Tri-X or HP5

I used Tri-X for a bit and while it was a good film, I always found I preferred the quality of HP5+ so I switched to it permanently and it's become my regular B&W film.

As for the developer, I juggle between rodinal and D76 depending on the look I want. I love pushing HP5+ to 3200 in D76.
 
varjag said:
Tri-X in Microphen is better than sex.

Don't know what kind of sex you're having varjag...

I like HP5 at 400 or 800 in Microphen 1:1. Just ran some more at 400 today. Nice bright negs that print easily in my darkroom. I've printed 800 negs at 14x18 without disturbing grain.
 
HP5+ in Rodinal? I thought that combination was a no-no.

Depends on what speed it's I rated it at and what developer I plan to use:

HP5+ at 400 ISO in D76 or DDX probably has the best tones and grain in my expericence.

Tri-X@1000-1600 in Diafine is my high-speed choice over faster BW emulsions. I think this looks pretty amazing for its speed.

Tri-X in Rodinal at 200 for slower speed. Sharp edges - very nice.

Both outstanding, just a different look. Tri-X for its versitility and the classic Tri-X look though I prefer HP5+ at 400 over Tri-X at 400 for its richer blacks and tighter grain and imo slightly better tonality at this speed.

I don't think either is necessarily "better". Both are great films.
 
Tri-X, but only because I have worked at it for a long time to get it to do what I want with HC-110 dilution H. I am sure that HP5+ would do just as well given the time to dial it in. Lately I have used Neopan 400 to good effect also.

Regards, John.
 
Microdol-X reminds me- I shot some interiors of an old grain elevator last year- no windows, only lit by incandescent lightbulbs. HP5+ at iso50 in Microdol-x gave m beautiful negs where the lightbulbs are lightbulb shaped and the shadows have detail -not every frame mind you, but in most 🙂
 
No offense, nor being critical on the HP5+ in Rodinal combo. In fact, I have HP5+ and I have Rodinal but never put the two together because of:

Flickr: Discussing HP5 in Rodinal in B&W film / developer combinations
I've read and heard so many times that HP5 in Rodinal is a huge NONO due to wormy grains and such. I'm not sure if this is true because sometimes I find ...

If you Google HP5+ in Rodinal, you'll get a lot of threads on various photo boards like the one above. Some examples too, as I recall, that looked hideous (BIG grain - wormy, ugly...) But I never tried it, just thought this was a common knowledge no-no combo...
 
I've shot all of two rolls of HP5; one 35mm 72-exp roll in 1981 exposed at 400 like I did Tri-X, souped the same way in Edwal FG7, and I was pleased with the results. The second roll was 120-size shot last year at EI 800, developed in Diafine at the same time as two rolls of 220 Tri-X Prof shot at EI 1000. I was surprised an pleased at the HP5, which to my eye turned out more pleasing tonality, very smooth and rich. By comparison the Tri-X looked a bit harsh... but I wouldn't have called it harsh in the absense of HP5 to compare!

So I've made a note to self to use some more HP5 when I need to shoot some fast B&W. Too bad Ilford doesn't offer any 220 rolls though.

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
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+
 
Yes Pablito I agree- that 'old' Tri-X of the 80's was completely different. Had a crispness lacking in the current emulsion of either. HP5+ is closer to what I was getting back then, but not quite. It's something about the contrast maybe.
 
Back
Top Bottom