TX vs HP5 Scanned

[Denton]

Decided to compare identical shots using TX and HP5+ shot at EI400 on two cameras but developed in same tank. DDX 1+4 68F 10minutes gave excellent negatives with negligible differences in densities. Scanned at 3200 dpi on Epson 750 showed no significant differences, to my eyes, in Lightroom 3. Is the scanning leveling the differences in these two films. At the moment, I can find no good reason not to swap either film in identical situations at these EI's. A cloudy day on these images, but a dozen shots showed the same high similarity. The slight apparent differences in exposure/contrast are due to minor Lightroom adjustments-both can be made identical.
TX

HP5+

 

[semilog]

They are both top-class high-speed films. Seems as though the shadows are a bit more open in the HP5 example, suggestive of slightly higher usable EI under this development regime. I'd expect the Tri-X to perhaps have slightly finer grain but that won't resolved in a simple (linear) way due to the interaction of scanner light source, optics, and sensor pixel density. I'd have no hesitation about using either one.

Over the years I've shot a lot of Tri-X, HP5, Neopan 400, and, more recently, TMAX400 (2TMY). I am happy to shoot with any of them. 2TMY is my current preference but if it becomes unavailable, I'll use HP5 or maybe Delta 400.

 

[Noll]

Interesting comparison, I wouldn't have thought of substituting these films normally.

Have you compared either under a loupe to see if there is a significant difference that the scanner is missing? Often there is a low-level blur from flatbed scans that can obscure the finest details.

EDIT - I thought we were comparing TMY 400 here. Makes a bit more sense now.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Denton: I have used Tri-X, Neopan 400, and HP5 over the last 12 years, exposing the same and often developing in the same tank. I scan and print digitally.

After 12 years, I still cannot tell any difference among prints made from those 3 films.

 

[Denton]

Denton: I have used Tri-X, Neopan 400, and HP5 over the last 12 years, exposing the same and often developing in the same tank. I scan and print digitally.

After 12 years, I still cannot tell any difference among prints made from those 3 films.

To be fair, there could have been a fortuitous cancellation of differences that made the two images look identical. The TX was loaded into my M6 and shot with a 50mm Sonnar and the HP5+ was shot in my Nikon FM3A with the 50mm f1.2. I did about a dozen shots identically. While there may be some grain differences, these can't be seen on the scanned images and I don't have a microscope at home to inspect the grain.

Now I can get on with using whichever I can get!

But I do like the way HP5+ lays sooo flat in the scanning tracks compared to curved TX.

 

[matt_mcg2]

That's my experience, too. The Ilford films dry cleaner and flatter than the alternatives. Unless there's a big price difference, I always choose HP5+ and/or FP4+ over the Kodak or Fuji equivalents as (for me anyway) they are easier to scan.

 

[sanmich]

First time a serious, side by side comparison of these two films.
Thanks.
That being said, I see a serious difference in the shadows, HP5 showing a much better level of detail there.
Then again, it could be that with another dev, or time, or light cond., or agitation, or lens, or....
well you get the point. Too many parameters to be 100% sure

 

[Moto-Uno]

In reference to the curls and or twists of the various films,and using a flatbed scanner,the routine I've found that quite successfully fixes this is a clear piece of
2mm thick glass laid on the negatives. This has been on my Epson V600. In spite of numerous sources stating an insistence on a 1mm spacing from the deck. It's really cheap (that's my Scottish heritage) and it's available from any glass shop. Give it a try and get back to me.
Regards,Peter

 

[Denton]

First time a serious, side by side comparison of these two films.
Thanks.
That being said, I see a serious difference in the shadows, HP5 showing a much better level of detail there.
Then again, it could be that with another dev, or time, or light cond., or agitation, or lens, or....
well you get the point. Too many parameters to be 100% sure

In lightroom, both images CAN be made to be 95% identical, the differences seen here are due to my not being able to adjust contrast with both images side -by-side. An imperfect experment which could use better controls. Stay tuned.

 

[JPSuisse]

Denton, what are your development details for TX. Is is just standing or is intermittent agitation? I have never been 100% happy with TX in DD-X. That looks pretty good to me actually. Or rather, looks kind of like what I want...

John

 

[Denton]

Denton, what are your development details for TX. Is is just standing or is intermittent agitation? I have never been 100% happy with TX in DD-X. That looks pretty good to me actually. Or rather, looks kind of like what I want...

John

it was between 8-9 minutes at 68f at 1+4 dilution, agitation 5 seconds each minute. I pretty much followed the recommendation from Ilford's site for HP5+ (9 min) and Tri-X (8 min). I think it could talke a minute more development to build up a little more density in the shadows however based on looking at the negatives.

I also very much like HC110 with both Tri-X and Delta-400.

This was a very overcast day so high contrast days could take more of a stand development.

 

[V-12]

The test shows that the conventional understanding of HP5 having a slightly more forgiving tonal range is correct. It isn't something you would normally notice unless a side by side shot was done, but it can make small differences when the light gets contrasty. I like Tri X and HP5 equally for the emulsion, but HP5 wins hands down for lying flat in the scanner.

 

[starless]

The HP5 seems quite grainy in the highlights though.
I'd be curious to see the same exercise on a proper film-dedicated scanner.

 

[semrich]

Denton, thanks for posting this and to all the respondents it is helpful and supports my decision to standardize on all Ilford films and HP5 for 135. My decision was based mostly on availability and support of Ilford's commitment to film.

Your test shots are very familiar to me having once lived in Milford for twenty years.

 

[Pine Pond]

. . . The TX was loaded into my M6 and shot with a 50mm Sonnar and the HP5+ was shot in my Nikon FM3A with the 50mm f1.2.

Thanks for this clear comparison. Although I've some experience with those two films' quirks I'm totally unfamiliar with the lenses used. Is there good reason to think that the differences in the test shots are entirely due to the films and none to the lenses?

-P2

 

[mfogiel]

They are both top films. In terms of "elasticity" in my book Tri X is better, however, the tonal range of HP5+ is more beautiful, if you are working below and at box speed. What I think is the major differentiating factor, is the size of grain: HP5+ is grainier, therefore it also can appear sharper due to better acutance, but the flip side, is that the tonality in 35mm is not as good as in MF or bigger.

 

[dogbunny]

I still see this weird thing in HP5+ grain that my untrained eye would describe as dirty. Maybe it is the larger grain. I like grain, but I just don't like HP5+ grain.

 

[Denton]

My impression also is HP5+ has more grain appearance under the rather standard development. My personal preference is Tri-X however, but that is not a particularly scientific opinion.

It would be interesting to try another developer with these.
Denton Hoyer

 

[Denton]

. . . The TX was loaded into my M6 and shot with a 50mm Sonnar and the HP5+ was shot in my Nikon FM3A with the 50mm f1.2.

Thanks for this clear comparison. Although I've some experience with those two films' quirks I'm totally unfamiliar with the lenses used. Is there good reason to think that the differences in the test shots are entirely due to the films and none to the lenses?

-P2

I think the Sonnar should be fine, not particularly low contrast since it's got modern coatings to reduce flare. The Nikkor is likewise coated. I believe the differences are not lens related. Also, I was shooting at ISO 400 and would have stopped down quite a bit and that should have evened out lens differences (maybe f8). I would have used the same lens for the tests, but my 50's are ZM Planar, ZM Sonnar and coated Summitar (not going to use THAT for comparison!)

I love shooting the Sonnar at night with it's wonderful OOF effect on background light. But it's a pain sometimes due to front focusing.
Denton

 

[Pine Pond]

I think the Sonnar should be fine, not particularly low contrast since it's got modern coatings to reduce flare. The Nikkor is likewise coated. I believe the differences are not lens related. Also, I was shooting at ISO 400 and would have stopped down quite a bit and that should have evened out lens differences (maybe f8). I would have used the same lens for the tests, but my 50's are ZM Planar, ZM Sonnar and coated Summitar (not going to use THAT for comparison!)
Denton

Yes, thanks for that clarification. In my own case, as I use the films in question, too, the really noticeable differences in my negs are attributable to the lenses. For instance, 35 Summicron v4 and 35/2 AIS, or 35 Summicron and 28/3.5 Color Skopar, or 28/2 AIS and 28/3.5 Color Skopar, etc. They're just really different lenses. I guess the holy grail would be a single lens that had the best characteristics (and none of the worst) for each focal length.

Back on topic, in contrast with the experiences of others, I don't find HP5 at all grainy, souped in D-76. I didn't pick up a 35mm camera often in the '90s and when I came back to it in 2001 (with HP5, mostly, and with a vengeance) I was amazed at its grainlessness (in print).

---P2