ConnectingTheDots
Member
Which one of these films has higher contrast at box speed? Thank you.
maddoc
... likes film again.
It all depends on the developer but I would tend to say that 400TX has a slightly higher contrast and HP5plus a finer graduation of the mid-tones.
markus_h_photography
Established
Yep what he said. I've always found HP5 quite "flat" which can actually be good.
It's easy to add contrast to an image later, not so easy to reduce it...
It's easy to add contrast to an image later, not so easy to reduce it...
mfogiel
Veteran
As said above. If you scan, it does not really matter, if you wet print, just underexpose and overdevelop, and you will get high contrast.
Mark C
Well-known
Development times for box speed are targeted to deliver normal contrast. The exact measurement of this varies slightly between manufacturers, but not much. If you want more contrast you simply develop longer.
Curve shape shows not only the overall contrast, but where that contrast is greatest (steeper places on the line) and less. TX and HP5 Plus do differ somewhat in that. I believe TX has less highlight contrast, which suits the bad lighting situations I deal with a lot. People who shoot in better or more controlled light often prefer a more straight line response with better highlight separation. I think HP5 Plus gives a bit more of that, but you'd need to compare curves done under similar conditions. Someone recently posted such a comparison to the web; I'll try to find a link.
BTW, I was in a pinch and shot Kentmere 100 at 400 recently and was surprised at how well it did. If you want contrast and 400 speed something like that might be useful. This will not be true ISO shadow speed, but that is probably not what you are wanting if you are talking about high contrast.
Curve shape shows not only the overall contrast, but where that contrast is greatest (steeper places on the line) and less. TX and HP5 Plus do differ somewhat in that. I believe TX has less highlight contrast, which suits the bad lighting situations I deal with a lot. People who shoot in better or more controlled light often prefer a more straight line response with better highlight separation. I think HP5 Plus gives a bit more of that, but you'd need to compare curves done under similar conditions. Someone recently posted such a comparison to the web; I'll try to find a link.
BTW, I was in a pinch and shot Kentmere 100 at 400 recently and was surprised at how well it did. If you want contrast and 400 speed something like that might be useful. This will not be true ISO shadow speed, but that is probably not what you are wanting if you are talking about high contrast.
Mark C
Well-known
Found it:
http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/fkd76.html
The text is Norwegian, but the content is easy enough to understand. You can see in this particular case that TX has slightly more low-mid contrast, then tapering off more relative to HP5 Plus.
http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/fkd76.html
The text is Norwegian, but the content is easy enough to understand. You can see in this particular case that TX has slightly more low-mid contrast, then tapering off more relative to HP5 Plus.
Sparrow
Veteran
...... tri-x
van_d
Established
Tri-X, no question. HP5 can be kind of flat by comparison, though it depends on the developer obviously.
