Is Tri-X 78% better than HP5?

IMO both are goo films. I prefer TriX overall and can find Hp5 a bit of a struggle in overcast conditions. IMO it is better suited to brighter light and then developed gently. TriX does produce punchier images in flatter light. Must be a curves thing. I find new TrIX finer grained too, but I have some gorgeous prints from HP5 so those that say it is grey and flat all the time are doing something wrong. It seems to produce very glowing prints when the brightness range is high and you reduce development.

I disagree with Roger on Fuji mono products The Acros film is very modern and not for evryone but it also can be beautiful. I like it in acutance devs to give some bite to it. Even still, gimme a traditional film anyday unless I need uber fine grain. Neopan 400 is VERY close to TriX in my experience. Xtol/DDX/D76 all turn out fine negs. Seems to have more punch than Hp5 and finer grain. I do like it and the negs have very low base plus fog for quick print times. What is handy is that FP4+ (lovely) and neopan 400 develop with similar times, which is a boon when developing lots of mixed rolls. TriX can be doen along with APX100 with some success altho that film is all but gone. Contrast might not be a perfect match but nothing moer than half a grade out either way.
 
briandaly said:
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
Click to expand...
Dear Brian,

If you're scanning, I'd back Ilford XP2 Super, which scans far better than any conventional film I've tried. If you want to scan conventional film, try to use the least exposure and development that gives you decent tonality: more exposure and development mean worse grain, and many scanners can't penetrate dense negs (which sometimes leads to totally inaccurate statements about films having blown highlights, when they would print perfectly well in a real darkroom).

Devs? Most Patersons are good, but short lived. Ilford's DDX is my standard (long life, good quality). I've never got on with Rodinal (big grain, low speed) but there are plenty who will tell you I'm wrong, just as with my views on Fuji mono films.

Put it this way, though. ALL films are tested by their makers in D76/ID-11, because a film that won't work well in those will only sell to obsessives. Consider D-76, one-shot, at 1+1 or 1+3, to save money as compared with one-shot stock.

Re-using dev is a bit of a gamble because all dev time adjustments are rules of thumb; the more you use the dev, the more toe speed is depressed, and the higher the contrast you need to develop to in order to get an EI close to the ISO speed. A fully seasoned (replenished) dev typically loses a stop in speed, but at least it's predictable.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Matter of taste. Try both (and maybe others too, like Delta 400, TMY, Fomapan 400, Neopan 400, and there are a few others) for a while and see what suits yours.

To my eye, Tri-X is more about line, and HP-5+ is more about gradation. I'm more about line.
 
Last edited:
As many have already pointed out, both films are wonderful and versatile, and while they are similar, they are very different when it comes to the final print. I found out a long time ago that my favorite "look" using HP 5 is when developing in D76 (probably similar result with ID-11, but I have no direct experience). I'm using mostly Tri-x these days as I am experimenting with HC-110 and Rodinal and I found that I just don't like HP5 in either of these. I would recommend you try both but use an old standard developer like D76 or ID11, you will quickly be able to see which you prefer:)
 
One has to try for oneself, since obviously not all agree. I found Tri-x to push better, and HP5 to have a little better tonality. Also, that Ilford films just would not spot on drying. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
dseelig said:
I tried hp5 but I had horrible dust problems with it I did not have with trix or fuji neopan 400 David
Click to expand...

Thats odd. Maybe the felt in the canister light trap was shedding?

A comment about TriX being about line and Hp5+ about gradation is a pretty good analogy I think.

Hp5+ I find grainier than the new TriX 400. Both of similar speed with Hp5+ possibly being a hair faster. Both develop in staining devs very nicely and produce fantastic acutance if you so desire it.
 
In my pre-M8 days I shot a lot of Tri-X, but I was always happy to substitute HP5 if I couldn't find any. My opinion was that HP5 had lower contrast than Tri-X, but that could have been due to my development technique - or lack of it.

I used Xtol for both, diluted 1:3, then scanned the negatives with a Minolta or Nikon scanner.

I've never really got on with XP2, there's little or no grain, but nothing looked really sharp, maybe that was due to the lack of grain.
 
xayraa33 said:
This is getting to sound like the Pepsi-Coke challenge.
Click to expand...

No kidding. I'd be willing to bet one could post a dozen images with both films done in a variety of developers, exposures and development techniques and no one here would get more than 50% of it right guessing which was which...
 
I've tried both and found them very similar, A lot of the look is down to the developer and dev technique. I'd say HP5+ is better for shadow detail and Tri-X better for highlights. I also found the Tri-X grain slightly tighter.
Hp5 loads on my plastic rolls easier whereas Tri-X seems to be a stiffer film and I always seem to have trouble with the last few inches of the roll - but that could be me.
I've decided to stick with HP5+ and Fuji B&W as they are committed to supporting us film users. Not sure about Kodak?
 
Matthew Allen said:
Really? Are there any good mail order places with Tri-X that cheap? All the European shops I've checked charge more for Ilford than Kodak, it'd be nice to get some Tri-X for that little.

Matthew
Click to expand...

Hi Matthew,

I use to order bw film from Fotoimpex (Tri-X 3.5 €) or from Monochrom (Trix-X 10 pack 36.50 €) both in german. Both ship fast.

Regards,
Joao
 
Both Tri-X and HP5 are my go to 400 ISO black and white films, I like the results I get regardless if I shoot rangefinder or SLR and my developer of choice is D76/ID 11.
 
Johann Espiritu said:
I just shot my first roll of HP5 and find it "creamier" than Tri-X (both developed in D-76), giving it more "vintage" look. Tri-X looks grittier. I will use either depending on the look I'm going after.

Samples here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/yophoto/ - just do a search for either film.
Click to expand...

It looks very good, HP 5 shot through a ZM 50/f1.5 Sonnar at full bore say, will give creamy overload.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom