Tri-X or HP5

[jmi]

Another Tri-X vs HP5 thread! (or is it the same one)

Regarding the HP5 in Rodinal issue -- when I first started using Rodinal I saw all the negative comments regarding this combination, so I had to try it out for myself. The results weren't too bad, I exposed at EI 200 and underdeveloped slightly. The grain was a bit weird but it looked OK in 120. Not so sure about 35mm though...

Not going to use it again on the other hand - draw your own conclusions 🙂

EDIT - sorry, developer preference 🙂 I really liked HP5 in D76 1+1, and HC-110 possibly even better.

 

[sepiareverb]

Never shot Neopan 400. I've not used the Fuji B&W films really at all. I've had several students get all lopped up over the ACROS 100 and so I have a few rolls to play with now. I've never had much success with those New Technology films, tried TMAX when it came out and couldn't get it to work for me, stuck with Plus-X for a long time. In 45 & 810 I liked the Delta 100, but in 35 I never got it to do the same thing. Most of my view camera stuff was under studio lights. I'm quite happy with the traditional Ilford films for most of my work. Been using ID-11 more for Pan-F and FP4, but HP5 is always in Microphen 1:1 nowadays.

 

[Pablito]

When I do large jobs (40 rolls or more) I send to a wonderful but expensive lab in NYC for developing in D76- they discourage the use of the Fuji films so I never tried them. I've found Tri-X in X-tol to give very flat negs - increasing dev may increase density but the negs are still flat... I tell my students now to use only HP5+ when they're getting started....

 

[sepiareverb]

Yes it is HP5 for Photo 1 here too. I let them branch out into FP4 or Delta 400 if they hate the grain after a few weeks, then open up the film choice to about anything.
I tried very hard to like XTOL- expecially when shooting sheet films where my hands got wet, and did manage to get some good results on sheet Delta 100 under studio lights. But I too find the negs flat, especially in the highlights. Broaching upon muddy I'd say for 35mm work.

 

[Pablito]

I tried very hard to like XTOL- expecially when shooting sheet films where my hands got wet, and did manage to get some good results on sheet Delta 100 under studio lights. But I too find the negs flat, especially in the highlights. Broaching upon muddy I'd say for 35mm work.

Agree completely: muddy for 35mm and also 120 Tri-X (400)- though now I've changed to HP5....

 

[wintoid]

Over the last 2 years I've been pretty promiscuous, trying many different films with many different developers. Early into my experiment, I produced one film, which was TriX with DDX, that I haven't yet managed to improve on.

For the last 3 months, I've been obsessed with Neopan 400 @ 800 in Diafine, but right now I seem to be hooked on HP5 @ 400 in ID11 1+1 (example attached from my Olympus 35SP).

What's my point? Well I couldn't choose between them. I'd be sad to lose any of these great films.

 

[iml]

I tried very hard to like XTOL- expecially when shooting sheet films where my hands got wet, and did manage to get some good results on sheet Delta 100 under studio lights. But I too find the negs flat, especially in the highlights. Broaching upon muddy I'd say for 35mm work.

Not my experience at all, negs are crisp and sharp in Xtol, and scan beautifully.

One example of many, picked completely at random (Olympus 35 RC, Tri-X @ 400, Xtol).

Ian

 

[NickTrop]

What classic look of Tri-X? In the early part of this decade (around 2002/03) Tri-X became a different film. Kodak started using a different factory, where thay make Tmax as well, From what I understand, they had to adapt the Tri-X formula to the new machinery. Whatever they did, the "new" tri-x looks more like T-Max; finer grain, thinner neg overall, flatter middle tones. The "OLD" Tri-X looked a lot more like today's HP5+. I'm reminded of this every time I get out some older Tri-X negs to print. I've now given up on the new Tri-X, which may be better for scanning but has lost the "classic" look, as far as I'm concerned. I much prefer printing from the lush dense negs you can still get form HP5+

Respectfully disagree but, as always, preferences in film signature is purely subjective.

Here's what DR5 says about new Tri-X:

When Kodak built their new plant for all their B&W films, they had no intentions to change anything. The upgrade in the equipment did however improved the film greatly...The new TX holds contrast and tonal-range throughout the speed range... Other TX improvements are greater clarity & sharpness. ITS JUST PLAIN BETTER.
http://www.dr5.com/tx.html

 

[NickTrop]

Over the last 2 years I've been pretty promiscuous, trying many different films with many different developers. Early into my experiment, I produced one film, which was TriX with DDX, that I haven't yet managed to improve on

DDX is just a great developer all the way around, to me, but a bit too pricey. Kinda moved a way from the one-shots because they don't last that long or "expire" if some time passes between developing negs. Only "one shot" I use is Rodinal. Next in line is HC110. I like the stuff that lasts long. So I'll "stock" Rodinal (low speed), HC110 (medium speed), Diafine (fast) and not worry if developer has become oxidized because I shot color or C41 for the last month or so...

 

[sepiareverb]

In DR5 chemistry perhaps, but their soup changes every film. I shot LOTS of Tri-X in the 80's and today it isn't the same at all. Ran a roll last week to help troubleshoot a weird film problem a student was having- we were trying to rule out his camera for sure, and I just don't like it. (Emphasis on the 'I'). He loves Tri-X, Just as someone else will love they're fave.
Interestingly, Fortepan 100 in HC-110b gave me a somewhat 80's Tri-X look, if a little grainer.

It could partly be the glass I shot then- Pentax M and A primes- wouldn't be surprised at all if that contributed to the look of those images.

 

[GeneW]

Been using Tri-X as my main fast film for decades and still love it. I've also shot with HP5 and Neopan 400 and they're very good too. Any one of these three suits me. Tri-X is still my fave but only by a whisker.

Gene

 

[FrankS]

I've used HP5+ for a long time. I'm making the switch from Ilfosol S developer to HC-110 on the very next rolls to be developed.

 

[sepiareverb]

Watch the agitation- you can block up those highlights w/HC-110.

 

[Uncle Bill]

I use both Tri-x and HP5 on a regular basis. Truthfully its too close to call and my main developers for both films are D-76/ID-11, HC110 and Rodinal for Tri-x.

B.

 

[titrisol]

That is again incredible subjective.
IMHO Neopan 400 in DDX is a thing of beauty for portraits
But it depends on your taste.. i.e. with ketchup or mayaneisse!

How would you rate Tri-X and HP5 against Neopan 400??

PS. HP5 in Rodinal is a workable combo, specially if you go to Rodinal 1+75 or 1+100 and use extended development with little agitation.
Also the addtion of vit-C to Rodinal helps a lot.

 

[40oz]

Tri-X in D-76 1:1. I've done HP-5 in Ilfosol S quite a bit, went to TMAX 400 in Ilfosol S, then in D-76 straight and 1:1, then Tri-X in D-76 straight and 1:1, as well once in HC-110 1:100. My personal preference is for Tri-X in D-76 1:1, but I've had favorite photos in all combinations. I don't know how to quantify what I like about the Tri-X/D76 1:1 combo. Something about the grain and tones, but nothing I can put my finger on.

 

[Nachkebia]

Tri-X in Microphen is better than sex.

Haha Excellent!

For whatever reason or developer I think HP5 has more traditional look, tri-x has wormer touch though! I like both, I would take tri-x if I did not know what I will be shooting, I will take HP5 for bloody classic lower tones! 😀

 

[rogue_designer]

TriX in HC110 at 1:100 is my current favorite. 250 - 3200 Hard to beat the tones and contrast compensation.

I just can't make myself like HP5+ no matter what I do.

 

[MISH]

Tri-X in Rodinal

Tri-X in Rodinal

they can only take away my Tri-X and Rodinal when they pry it from my cold dead hands

 

[kbg32]

HP5 all the way, and developed in Rodinal. I find HP5 has a much longer tonal scale then Tri-X, and doesn't block up the highlights.