Tri-X v. HP5 pushed

[Timeshare]

Personally I think I have had the most consistent results pushing Legacy Pro 400 (Neopan 400) versus Tri-X or HP5+ but I have tried pushing all of these films. Here are a few examples ...

Tri-X (Arista Premium 400) pushed to 3200 is Rodinal 1:100 for 2 hour stand ...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/aristapremium400pushedto3200iso/

HP5+ pushed to 1600 iso in XTOL 1:1 ...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timeshare/tags/hp51600iso/

Legacy Pro 400 (Neopan 400) pushed to 640 iso in HC-110 B ...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timeshare/6173838390/

Legacy Pro 400 @ 800 in HC-110 B ...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timeshare/5816542752/

Legacy Pro 400 @ 1600 iso in HC-110 B ...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timeshare/5713737495/

 

[telenous]

I prefer HP5+ for a two-stop push. If there's just TriX lying around I have no qualms using that instead.

A couple of observations: In my experience TriX is contrastier than HP5+ @ EI 400. (Obviously this has to do also with my developing regime.) For this reason, pushed HP5+ seems to me to increase contrast in a more restrained manner. Also, when reaching EI 1600 and beyond, the appearance of underexposed grain in the shadows can be more prominent with TriX.

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 agree with this^.

Both push well. It is a matter of personal preference.

And that too.


.

 

[topoxforddoc]

I routinely push both HP5 and Neopan 400 to 1600 (and sometimes 3200) in XTOL 1:1, when I shoot in jazz clubs etc. Both work really well.

I haven't used Tri X for years, so I can't comment on push processing it.

Here's HP5 pushed to 1600 in XTOL
http://topoxforddoc.zenfolio.com/p1052974996/h224219bf#h224219bf

and Neopan 400 pushed to 1600 in XTOL
http://topoxforddoc.zenfolio.com/p738276563/h1f47ecab#h1f47ecab

Best wishes,

 

[Colin Corneau]

Both work OK but I'd choose HP5+ based on years of observation.

I think what will make a bigger difference for you is the developer and developing regiment you choose.

I've had nothing but great luck and results with DD-X. Rodinal always does great things with grain and tone (IMHO) but times are longer and it's not really the first developer of choice for pushing, generally.

 

[JayM]

My experience is based off of the results I got from scanning developing film with no additional post processing. What I want is a film / developer combination that gives me results I'm happy with that don't require additional work or tinkering so that I can instead focus on taking pictures.

I switched to HP5+ specifically for this reason. I wanted a film that I could shoot from 400-1600 and develop in Rodinal. Tri-X @1600 wasn't even close to HP5+ in this regard for me. Tri-X just looked muddier, which I could see as being usable or even desirable, but not for me. That and I really liked the short development times for HP5+. I'll have to try it at 3200 some time (for kicks, I never really need that kind of speed.)

Perhaps there's a way to push Tri-X in Rodinal that will achieve better results than 1+50 for whatever the Massive Dev Chart time is but I really wasn't interested in messing with it. Chemical wizardry doesn't really pique my interest at this point in my life.

 

[ChrisP]

I've always found tri-x to have more shadow detail and less grain than hp5+ (at least in d-76) at 1600. However I like grain. When I shoot film I want it to look like film. So I use Hp5 (plus hp5 dries flatter and I like other Ilford products).

This seems to go against what others say though.