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

[XAos]

Ok, since you asked. I make no pretense about being a "good" photographer, but I'm learning (I hope). First time attaching pics, hope I dd this right. The flower is Neopan 100SS, pretty close up, with flash (creating the strong shadows that make the plant look like its plastic or metal.) The fire truck was APX400, handheld with a fairly long exposure, braced as well as I could hand hold.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I love HP5 and Delta 400. I'm also allowing Tri-X to grow on me...but I haven't developed any myself yet. I'm about to develop a roll of TMax 100 that I shot at 200 and also a roll of HP5.

At the moment, it's Pan-F that I'd give my right arm to get ahold of. The boyfriend wants to go back to Hayden Park next weekend and I need some SERIOUSLY low ISO film to offset the incredibly bright sunlight glinting off the water.

 

[T_om]

Ok, since you asked. I make no pretense about being a "good" photographer, but I'm learning (I hope). First time attaching pics, hope I dd this right. The flower is Neopan 100SS, pretty close up, with flash (creating the strong shadows that make the plant look like its plastic or metal.) The fire truck was APX400, handheld with a fairly long exposure, braced as well as I could hand hold.

First, I think Diafine probably saved the flower shot as it appears you were right on top of the subject with direct flash. I'll bet most developers would have badly blown out the highlights.

The Firetruck shot was not too bad, but pulling it into PhotoShop showed a need for a bit of a tweak with "Levels". You had some solid blacks but the only 'white' you had in the shot was the blown out ceiling lights. Pulling the highlight levels in a bit seemed to help.

I ran the standard "Pop" USM (Unsharp Mask, 20, 60, 0) and it looks fine to me.

Tom

 

[XAos]

Thanks - I'd never used that large of a kernel with USM. It'll take me weeks to stop overusing USM again after learning that. 🙂 You're dead on with the flower. I was way on top of it, and for some reason this Pentax PZ20 doesnt seem to want to reign in the aperture when you're using flash up close. This was on the first roll I shot in this camera. It does chop the shutter speed down to the flash sync but then it appears to try to open the aperture to correctly expose at 1/100th without a flash. I had figured it was just lying to me about the aperture, but I dont think so anymore. Had I dunked it in 110 (my normal developer) I probably would have tossed that one.

I just scanned the roll of HP5+ (in diafine, shot at ISO 640) and whatever faults the pictures may have, it appears that the exposures are good. I've got a red headed niece who tends to wash out if a lightning bug so much as blinks, and it gave decent skin textures and freckles even (using available light - plenty of it, but in the shade).

 

[T_om]

Thanks - I'd never used that large of a kernel with USM. It'll take me weeks to stop overusing USM again after learning that. 🙂

Using USM at 20,60, 0 is an old, old Photoshop trick. It actually does little or no sharpening. It modifies contrast without killing picture information. Some people call it the "USM De-fog Filter". De-fog is a good term. Some people use this on every shot.

Tom

 

[phototone]

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

Here is is, like it or not.

All films that are made to quality standards, such as Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Fuji, are capable of stunning, beautiful results. Period. End of discussion.

Now, to get the maximum out of a particular film, you have to get used to it, use it a lot, develop it yourself, and not be afraid to adjust your developing time to fit your shooting style.

I used to hate T-max films, I now think they are just fine, as I learned how to use them.

My personal favorite right this minute is Neopan 400.

You can see lots of images on Neopan 400 in my gallery. There are also images on Tri-X and T-max 400. Can you tell which are which? from my gallery images?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Here is is, like it or not.

All films that are made to quality standards, such as Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Fuji, are capable of stunning, beautiful results. Period. End of discussion.

OK, I guess the thread is closed per Phototone 😀

 

[wlewisiii]

Here is is, like it or not.

All films that are made to quality standards, such as Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Fuji, are capable of stunning, beautiful results.

Certainly. So?

Photography, at least as practiced by the kind of folks that hang out here is an art. Once you move into that realm, things do change. As many have said, here and elsewhere, over and over, the key is to find yourself a pairing - a film and a developer that work for you. For me, there is nothing quite like Tri-X@1600 dunked in Diafine. There is a certain look to those negatives that I don't find elsewhere.

No, I won't be able to tell s*it about a shot from the gallery here. But put a print in front of me and I might. In my case, it will be pretty rare, but I've only gotten back in this game relatively recently. Others may well do better...

The key is, as always, the play of light and shadow. That we choose to record that interplay in different ways is what makes us artists.

William