Why are Tri-X & HP5+ so much better?

[snaggs]

These two films are said to have the "classic look". I hear people talking about tonality, shadow details and all sorts of subtle differences between films and how they develop them.

How many rolls have you shot to know how this is going to turn out? I feel like Im soooo far behind the 8 ball here.. Its really overwhelming.

Do you guys write down the shutter & fstop for every frame on the negative to work out how the various films work?

Ill make a confession, I dont think I can tell the difference between a neg thats been cooked for 7.5 or 8.5 minutes in soup. How long until I can tell..? and do I have to be doing my own B&W prints to tell the difference?

Is there a book I can track down?

Daniel.

PS. Anyone here from Perth?

 

[Stephan]

Hmmm.... if you did dou your own prints you'd get a better idea of it yes. That would allow you to see what kind of detail you can get by masking / pushing different areas of the print, so ypu'd get more familiar with how much detail you can expect in shadows and highlights 🙂

Other than that, develop your own negatives and push your films a bit, and you should start seeing a difference, for example I find I get much better grain usind tri-X pushed a lot than most high speed films, but its hard work to print them (have to use a low grade filter and I still get very little latitude 🙂 ).


Not from Perth, but I have to visit Australia some time... I've heard its a pain in the ass trying to get a visa for more than a few months though, is that right ?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

It'll sound a bit pretentious, but it's like most things that are "classic": time-tested. They acquire fame and reputation, right or wrong. Tri-X and HP5+ are not for everybody; some will not get near it. I love Tri-X; I'm not as much fond of HP5+, but I like it nonetheless. I used to like the Delta films until I noticed the difference between my Tri-X pictures and my Delta pictures.

It's also a matter of taste. Some swear by Delta, others by the "plus" films of Ilford, others the old Kodak emulsions. I think they all have their place depending on what it is that you're looking for in your pictures. I think that for people/street shots, Tri-X and XP2, no doubt, it works for me, it gives me the look I want. For architectural stuff, I tend to go with the Delta films. etc. etc.

I don't know if there is a book per se that would exhaustively show just how different scenes with different lighting, and different exposure/processing/developers samples could be found. That would be one huge book. And also a biased one; a matter of exposing film is a very subjective one; there is a big difference between objective, scientific measurements and results in photographic samples (development times, contrast curves, lens tests, bokeh "measurements" blah blah) and what actually gets done "in the field" that it's generally agreed that, the kind of question you're asking is, fortunately or unfortunately --depending on your point of view-- best left to the photographer. That's why it's a good thing to get the body/lens/film/exposure info from each photo, as a way of "data mining"; that's the learning process; it's not because the photographer is a snob; it's a service to the community.

Anyway, that's why this photo business is so friggin expensive!! Try and learn as you go. It is expensive when not getting this info second-hand.

but if you do find a book such as the one you're looking for, do let us know! That'd be interesting.

 

[doubs43]

Daniel, I get the impression that you're pretty much on your own as far as having anyone available to compare and discuss your negatives with. Surely Perth would have a Photographer's Club or two. Or, perhaps you could ask around and discover who in your area is an experienced B&W user.

I'd also suggest that you visit your local public library and maybe your "WH Smith's" or equivalent book seller store and look over the available books on photography. The British publisher "Focal Press" has put out numerous volumes on photographic subjects. Many of them are camera system specific; e.g. "The Pentax Way", "The Praktica Way" etc. but the books are generally pretty good references for basic information.

You can also try to find books that are very specific such as "Zone VI" or Ansel Adams' volume on "The Negative". Ebay may help solve your problem in that respect as good books are available there.

Hope this helps.

Walker

 

[tetrisattack]

I only record exposure data when I'm doing honest tests of an unfamiliar film, and even then, I only do it for film that I think is going to be out of whack for some reason. Example: I found 300' of Plus-X that had expired in 1988 last night. Following the exposure instructions for your film and then following the instructions for your developer will almost always get you a "no problem" negative that shouldn't require recording anything, so long as you have a memory for what environmental conditions were like.

I do, however, always record the details of development, because I often mutate my standard procedure, and on rolls that come back better or worse than average, I journal my comments about what I expected versus what I got.

What happens is that you'll be scanning or printing and you'll come across a shot that glows for some reason. And then it's good to remember the lighting conditions and whether you were under or over exposing and what special thing you did during the development. After enough of these keepers you will start to build an understanding of your film. The character of a film often starts showing when you stress it out a little, altering exposure, throwing colored filters at it, abusing it during development, etc.

There are moments when I'm out there shooting and suddenly I will realize: I must use a 25A filter and dev this tri-x in Rodinal 1:25. And, this might sound sort of vague but it's really true, after enough rolls your photographic eye will start gravitating toward situations that you know, by experience, will simply look good on film.

 

[RayPA]

These two films are said to have the "classic look". I hear people talking about tonality, shadow details and all sorts of subtle differences between films and how they develop them.

How many rolls have you shot to know how this is going to turn out? I feel like Im soooo far behind the 8 ball here.. Its really overwhelming.

Do you guys write down the shutter & fstop for every frame on the negative to work out how the various films work?

Ill make a confession, I dont think I can tell the difference between a neg thats been cooked for 7.5 or 8.5 minutes in soup. How long until I can tell..? and do I have to be doing my own B&W prints to tell the difference?

Is there a book I can track down?

Daniel.

PS. Anyone here from Perth?

I think the main reason these films are popular, is primarily because of the film speed. It is nicely situated and leaves a lot of latitude for different lighting situations, pushing/pulling, etc., without losing a lot. Therefore, the films have over the years gotten, and continue to get, a lot of "play" by a lot of photogs. I think that is where the "classic" comes from. People just "know" these films and can identify them from experience.

If you're interested in those films then shoot them, develop them, work with them, and look at images made with them. Soon you'll know them too, especially when you try another film and see how different it is. If you are looking for a photography book that covers some of the exposure, development, and printing basics, check out the basic books by the author Horenstein (sp?).

RFF is a great place to get information, and it has a great gallery too with lots of variety films and formats. 🙂

 

[FrankS]

do I have to be doing my own B&W prints to tell the difference?

Daniel.

I would say that that is completely true. If you hand your undeveloped film, or even the developed film, over to a printer, they are going to do make decisions (some based on the light source type in the enlarger type they use) to get acceptable prints back to you. You really won't get a handle on how your photographic decisions affect the final outcome (the print) because someone else is part of the chain of decisions which affect that.

If you are thinking about controlling the look of the final print, you are going to have to have control over the entire chain of events.

 

[FrankS]

And as to why HP5 and TriX are popular: they a have a thick, silver-rich emulsion rather than the new generation of flat grain and T grain films which are capable of greater sharpness but lack some of the richness. This is what my experience and reading has led me to believe, but to be honest, I've not tried many of the Delta or Tmax films.

 

[T_om]

These two films are said to have the "classic look". I hear people talking about tonality, shadow details and all sorts of subtle differences between films and how they develop them.

How many rolls have you shot to know how this is going to turn out?

Wow. How many rolls? That is a tough one. I really don't know how many rolls of Tri-X I have shot although I could go back through my files and get a rough idea... many thousands is my best guess. But that is not the point.

The point is experiment. Pick different films and see what they do to forward your photographic vision.

You need to learn the characteristics of the film you choose combined with the way you shoot it.

And of course, the developer plays a role too.

Do you guys write down the shutter & fstop for every frame on the negative to work out how the various films work?

I have carried a notebook(actually hundreds over the years) practically everywhere I go. One of these:

http://www.moleskineus.com/squaredpocket.html

I use this to note specifics. As the years passed, I developed a sort of shorthand that means nothing to anyone else but tells me the gist of what I need to know about specific lighting conditions. Also makes a nice journal for other notes. I couldn't get along without it.

Ill make a confession, I dont think I can tell the difference between a neg thats been cooked for 7.5 or 8.5 minutes in soup. How long until I can tell..? and do I have to be doing my own B&W prints to tell the difference?

He He... in most developers Ansel Adams himself couldn't tell the difference in one minutes developing time. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Again, practice makes the master. What will come to you over time is an ability to see trends in the way negatives look with either + or - development or + or - exposure. After a while, you will understand that shooting with a certain exposure and developing a certain way produces a certain look.

Shoot some short experimental rolls. Here is where bulk loading shines. You can load up a bunch of 10 exposure rolls and try our different exposure/development cycles.

Last, since I appear to be the local Diafine pimp, I would suggest trying it as a developer until you get your exposures under control. Using Diafine will establish a set point and remove the 'developing' variables from the equation. At least until you get to the point where you are comfortable with what your exposures are giving you. If Diafine then does not produce the negative 'look' you are after, try something else. But that way at least one variable will be under control from the start.

PS. Anyone here from Perth?

I have family in Mandurah. Go Dockers!

Tom

 

[Stephan]

The point is experiment. Pick different films and see what they do to forward your photographic vision.

You need to learn the characteristics of the film you choose combined with the way you shoot it.

And of course, the developer plays a role too.





I have carried a notebook(actually hundreds over the years) practically everywhere I go. One of these:

http://www.moleskineus.com/squaredpocket.html

I use this to note specifics. As the years passed, I developed a sort of shorthand that means nothing to anyone else but tells me the gist of what I need to know about specific lighting conditions. Also makes a nice journal for other notes. I couldn't get along without it.




He He... in most developers Ansel Adams himself couldn't tell the difference in one minutes developing time. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Again, practice makes the master. What will come to you over time is an ability to see trends in the way negatives look with either + or - development or + or - exposure. After a while, you will understand that shooting with a certain exposure and developing a certain way produces a certain look.

Shoot some short experimental rolls. Here is where bulk loading shines. You can load up a bunch of 10 exposure rolls and try our different exposure/development cycles.

Last, since I appear to be the local Diafine pimp, I would suggest trying it as a developer until you get your exposures under control. Using Diafine will establish a set point and remove the 'developing' variables from the equation. At least until you get to the point where you are comfortable with what your exposures are giving you. If Diafine then does not produce the negative 'look' you are after, try something else. But that way at least one variable will be under control from the start.




I have family in Mandurah. Go Dockers!

Tom

Haha, same here down to the make of the notebook 😀 (i actually bought one originally cos i saw they used to be made in the city I live in the last couple of years (Tours en Fracnce, but they were made there aeons ago)

And only maybe 200 rolls of Tri-X 😀



Back to the subject: to get an idea of the general look of different films, try shooting a Tmax 3200 and a Tri-X 400 in the same lighting conditions and compare results... In this case they will be pretty extreme, but then keep comparing closer annd closer films till you get a feel for it 🙂
(this is more or less what I've been doing for the last year... I'm thinking my photography school should make people try this, but the teachers arent really into photography in the first place, more into chemistry, elecrtonics, and other bizarrely irrelevent stuff)

 

[snaggs]

Hmmm.... if you did dou your own prints you'd get a better idea of it yes. That would allow you to see what kind of detail you can get by masking / pushing different areas of the print, so ypu'd get more familiar with how much detail you can expect in shadows and highlights 🙂

Other than that, develop your own negatives and push your films a bit, and you should start seeing a difference, for example I find I get much better grain usind tri-X pushed a lot than most high speed films, but its hard work to print them (have to use a low grade filter and I still get very little latitude 🙂 ).


Not from Perth, but I have to visit Australia some time... I've heard its a pain in the ass trying to get a visa for more than a few months though, is that right ?

Ok, time to get in the darkroom. Umm, its pretty easy to come to Australia on a holiday, if your from most western countrys I dont think you even need a VISA. I tihnk your supposed to go after 6 months though.

Daniel.

 

[vladhed]

These two films are said to have the "classic look".

Remember that the "classic look" is a truism. They've been ubiquitous for nearly a century, so there's a good chance that any 35mm B&W photograph you've seen was probably Tri-X or equivalent.

Because this "look" is what I've grown up on, it's what I try to produce myself. I find it goes beyond just photo-weenies. When comparing HP5 that I've shot with buggies using their DSLR photoshopped to B&W, evenyone prefers the "look" of my shots, simply because it is what they're used to seeing.

It doesn't take any effort IMHO to get this "classic look". These films have enough lattitude that I don't bother to think too much about exposure - I just use sunny-16 and adjust +1/-1 depending on what part of the scene I want to emphasize.

PS. Anyone here from Perth?

Yes, Perth Ontario (Canada).

 

[snaggs]

Daniel, I get the impression that you're pretty much on your own as far as having anyone available to compare and discuss your negatives with. Surely Perth would have a Photographer's Club or two. Or, perhaps you could ask around and discover who in your area is an experienced B&W user.

You thought correctly! The camera club is a good idea, Ill give it a go and hopefully there might be a Rangefinder, TLR or View camera fanatic there who can mentor me.

There are moments when I'm out there shooting and suddenly I will realize: I must use a 25A filter and dev this tri-x in Rodinal 1:25.

These are the comments that scare me... 🙂 <screams> <runs> <hides>

And as to why HP5 and TriX are popular: they a have a thick, silver-rich emulsion rather than the new generation of flat grain and T grain films which are capable of greater sharpness but lack some of the richness.

Ok, this seems to be a common theme. I was reading some posts from "Michael & Paula" at APUG and checked out there website. They have a cellar stocked full of Kodak Super-XX and described it as there reason for using it..

"http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/index_skip.html
We use Super XX film because it yields the longest and smoothest range of tones from black to white. In terms of the Zone System, Super XX can hold a tonal range several steps longer than modern films"

I take that HP5+ and Tri-X are the next best thing? Have you tried Bergger BF200?

http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/New Web Site/main/bergger.htm
"BPF200 An excellent film for pyro development and large format contact printing. This is a ISO 200 thick emulsion silver-rich film with almost no 'shoulder' like the discontinued Kodak Super XX."

He He... in most developers Ansel Adams himself couldn't tell the difference in one minutes developing time. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Thankyou! Thats a relief. As for books, I've got a few of the Ansel adams ones, which have been good. Havn't read them cover to cover yet. I also have "The Darkroom Handbook" by Michael Langford, which is great. I've also got the Leica Darkroom Guide pending on ebay.

I think I just need to make sure Im shooting a roll a day and experimenting some more. Ill make sure Im disciplined and use a notebook to record things. If I come up with some good examples of the differences between shots, I'll start to compile them into a FAQ that might help other newbies who come after me..

Cheers,

Daniel.

PS. Great thing about film forums, is no one cares about gear.. alot more talk about technique and what you can do.

PSS. Whats a densitometer & how is it used?
PSSS. Can someone explain "VC" vs "Graded papers"
PSSSS. FrankS, you helped get me into all this!! I hereby nominate you mentor 🙂

 

[Bertram2]

When comparing HP5 that I've shot with buggies using their DSLR photoshopped to B&W, evenyone prefers the "look" of my shots, simply because it is what they're used to seeing.
(Canada).

Well I don't think it is only because it looks as what they are used too.
It looks better , much better than DSLR. I haven't seen any decent digital B&W up til today (Fred Miranda's converting tool included) which I would find at least acceptable ! 🙁
Bertram

 

[Stephan]

PSS. Whats a densitometer & how is it used?

A thing that mesures density 😀 You stick a neg or ekta in it and press down a thingy with a lamp and it tells you how much light is getting through (or being reflected if youve got it set wrong 😛 )

PSSS. Can someone explain "VC" vs "Graded papers"

VC is multigrade in weird australian lingo, right Bruce ? Anyway graded paper has a "fixed" contrast: the emulsion in sensitive to a certain wavelength of light (blue or green or a mix of both). So say your paper likes only dark blue, and you'll probably get a very high contrast print (or something, just pulling the example outta my ass I cant be bothered to think about it... just got up here and its sunday morning 😉 ). VC paper is sensitive to all green and blue light, and you stick gradind filters in front of it to get different levels of contrast.

PSSSS. FrankS, you helped get me into all this!! I hereby nominate you mentor

😀 Yes, the force is strong with this one 😀

 

[Stephan]

Well I don't think it is only because it looks as what they are used too.
It looks better , much better than DSLR. I haven't seen any decent digital B&W up til today (Fred Miranda's converting tool included) which I would find at least acceptable ! 🙁
Bertram

I guess it all depends on what you're used to, I'm from a generation that more or less grew up with digital photography (I'm 20... that might just make me the youngest member on this forum 😀 ) and I'm used to the look of it, even if I still do a lot of BW film. Of course, good photoshop skills are required to get anything usefull, converting to greyscale is NOT the answer 😛 (the custom convert to BW in photoshop CS can get you very good results though, just a little balancing afterwoods and "voila!", a nice BW shot 😛 ).

 

[snaggs]

PSS. Whats a densitometer & how is it used?

A thing that mesures density 😀 You stick a neg or ekta in it and press down a thingy with a lamp and it tells you how much light is getting through (or being reflected if youve got it set wrong 😛 )

Thankyou for a simple explanation 🙂 Question 2.. I get the impression from some that VC is EVIL. Since I cant post a poll as park of a reply.. I've started a thread here to find out the collective wisdom on what paper to use 🙂

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7962

Thanks again,

Daniel.

 

[XAos]

Last, since I appear to be the local Diafine pimp, I would suggest trying it as a developer until you get your exposures under control. Using Diafine will establish a set point and remove the 'developing' variables from the equation. At least until you get to the point where you are comfortable with what your exposures are giving you.

I'm still playing with Diafine, haven't dunked any Tri-X yet (still under wraps in the fridge) but I have shot it in APX400 (just a few rolls left I was shooting up) and some in Neopan 100SS. It seems to squish everything down to midgray. It's pretty amazing for that - like Chemical Photoshop, but I'm having trouble liking the results so far. I can post an example but it was on a <cough> SLR.

 

[tetrisattack]

Oh, VC isn't evil. It's a mature, proven technology that makes things cheaper and easier for both you and Ilford! AND it opens up yet more creative potential, since you can use multiple grades for a single print. And it comes in fiber, resin-coated, with all sorts of base tints and archival properties.

A good book that should help you view VC paper as simply an art supply and not some sort of divisive.element between the jedi and sith would be The Variable Contrast Printing Manual, by Steve Anchell, ISBN 0240802594. I got my copy for $10 at Half Price Books, but here's an amazon link that should hopefully work:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-8013267-4039349?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[T_om]

I'm still playing with Diafine, haven't dunked any Tri-X yet (still under wraps in the fridge) but I have shot it in APX400 (just a few rolls left I was shooting up) and some in Neopan 100SS. It seems to squish everything down to midgray. It's pretty amazing for that - like Chemical Photoshop, but I'm having trouble liking the results so far. I can post an example but it was on a <cough> SLR.

I have not shot Agfa film in many years, and I have not used Neopan at all. Sorry, not much help there I know.

However, the "squishing" part sounds reasonably familiar 🙂 . Yes, indeed, Diafine will create flat negatives in certain lighting conditions with certain films. Seems as though you have found two of them. However, you will find these are pretty long-tone negatives and after getting used to working with them, they can produce beautiful stuff.

Where you go from here though, is the question. You will find those low contrast negatives scan beautifully and the 'non-chemical version' of PhotoShop can do wonders with them with just minor 'Levels' and 'Curves' adjustments. If you are doing conventional printing, you may have to go to harder contrast papers than you really would like... so Diafine might not be for you.

Tom

PS: I would like to see your examples, SLR or no. The shot attached was flat as a flounder... but scanned well and perked right up with PhotoShop. It is the nose of a hearse loading up a casket in back of a funeral home in town. I call it "The Cheshire Cat" 🙂