Tri-X or HP5 Plus?

I have very strange relation with Tmax 100, I think it was my first black and white film, I find it to be very normal :D I like Tmax 400 at night ( laugh ) anyhow for daylight Delta 100 is best for me, specially for portraits and high key!

What you mean screwy btw? I am very curious :)
 
at least in xtol, i've found hp5 to have cooler tones. i thought it would be like that across all developers though
 
keensb - what do you mean by "cooler?" are you somehow getting more of a selenium look on the _negative_? Or do you mean...I have no idea what you mean :)

allan
 
i mean it looks and scans more blue than trix?

when i scan, i scan in rgb, rather than monochrome, i think it looks better
 
keensb - that has to do with your scanner settings. The purple cast on current TXT will make that a bit warmer, indeed, but if you white balance out you should get the same results.

One thing I have heard, not in response to you, is that HP5 is better for pyro developers. Once I run out of my 2 gallons of Perceptol, 3 gallons of Microphen, 4 bottles of Rodinal, and 2 gallons of D76, I will be trying that. Oh, and 2 boxes of FX-50.

sigh.
allan
 
now i know =)

thanks!

all i have is 5 liters of xtol, so maybe i'll give it a try. althought i've been shooting some tri-x because its only 3 dollars at b&h, and i finished my bulk roll of hp5, not sure if i'm going to continue doing that
 
Last edited:
I use Tri-X developed in D76 kodak for 12 and a half minutes...

I want to try the tri-x rated at 320 though... Do you know how much time to develop?
 
I'm surprised to hear people claiming indistinguishability between HP5+ and 400TX. I've always felt that the highlights of HP5+ are too blah and lacking of contrast, that even in compensating developers like HC-110 it exhibits a more aggressive shouldering effect than tri-x.

I find this early shouldering of HP5 to be particularly bad with XTOL.

I'm a picky printer though and I've definitely developed my own aesthetic over time.

On the other hand, I believe that I could get favorable tonality out of HP5+ given some time to play with different EI / devel time combinations -- but why bother when there are so many bulk feet of tri-x in the freezer?
 
Conor,
I would not disagree with you on the early shouldering of HP5. I haven't really been able to pin it down, but the look is different in that regard. I have had trouble getting my development time down with HP5, but then didn't shoot it enough to really dial it in.

Early shouldering sounds quite right for the results I did see, though...

allan
 
I think Conor's described exactly what I see with HP5+. HC-110 dil h helps with highlight separation and makes the highlights easier to print but it's still not as well defined in the high values as Tri-x. It's not so much of a problem once you get used to it.
 
great discussion thanks. can I ask some advice?

i have several rolls of Hp5+ exposed at 400 ASA and the choice of Rodinal or Ilfosol S. Which would you choose as the developer and why?

(ALso does sealed never open developer have a useby date - both bottles are unopened, but 2+ years old.)
thanks!
 
jmilkins said:
great discussion thanks. can I ask some advice?

i have several rolls of Hp5+ exposed at 400 ASA and the choice of Rodinal or Ilfosol S. Which would you choose as the developer and why?

(ALso does sealed never open developer have a useby date - both bottles are unopened, but 2+ years old.)
thanks!
Click to expand...
I would have said Ilfosol for better tonality and grain, but after two years it's likely to be dead. Rodinal lasts forever but doessn't do a good job with HP5 in my opinion.
 
Magus: Not to go too far OT, but search out APX100 shots in Rodinal, either 1:50 or 1:100. I can't speak for 1:25 with APX, though it could be wonderful as well.
 
My impression of Rodinal is that it's best with non-pushed films, and especially low ISO films. It's stunning with PanF for example. I don't personally like it with HP5 or TriX, but HP5 is especially bad due to something it does to the grain. I do quite like it with Neopan400, surprisingly.

Like many, I've tried emulating Merciful's stand development and been pleasantly surprised with the results. That said, I'm still more likely to use XTOL, DDX or Diafine for pushing.

These are my subjective non-scientific opinions.
 
What Wintoid said on Rodinal. I have always been more succesful pulling or using at nominal speed rather than pushing. TriX @ISO320 is very nice IMO. Agfa APX 100 in Rodinal is the sharpest thing I have ever seen in 35mm format.

Cheers :)
 

Attachments

  • Down the hatch RFF.jpg
    Down the hatch RFF.jpg
    67.7 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom