interesting film as well. I just spent hours scanning in 2 rolls of 36 exp HP5, and all I can say is "never again". I tried to cut down on costs by using my local lab and not getting 4x6 prints and it wasn't worth it. I really need the 4x6 prints as proofs to decide which neg is worth scanning. Scanning 72 frames just to see which works and which doesn't is for the birds.
 
Both, when used correctly, produce outstanding results. Use either one.
 
I bought yestarday TRIX bulk for $28 (price converted to $). Same time HP5+ bulk was $73.
I like both
 
I prefer HP5+, my wife prefers Tri-X, so one is better for me and the other is better for her. You can see lots f examples of both on our web-site, www.rogerandfrances.com. Neither of us has any time for Fuji's black-and-white products. Great colour films; lousy mono. But I would not pretend that these opinions reflect eternal verities.

Be wary, too, of the 'stick with one film' argument. At first, try every readily available film you can get your hands on. When you find one that is 'magic' for you -- as you almost certainly will -- then buy another half dozen rolls to make sure you weren't just lucky.

THEN is the time to lock on to that film. Chopping and changing is a mug's game, once you have a favourite; but until you have a favourite, sticking with one film is an even bigger mug's game. I'd particularly hate to be trapped by Acros (low speed, lousy tonality -- FOR ME) when I could be using HP5 instead. One correspondent memorably described the tonality of HP5 as being 'like Casablanca -- the movie, not the place'.

I stress 'readily available' because you don't want to get trapped by films that are out of production (as Agfa seem to be, though there may be developments) or possibly short-lived (like some Maco/Rollei-branded products).

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
I've just bought some developing gear and processed my first roll of film in over 30 years. The film was Acros 100 btw the way and the results were good, at least for a first attempt.
I have a roll of HP5 running through a Nikon 35Ti at the moment which is my next D&P attempt. Had to buy the roll locally at the only true photo dealer in town, which btw had only about 20 rolls of film in total on display and it cost me £4.85 ($9.58)!
I'm gonna try Tri-X too shortly and hopefully I'll settle on one of these. So I say give them both a try. they both give excellent results but it's down to your taste in the end.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Be wary, too, of the 'stick with one film' argument. At first, try every readily available film you can get your hands on. When you find one that is 'magic' for you -- as you almost certainly will -- then buy another half dozen rolls to make sure you weren't just lucky.

THEN is the time to lock on to that film.
Click to expand...

I have to second this. A lot of folks suggest looking around at other people's work to see what catches your eye, but you really need to try it yourself with your equipment, your techniques and your tastes to the fore. It pays to experiment and see what works for you.

And don't be afraid to adjust the speed of the films either. Manufacturer box speeds are set as the result of lab work, but unless your surname is Eastman it's unlikely that you're gonna be shooting and developing under laboratory conditions. Your equipment, your methods and your choice of chemistry are all going to have a baring on the actual speeds you can achieve with your chosen films. It takes a while to find your personal speeds, but it can make a huge difference to the tonality and sharpness of a film.
 
Thanks for all the replies.
Looks like its all down to personal preference, with no real reason to assume more expensive film offers anything over a less expensive film.

Roger Hicks,
I have access to a number of different films that I can buy by the single roll from my local shop so may try all I can get my hands on.
However, when we add different developers into the equation (and variations on development times/ developer dilution), that leaves quite a lot of combinations to try.
Is there any single general purpose developer that you would recommend? Currently, I'm using RodinalSpecial (also known as Studional???).



Also, drifting slightly off topic, any recommendations for scanning 35mm negs? I've tried with my 13-year old scanner but not having much joy.

Thanks,
Brian
 
briandaly said:
Also, drifting slightly off topic, any recommendations for scanning 35mm negs? I've tried with my 13-year old scanner but not having much joy.
Click to expand...

Scanners are easy: if you can afford it go for one of the Nikon Coolscans, if not then buy whichever V-series Epson flatbed falls within your budget (I use a V700 and really like it).

briandaly said:
Is there any single general purpose developer that you would recommend? Currently, I'm using RodinalSpecial (also known as Studional???).
Click to expand...

That's tougher. I've used Rodinal Special a couple of times but never really liked it -- I found it rather soft with underwhelming tones. In the past I've recommended Kodak HC-110 to people who are just starting out in film development, more for its economy, long storage, ease of use and repeatability than the image quality (which is actually rather good with most films), but it happens to be a great match to both of the films you mention so it'd definitely be a solid choice.

Failing that, D76/ID11 is kinda the benchmark and a solid reference point for you to experiment against (once you've settled on your favourite films you'll inevitably start to experiment with different devs). Should be easy to pick up locally too, which tends to be a bonus.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom