Is Tri-X 78% better than HP5?

[Matthew Allen]

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

Thanks Joao.

Matthew

 

[Bob Michaels]

This is getting to sound like the Pepsi-Coke challenge.

Very true. Remember that Coke did the blind taste test and found that more people preferred the taste of Pepsi than Coke? So they introduced the New Coke (which had a Pepsi like taste) and it was a resounding disaster in the market. People demanded the original Coke even though they liked Pepsi better when they didn't know which was which.

I wonder how many demand "nothing but Tri-X" when they might be unable to discern a difference in a true blind test.

 

[Bob Michaels]

This thread gravitated into Tri-X vs. HP5. And I haven't shot Tri-X in years. But I can speak about HP5 vs. Neopan 400.

Neopan 400 is my standard film. But when it was unavailable late last year in 35mm I bought several bricks of HP5. Then I bought Neopan 400 again.

Lately I've been shooting both HP5 and Neopan 400 at the same time. I'll shoot a few rolls of one and a few of the other in the same day. I expose them the same. I process them in the same tank. And I can't tell one from the other after they are scanned. I simply cannot find any difference.

I pay US$2.99 for roll for Neopan 400 and HP5 is $3.49. That makes the decision easy for me.

 

[Artorius]

I like HP5 with really contrasty conditions, and Tri-X in cloudy/bright conditions. I use either HC110, or D76 depending on what I want or conditions.
Just my 2¢ USD.

 

[dedmonds]

in answer to the original question: no.

 

[raid]

If two types of film are equally good in your view, choose the less expensive one. If you don't know which is better by now, still choose the lower priced one.

 

[madsolitaire]

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.

That's my experience too - not only for the 135 but also for the 120 format.

 

[retnull]

forget the Kodak and Ilford stuff, buy Fuji Acros

I agree -- if you can shoot at ASA 100, the Fuji Acros is absolutely amazing stuff. Check the Acros flickr group

 

[gdi]

Hmm, by this standard, according to Adorama, Tri-X ($4.49) is 87% "better" than HP5+ ($3.95) (or only 12%, depending on your Mathematical point of view)

Also, Windoze XP Professional upgrade ($149.00) is 14900% better than Red Hat Fedora (free).

Two tries and you miss with both?

At least "Windoze" comes equipped with a calculator!

 

[OurManInTangier]

BTW check out 7dayshop.com for cheaper prices.
--
Monz

I use Tri-X 400 and have just bought twenty rolls from 7dayshop.com. They're Jersey (UK) based and have great prices. £2.25 per roll of Tri-X 400 around €2.70.

I also use Rodinal for the Tri-X which I love...it also lasts well if stored properly as you need so little of it ( though it doesn't seem to get on well with Delta 400.)

I agree with the advice on trying both, its what works for you so give them both a go and see what happens.

 

[craygc]

IMO both are goo[d] 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.

I like HP5 with really contrasty conditions, and Tri-X in cloudy/bright conditions. I use either HC110, or D76 depending on what I want or conditions.

Both these comments reflect my use of both these films. As Rich815 says, you could post multiple images from both and not pick them, but I find HP5 seems to be a rather lower contrast film - or least it reacts that way in flat light. I like do Tri-x but I have have a couple of hundred rolls of HP5 so thats what I tend to use

 

[Roger Hicks]

I agree -- if you can shoot at ASA 100, the Fuji Acros is absolutely amazing stuff. Check the Acros flickr group

Tends to be love it or hate it, though. For my money it's deadly slow (about 1/3 stop slower than Delta 100, true ISO in each case) and tonally appalling. Then again, I've never seen why anyone bothers with Fuji mono. Great color slides: indifferent-to-poor B+W.

This doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong, or vice versa. It's just a very good argument against relying too much on another's opinion.

Cheers,

R.

 

[vieri]

...

Then again, I've never seen why anyone bothers with Fuji mono. Great color slides: indifferent-to-poor B+W.

This doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong, or vice versa. It's just a very good argument against relying too much on another's opinion.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, I gotta agree for the general Fuji BW line (never understood the rave about Neopan 400 for one) but I have to make exception for Neopan 1600, which I simply love (souped in 510-Pyro). As you said, matter of taste I guess

 

[irq506]

Gosh! Thats quite the difference... Its probably more to do with import duties etc then the quality of the emulsions.
I just simply haven't shot enough Tri-X in my life to really feel any one way or another about it. I have shot Neopan 400 close to well a lot more than most would shoot in a lifetime, and I know its characteristics like the back of my hand. I have also been shooting a lot of HP5 in the last three years and have to say that it has to be one of the most fulfilling image making emulsions that I have ever had the pleasure of using. Its silver rich and has wonderful signature in all light levels.
I have one friend here who is a old school photojournalist and now a teacher and he says that he really only uses Tri-X because its got a characteristic grey tonality which sits very comfortably dead center between black and white, whereas HP5 may lean slightly towards the deep end a little more.

I have just got 600 rolls of Tri-X and by the end of the year I will know it pretty well.