Tri-X vs HP5 vs Kentmere

P

presspass

filmshooter
Local time
10:46 AM
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
1,350
Has anyone shot all three of these films in 35mm at the box ISO? If so, how do they compare for grain, sharpness, and tonality? Thanks for your help.
 
I've never shot Kentmere, but as far as HP5+ v. TX 400, the differences depend on a lot of things, but all things being equal, they're very similar and I doubt that you'd be able to tell the difference.

I shoot both, but to achieve specific results:

1) HP5+ dev in HC-110 Dil B - lower contrast, smaller grain - smooth as buttah!

2) TX 400 in XTOL - I process it to produce a grittier, higher contrast, bigger grain look. XTOL also pushes better than HP5+
 
I have done a lot of HP5 and Kentmere (in bulks). And was able to afford modern Tri-X couple of times in rolls.
Scanned and wet printed. I'm using HC-110 for developer.
I'm not considering ISO400 as film for sharpness. All three are sharp enough for ISO400 film with grain.
Tri-X is the grain embedded into the picture. HP5 has grain, but less as part of the picture. Kentmere 400 has grain and it is visible as distraction sometimes.
Tonality is good at all three. At least on HP5 and Kentmere 400 I could get clouds and some details in the shadow. HP5 has more midtones, IMO.

In terms of VS, I prefer HP5 as affordable first class ISO 400 film.

But Kentmere 400 is absolutely no problem to print.

My Kentmere 400 examples and HP5+.
 
Done Kentmere and TriX. Film scanner.


This one was done with Kentmere 400:

U47399I1469732914.SEQ.0.jpg


Grain is different than TriX. Sometimes Kentmere could be more "harsh" which could be good or bad depending on what you want to express on your photo. TriX could increase contrast on you photo, so to speak, while Kentmere could make your photos seems a bit rough (check the floor texture as well as shadows on the cat), so to speak. Again, it probably depends on development times and the developer itself. This one was done with D76 at 20c, stock, 9m.


I really like this film myself :)

I used HP5 long time ago, wet prints, and the grain looked softer to me. Didn't care much for it a the time to be honest. Was into TriX and TMax 400 at that time.
 
Kentmere 100 is a good film, nice grain and dries flat. Tried some Kentmere 400. It was OK, but didn't blow me away. A very decent product for the price, though.

I've used HP5+ and Tri-X at box, but IMHO they're pretty interchangeable. They both push well, if you need it. FWIW I actually have found Tri-X to be more versatile: it works well at 400 ISO, but really sings at 200 ISO. And you can always push it if necessary.

Tri-X has more "character" to my eyes, HP5+ is more middle-of-the-road. But of course, others may disagree.

I'm including some samples, but they're not entirely representative of what these films can do ... the Tri-X looks grainier than I remember, but my developing technique sometimes is a little sloppy.

Here's Tri-X at 400, done in D-76:

5674796432_f334ed4c55_z.jpg


Here's HP5+ at 400, again in D-76

7257502220_2af2f5ff5c_z.jpg


Here's Kentmere 400 in Ilford DD-X

4703886373_5eb5c4a489_z.jpg
 
I have used all three and prefer HP5, it's cheaper than Tri-X and less 'mushy' than Kentmere. Although, I might try Kentmere again for fun ;D

HP5 - ID11



Tri-x - ID11



Kentmere - ID11

 
How do you guys achieve a nice tonality with HP5?
I have only tried it with XTOL and Rodinal for now.
XTOL a little too flat for my taste, and Rodinal way too grainy.
Cheers
 
HP5 may be the film that is most responsive to development, tho I must admit I haven't shot tri-x in probably twenty plus years. I like to develop it in DD-X or R09 Spezial at box speed, HC-110 b if I want to emphasize grain. At 800 I use Rodinal 1:50 or HC-110.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
In my opinion, the best developer for HP5 is PMK.

Beautiful images Chris.

I feel a need to develop my own negs and I've been pondering D76, Xtol and PMK. As I would be using the kitchen and this is an open plan house -- what's the "aroma" like for these developers? And how bad (if anyone knows) are they for a septic system?
I had considered caffenol but I understand that's a little over-aroma'ed.
Click to expand...
 
ThreeToedSlothLuke said:
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
In my opinion, the best developer for HP5 is PMK.

Beautiful images Chris.

I feel a need to develop my own negs and I've been pondering D76, Xtol and PMK. As I would be using the kitchen and this is an open plan house -- what's the "aroma" like for these developers? And how bad (if anyone knows) are they for a septic system?
I had considered caffenol but I understand that's a little over-aroma'ed.
Click to expand...


So far as I know, none of them are bad for septic systems.

I would probably go with D-76 if you have never developed film before. Its an easy developer to use and gives good results with HP5.

PMK is my favorite developer for HP5, but it has disadvantages. Its is highly toxic (clean up carefully if you're using your kitchen sink! And wear Nitrile gloves, it can penetrate skin). It also requires careful, vigorous agitation to prevent spotting and streaking. You should use an alkaline fixer, like Photographers Formulary TF4, with PMK because acidic solutions reduce the pyro stain.
Click to expand...
 
I bought 10 boxes of Kentmere 400 a while back. Yet to shoot any of it. Waiting for the temps to drop. This summer has been horrible. Looking forward to fall.
 
Huss said:
Excellent. Ageless look. Perhaps you should mix more B&W images with your colour ones in the Fort Wayne blog?
Click to expand...


I've been shooting a lot of color this year because the basement of my house (where I develop film) has been torn apart to have the house rewired and most of the plumbing rebuilt, making it hard for me to develop film.

I shoot color with a digital camera, Canon 5DmkII, so I could shoot with it despite not being able to develop film.

The construction work is done, now i'm trying to clean up all the mess left behind so I can get back to developing BW film again.
 
I have used all 3.
HP-5 is the best.
Great sharpness, beautiful tonal range.
Kentmere 400 is grainy, less sharp.
Highlights easily blown (by me).
I actually love the gritty look but not wasted highlights!
Inexpensive and dries dead flat as does HP-5.
Tri-X is Not the film I used in 60's~80"s.
Expensive and worst for me curls.
A big problem in my Canon Scanner.
All films easily used at box speed.
HP-5 easily shot at 800~1600 in HC-110.
Can be cropped but I am against cropping..
Kentmere 100 is a stunning film.
100 ISO films like Ilford FP4 are all good.
I support Ilford as prices are reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom