thawkins
Well-known
What is the practical difference (if any) between TRI X and Ilford's HP5 film? HP5 is more easily available locally than TRI X. And what about Delta 400? How does it differ from the other two films?
Highway 61
Revisited
First question : there is no.
Second question : Delta 400 is a T-grain film while the two others are not.
Second question : Delta 400 is a T-grain film while the two others are not.
borge
Established
In my experience, from developing with Kodak HC110 - HP5+ is slightly punchier, grainier, and more contrasty than the current Tri-X 400. TX performs slightly better at pushing (1600+). HP5+ dries completely flat which is fantastic for scanning. TX curls A LOT which makes it much more quirky to scan. TX seems to scratch more easily than HP5+.
The prices are about the same. I prefer HP5+ to TX unless I'm pushing to between 1600-3200.
Delta 400 is more like Tmax 400, which is a completely different film. I actually prefer Tmax400 to Delta 400.
The prices are about the same. I prefer HP5+ to TX unless I'm pushing to between 1600-3200.
Delta 400 is more like Tmax 400, which is a completely different film. I actually prefer Tmax400 to Delta 400.
Larry H-L
Well-known
You cannot go wrong with any of these, all are beautiful in their own way once you're dialed in.
markus_h_photography
Established
I find TriX a bit contrastier than HP5 which i like but i find the Ilford negs better for scanning as my Kodak films all seem to suffer from curling much more. Probably just me...
jackbaty
Established
I prefer HP5 in the dry winter months because it doesn't curl as much. Tri-X is for the rest of the year. I _think_ I like the look of Tri-X more but I honestly don't notice that much difference in the prints/scans.
x-ray
Veteran
I'm not a fan of the current TX. It's nothing like the TX of old. I generally use HC110 B to process most of my film and I have to rate TX at 250 to get adequate shadow detail. I've tried several developers ad find it falls short on shadows.
HP5 on the other hand is great at 400 using HC110 B. Contrast is excellent with full shadows. Sharpness is very good and with reasonable care during development grain is very good.
I love Fuji Neopan 400 and bought a freezer and filled it with hundreds of rolls of 120 and 35mm as well as Across in the same formats. I'm running low now and have revisited TX and HP5 and FP4 and will be going to those soon. I've used quite a lot of Ilford products and did field testing for both Ilford and Kodak. They both make excellent products depending on your expectations. I expected the new TX to resemble old TX but imo it does not.
You might try TMax 400. I tested both products as well as the Ilford Delta films for the manufactures and both TMax and Delta films are exceptional.
HP5 on the other hand is great at 400 using HC110 B. Contrast is excellent with full shadows. Sharpness is very good and with reasonable care during development grain is very good.
I love Fuji Neopan 400 and bought a freezer and filled it with hundreds of rolls of 120 and 35mm as well as Across in the same formats. I'm running low now and have revisited TX and HP5 and FP4 and will be going to those soon. I've used quite a lot of Ilford products and did field testing for both Ilford and Kodak. They both make excellent products depending on your expectations. I expected the new TX to resemble old TX but imo it does not.
You might try TMax 400. I tested both products as well as the Ilford Delta films for the manufactures and both TMax and Delta films are exceptional.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
I always found Tri-X to be 'punchier' and more contrasty, which I personally prefer. However, it curls like a b!tch.
HP5+ does not curl at all. It's a good solid reliable film that always pulls through. I haven't found it as contrasty, but then I've never tried using HC-110...maybe that would make a difference, given the earlier comments here.
If I had my way I'd only ever use TMax 400 as I love both the fine grain and the punchy contrast that doesn't blow out highlights. But...YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).
HP5+ does not curl at all. It's a good solid reliable film that always pulls through. I haven't found it as contrasty, but then I've never tried using HC-110...maybe that would make a difference, given the earlier comments here.
If I had my way I'd only ever use TMax 400 as I love both the fine grain and the punchy contrast that doesn't blow out highlights. But...YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I am no darkroom guru just a user of these films so this is only my observation. I think Tri-x is "punchier and higher contrast" is because it is really a iso250 film and when you shoot box speed and develop normal you are essentially pushing the film so that explains the contrast and perceived sharpness. I usually shoot Tri-x at 250 and soup it in D76 1:1 for 9 minutes. HP5+ is a true iso400 film and at box speed you get similar contrast as Tri-X at 250. Just my theory!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I would pick HP5 over Tri-X personally but the 400 film that I really liked vanished a while ago and that was 400 Neopan. Fuji need their heads examined for discontinuing that ... but then again we know the direction of that company and it's away from analog.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Yes I really miss Neopan 400. It was my film of choice. It has "creamy" mid greys. Don't know how to better describe it.
Steve M.
Veteran
Everyone is going to have their own opinion on this eternal question. I prefer Tri-X at 250 w/ a yellow filter. It's not as grainy as HP5, at least not in 35mm. Looks good in lots of developers, the best might be D76. Not the sharpest developer/film combination, but the tones are luscious.
I agree, it doesn't look like it used to, but then I don't either :] It still looks really, really good. Figuring out how you like it is the thing, and it is super flexible and forgiving. As mentioned, the Delta is a more modern film, like T-Max. Not at all like the other two films. Delta 100 is almost grain free.
What I like about Tri-X and D76 is the tonal range and beautiful grain. Canon R 100 2 on an F1. Tri-X full strength in D76.
I agree, it doesn't look like it used to, but then I don't either :] It still looks really, really good. Figuring out how you like it is the thing, and it is super flexible and forgiving. As mentioned, the Delta is a more modern film, like T-Max. Not at all like the other two films. Delta 100 is almost grain free.
What I like about Tri-X and D76 is the tonal range and beautiful grain. Canon R 100 2 on an F1. Tri-X full strength in D76.
John Bragg
Well-known
Both are classic 400 speed films and there is really not a huge difference. If HP5+ is easily available then go with that. I rate them both at ei200 for my needs and find that they look better that way. Delta 400 is also an amazing film with more of a modern grainless look, but I prefer classic grain films for their apparent sharpness and tonality and Delta is more expensive in the UK. The good news is that you could shoot a roll of all three, develop them all for the same time in the same developer and get acceptable results. I develop HP5+ and Tri-X exactly the same so I can use them interchangably. I have been using HP5+ exclusively for the last 2 or 3 years and it is my favorite now.
c.poulton
Well-known
I've always preferred Tri-X over HP5+. It's very subtle but I find Tri-X has slightly more 'punch' in my eyes - greater contrast perhaps?
mfogiel
Veteran
Tri X has more contrast (tonal separation) in the highlights, HP5 in the shadows, but both are excellent. HP5 is slightly grainier ( with more acutance ) and slightly faster and dries flat. I have settled on HP5 in 35mm and Tri X in 120, this way there are no issues with scanning.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ignore anyone who tells you that one is contrastier than the other: contrast is a function of development. Also ignore anyone who tells you they're not "really" ISO400: ISO film speed testing is quite firmly controlled.
Yes, they do look very slightly different. As mfogiel hints, this is mostly a consequence of the shape of the characteristic curve, especially on the toe. I prefer HP5 and my wife prefers Tri-X (but then, she and it were both born in Rochester NY). Neither of us hesitates for a moment to use the other's film if we run out of our own.
If you actually want to understand ISO speeds, take a look at http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps iso speeds.html
Cheers,
R.
Yes, they do look very slightly different. As mfogiel hints, this is mostly a consequence of the shape of the characteristic curve, especially on the toe. I prefer HP5 and my wife prefers Tri-X (but then, she and it were both born in Rochester NY). Neither of us hesitates for a moment to use the other's film if we run out of our own.
If you actually want to understand ISO speeds, take a look at http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps iso speeds.html
Cheers,
R.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Roger,
A film's speed is dependent on the developer used. For the ISO measurements, there is a standardized developer used for that. In the real world, people often use developers that cause a drop in speed, and a few that increase it.
Example: Ilford HP5 gives me a speed of 400 in Tmax Developer, 320 in D-76 1+1, 320 in Rodinal 1+50, and 250 in PMK. Despite the speed loss, PMK is my favorite developer for it.
sanmich
Veteran
it doesn't seem to be true for the 3200 ISO films, so why should it be true for 400 ISO?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,
No, there isn't. Hasn't been for many years. Manufacturers can use any developer they like for ISO testing, as long as they say what it is. This is how Foma can get away with Fomapan 200, the speed of which is just about identical to FP4 Plus in any given developer.
As I said in an earlier post, there is a lot more about this in http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps iso speeds.html from which I quote the following:
The choice of developer is important. A speed increasing developer can give two-thirds of a stop increase in true ISO speed, or possibly even a little more, so a film that is ISO 400 in a 'middle of the road' developer such as Kodak D-76 may well be ISO 650 or even faster in something like Ilford Microphen. In the opposite direction, there is virtually no limit to the speed that can be wiped off by a fine grain developer, but two thirds of a stop would be quite usual. In other words, the same ISO 400 film could fall to ISO 250 in something like Ilford Perceptol.
Most film manufacturers use middle-of-the-road developers for film speed testing, but ISO rules allow the use of any stated developer. The most egregious examples are Fomapan 200 and Paterson Acupan 200, where ISO 200 is reached only in speed-increasing developers: in D-76 or similar, ISO 125 is a lot more realistic, or maybe ISO 160 in most of the Paterson developer line-up except the extreme speed-increasing developers. They are excellent films, however, and the fact that so many people do use them at EI 200 and above is a testament to the fact that ISO speeds are not all they are cracked up to be. For that matter, Fuji Acros has turned out closer to ISO 80 in many developers, but there's less of a market for an ISO 80 film than for ISO 100.
There have also been honest mistakes. ISO standards require speeds to be tested for both 'green' ( recently coated) films and matured or aged films. When a new film is introduced, there is no two-year-old stock to test and the manufacturers have to guess at how the film will age. The most notorious example of this was the original Ilford Delta 400, which was ISO 250 (2/3 stop slow) or ISO 320 (1/3 stop slow) in most developers. The second version met its true ISO speed much more willingly.
Of course I should have said "stated" ISO speed rather than "true" ISO speed in the last line, but it's too hard to change it now. That's why I have the new site, www.rogerandfrances.eu
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Michael,
Look at the box of the only survivor, Delta 3200. It is not marked ISO 3200: it is marked EI 3200. Go to the Ilford technical information PDF, http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201071394723115.pdf and you'll see the ISO speed stated as 1000 in ID-11.
You may think that this is nit-picking but how else can they do it? You get better results at 1600-2500 than you do at the ISO speed, but a lot of people who don't actually understand what they're doing would rate it at 1000 if that's what it said on the box.
Cheers,
R.