Tri-X or HP5 Plus?

Tri-X was reformulated about 5 years ago when Kodak consolidated its manufacturing. It no longer builds up density the way it used to but it has finer grain than it used to. Today's Tri-X scans better but I am used to the look and characteristics of the old Tri-X. HP5+ looks more like the old Tri-X than current Tri-X. I've pretty much given up on the new Tri-X. The new Tri-X looks more like T-max.
 
horses for courses.

I like Tri-X, it's the most versatile film I have ever shot. I have rated it from 100 to 6400, others here have gone to 12800 and more!

The grain is controllable depending on the developer I use...use Rodinal for nice, tight grain and contrast, Xtol 1:1 helps me control the grain when needed. YMMV

Todd
 
For scanning, Tri-X, it gives me consistently better results than HP5, finer grain and more subtle contrast. And its flexibility is great, IME it works well at 100 - 800 (haven't tried it at 1600 or higher yet).

Ian
 
I've always been a Tri-x man, but recently HP5 is so much cheaper in the UK (£1.50 v. £2.35 a roll for 120) that I'm currently attempting to swap. The HP5 negs seem to scan with a lot of grain, but I've not printed any yet so the jury is still out.
 
two favorite films, i prefer hp5, but trix is cheaper here :D

i have a bulk roll of hp5, and buy single rolls of trix.

the only other film i touch is neopan 1600

hp5 or trix 400-1600

neopan for 3200
 
I've been struggling with this one myself. TriX is beautiful, but I have issues with dust sticking to the film. HP5 is great but lacks the punch of TriX in my opinion. The best I got was HP5 in HC110 but have finally settled on Neopan400 in Diafine as my all-round workhorse (and I didn't like Diafine much before I started using it with Neopan400). Have attached a shot showing why I like Neopan400 in Diafine, this exposed at ISO800. Hope you don't mind, I know it's not what you asked.
 

Attachments

  • 402338100_a509bc64e7.jpg
    402338100_a509bc64e7.jpg
    82.9 KB · Views: 0
They have their subtle nuances and some like one over the other for minute differences but you could use them interchangeably, with different developers, post 5-6 of the images here and no one could tell you one from the other.

Pick one, and a developer and have fun. You cannot go wrong.
 
Rich is right - they are close enough that one often cannot tell the difference, especially at most normal enlargements.

However...I do agree with most that, for some reason, I get a bit more grain with HP5 unless I use a slightly more solvent developer. And while I would not say that TXT has more punch (after all, I can sure as heck develop one flat TXT neg and have a low contrast scan), I would say that its toe and shoulder seem a bit more..classic to me. At least, it's close enough to the older formulation that I think it still has the same look. You can't change a film's toe/shoulder much from developer to developer.

allan
 
wintoid said:
I've been struggling with this one myself. TriX is beautiful, but I have issues with dust sticking to the film. HP5 is great but lacks the punch of TriX in my opinion. The best I got was HP5 in HC110 but have finally settled on Neopan400 in Diafine as my all-round workhorse (and I didn't like Diafine much before I started using it with Neopan400). Have attached a shot showing why I like Neopan400 in Diafine, this exposed at ISO800. Hope you don't mind, I know it's not what you asked.
Click to expand...

I have had a similar experience with Hp5 having less punch than tri-x. In D76. though. Lab.
 
When I was in school, I told my instructor I wanted tack sharp, just visible grain. He suggested I try Tri-x and Rodinal.
A short time later, he had us compare two film/ developer combinations side by side; same scenes shot at the same time, exposed the same, printed the same. I chose Tri-x and HP-5, both developed in Rodinal per instructions on the Massive Dev. Chart.
My VERY experienced teacher (and tri-x user for decades) couldn't tell the prints apart, let alone which was which.
A couple of years later I tried Merciful's Super Push with both films, and found the difference negligable.
That said, I later discovered FP-4 and Rodinal and have never looked back. I use HP-5 when I gotta have the speed or the exposure latitude. Not Tri-x though, the stuff won't fix (purple stains) and contaminates the fixer, which then ruins my good film.
Just my two bits worth.
 
I've been shooting HP5+ and developing in HC-110, and found that I get much better results exposing at ISO 200-300 and developing at the rated times and concentrations for 400. Alternately, adding a pinch of ascorbic acid (a.k.a. Vitamin C) to the regular HC-110 dilutions can add 1/2 stop or two of push without completely blowing out the shadows.

To be fair, though, I'm also using a bunch of old cameras that haven't been recalibrated for the alkaline batteries I've used to replace the mercury cells they were originally set up for, so it may be more operator difficulty than the film or chemistry.
 
I love the skill and knowledge I find here.
I have always benn an Illford fan, mainly HP5 and Delta. Started with HP5 and found it forgiving, I usually pushed it at least a stop and when I processed it myself it was using old universal developer. Most of my great early stuff was shot and processed this way. Then moved on to Delta and fell in love with it, very fine grain I think, and if I want grain I can always print larger.
Now I'm scanning film ( only have digital darkroom ) I find T-Max has a use.
 
What everyone says about the films. I buy them 50%-50% for the same kind of use (either ISO320 or ISO800). The bottom line for me is to compare and choose between the two films with their optimal developer in the two speeds I use. HP5+ seems very nice when pushed and works like a charm with DDX. TriX @320 in Rodinal is also great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom