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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Timmyjoe
Okay, when did this happen?
Replies
5
Views
419
Richard G
Richard G
S
Developing Tri-X Suggestions?
Replies
13
Views
904
Muggins
Muggins
ChrisPlatt
ISO 400 BW negative film recommendation?
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
M
HP5+....HC-110....grain
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
FotohuisR
FotohuisR
John Bragg
What film developer is your favorite and why ?
5 6 7
Replies
135
Views
12K
Godfrey
Godfrey
Back
Top Bottom