Tri-X v. HP5 pushed

J

jpa66

Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Local time
3:38 AM
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
804
What is your preferred film for pushing? I've only pushed Tri-x, but am considering pushing HP5. Pro's and cons of both? I don't really push my film that often, but I'll probably be doing so in the winter months, and don't really care for Ilford's 3200. All film will be 120mm format. Most of it will be shot at 800, but some maybe at 1200.

Any input is welcomed.

Jan
 
" HP5 PLUS has been formulated to respond well to push processing and film speeds up to EI 3200/36 are achievable with ILFORD MICROPHEN developer maintaining good shadow detail and well separated mid-tones with sharp grain."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marchelino/5622055719/

Looks good.

Medium format is nice when pushed... 35mm just does not have the grain to spare.
 
Yeah, I've read a bit about HP5's ability to be pushed. I'm, wondering what the difference between it and Tri-x would be.
 
HP5+ @ 800 in Rodinal is absolutely stunning. I sometimes shoot it with an ND filter for the beautiful tonality.
 
I usually use HC 110h as my developer and get a lot more grain with HP5. I think HP5 looks better grainy than Tri x, however. Subjective, obviously!

This is with 35mm.
 
I've found HP5 grainier at 1600 as well. I develop with XTOL and I much prefer Tri-X to HP5. That said, I think Neopan 400 pushed to 1600 is better than both.
 
Since 120 Neopan was pulled I've moved to Hp5 and I regularly shoot it at 800 or 1600 then develop it in Diafine. Looks very nice.

Second to Diafine I like it in DD-X.
 
If you go by what Kodak say in the Tech pubs for Tri-X and XTOL they don't even consider Tri-X shot at 800 as pushing as the processing times are the same for IS0 400 and 800.

Shoot with both as I like to support Ilford due to its strong commitment to B&W film but prefer Tri-X
 
My personal experience has been that HP5+ is easier to push than Tri-X. With easier I mean I still get tones that are pleasing to my own taste with less post-prosessing.
 
Maybe I've been doing HP5 wrong. I haven't been happy with it at 400 so I've been shooting at 250. I'd much rather get a higher speed out of it but I feel like any higher and I loose the shadow detail I want.

At 250, I'm getting tones like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5658219152
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5657645983

...while 400 looks more like:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5288188871

...though 800 looks somewhat similar to 400:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5351687890
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5353492197

I'd much rather shoot it at 400 or faster so if anyone has examples with development approach which avoids shadows going black too quickly, I'd love to see them.
 
Last edited:
Brian Legge said:
Maybe I've been doing HP5 wrong. I haven't been happy with it at 400 so I've been shooting at 250. I'd much rather get a higher speed out of it but I feel like any higher and I loose the shadow detail I want.

At 250, I'm getting tones like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5658219152
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5657645983

...while 400 looks more like:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5288188871

...though 800 looks somewhat similar to 400:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5351687890
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/5353492197

I'd much rather shoot it at 400 or faster so if anyone has examples with development approach which avoids shadows going black too quickly, I'd love to see them.
Click to expand...

I can see what you mean. Hmm, I couldn't find quick samples of HP5+ at 800 that I shot a year ago, but I did all my development in semi stand Microphen (70-80ml stock solution per 135 roll, then top up to 300ml total as specified by Paterson tank instructions, agitate for first 30sec, then two tank turns at around half way through development, otherwise stand ... in 20C).

My method is rather unorthodox I know, but I got results that I liked: highlights not blown out, grain kept under control and added speed.
 
Both push well. It is a matter of personal preference.

I use TriX because I prefer the look and I am used to it. I also appreciate the lesser grain in 35mm particularly. That said, if I had to work with HP5+ tomorrow, I would mess about until I got it to work. I read one chap who ran a pro lab waxing lyrical about how well it pushed in Tmax developer.

I have pushed TriX to about 1250 but no further and would definitely develop for longer at 800 than 400 no matter what Kodak says (very peculiar to have the same times). I have taken HP5+ to 800 but would not recommend Xtol 1+1 for this as the result I have gotten, while controlled, were somewhat 'dull' - a problem I get a lot with this film, but probably just down to my workflow and tecnnique
 
I find trix at 400 already to grainy for my taste. HP5+ however works very well for me from 200 to 1600. Always in Xtol 1+1.
I'll switch completely to HP5+ if my stock of other film is gone.

Cheers,

Michiel
 
Michiel Fokkema said:
I find trix at 400 already to grainy for my taste. HP5+ however works very well for me from 200 to 1600. Always in Xtol 1+1.
I'll switch completely to HP5+ if my stock of other film is gone.

Cheers,

Michiel
Click to expand...

I found Tri-X in Rodinal to not be as grainy. ( I know weird, becauseRodinal is not low grain, but Tmax developer makes Tri-X a lot more grainy )

6261033715_81d9a9ab10_z.jpg
 
Pushing seems to be a common topic here recently... I shoot Tri-X at 3200 very often. Develop in Microphen for 25 minutes (at 20 degrees) 2 agitations every minute. I like the high contrast, but still has a nice tonal range. Here are some photos on my Flickr :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom