8x10 HP5 versus 8x10 Tri-x

[gerryyaum]

first a little history. I went to Thailand to work on these photos in 2007. Images were made in studio with 4 speedotron flash heads.

http://gerryyaum.com/sex worker.html

The photographs were made with 8x10 Tri-x shot at 200 ASA. The film was over developed using a Jobo Tank and processor and D-76 straight. I found the nice deep negative a joy to print.

-----------

Next year I am going back to continue the series the problem is that Kodak in it's infinate wisdom has gone from 50 sheet boxes of 8x10 Tri-x to 10 sheet boxes. In 2007 I shot over 400 sheets of film and expect to do 500 + this coming trip. I could buy the 10 sheet boxes and the repackage them for travel but the costs for the film have also gone up.

Here is my question:

If I change film to HP5 (cheaper and available in 25 sheet boxes) and if I expose and process the film the same what can I expect the negs to look like?

How does HP5 compare to Tri-x under the conditions I will shoot them in. Can I expect similiar negs? I have little experience with HP5 and any comments would be helpfull.

Thanks Gerry

 

[wildbill]

If you're going to travel overseas, spend about $1700 on a new film, by all means test if for yourself! Don't let someone tell you what it's like. There are too many variables.

 

[2F/2F]

The difference between Tri-X and HP5 is, IMHO, mostly a color response ("spectral sensitivity") issue. However, no advice is better than Wild Bill's above.

Here is the question: What does 8x10 conceptually add to your work that no other format can? IMO, the use of a backdrop, the use of 8x10, and the printing of film edges all detract from the work by making it seem even more pretentious. Nobody is impressed by anything except content, and your choice of materials and presentation even further remove me from whatever content there is. We don't want to know squat about how you work or what materials you use. We want to look at your pix and let them do the talking.

For the use of 8x10 to be warranted, I would say that you should be aiming to fill a gallery with these prints, life size (which, by the way, is what I think would be the best - perhaps the only - way to make these actually interesting and give them some conceptual weight and personal impact). For anything else, a roll film camera will be more than adequate.

Why not just shoot medium format (or even small or subminiature, which I think would look great)? I like some of the other work on your site better than the 8x10 stuff. I understand that the detail and sharpness of this particular series may viewed as important to the concept, but medium format will provide enough. You will no doubt get better results with roll film. You will have more takes, be able to shoot more models, be in and out more quickly, be able to carry more film, have perfectly acceptable quality, and do it all for less money. You aren't getting any Brownie points for shooting this subject matter or for using this format, especially not here, and especially not in galleries. All viewers care about is what the print means. What you are doing is driving a tank to pick up a load of groceries.

 

[gerryyaum]

wild bill:
yes of course that was my first option but all my flash equipment is on the other side of the world in Thailand so I would have trouble duplicating the lighting here. I wanted to see the negs from the HP5 shot in the speedotron lighting condtions and develop the same as the Tri-x and then compare the old negs to the new negs, make prints etc but that is not an option. I guess I could do some other kind of testing to get a comparison without the lighting thou.

 

[gerryyaum]

Mr 2F:

What does 8x10 conceptually add to your work that no other format can?

sharpness clarity and detail...when I make 20x24 inch prints and larger I can see the difference between the 8x10 negs and my 5x7 and 4x5 negs.

the use of 8x10, and the printing of film edges all detract from the work by making it seem even more pretentious.

not in my opinion besides when the work is shown the viewer does not know it was shot with an 8x10 camera, I only mention that here because their are alot of 8x10 shooters with more experience at APUG than I have who might be able to help me. As to the edges I just like that look, it is a personal choice. Black frame, white overmat, black film edges, white background....looks good to me, it is a personal choice. I like that frame in a frame look.

Nobody is impressed by anything except content, and your choice of materials and presentation even further remove me from whatever content there is. We don't want to know squat about how you work or what materials you use. We want to look at your pix and let them do the talking.

Of course in a gallery I would not say squat about the camera and lens and film and such unimportant things, but then this is not a gallery for the general public now is it? This is a site that asks that information when you post your photographs for critiques, so people here put a certain value on that info. The content is all that matters I totally agree my question was about repeating the quality and content of the original images shot on tri-x when using hp5 and whether that was a feasible option.

We want to look at your pix and let them do the talking.

Sure that is obvious and I agree 100% but then again that is not what the APUG venue (darkroom, film forum question area) is about. In a public gallery I would make no mention of the tools used to make the image unless asked.

For the use of 8x10 to be warranted, I would say that you should be aiming to fill a gallery with these prints, life size (which, by the way, is what I think would be the best - perhaps the only - way to make these actually interesting and give them some conceptual weight and personal impact). For anything else, a roll film camera will be more than adequate.

Disagree with you on this one, I have shot this subject both ways and the 8x10 neg prints have so much more life in the tones and the details. I would say that the 120 or 35 stuff has more motion and spontaneity but they lack the feeling of reality that the clarity of the 8x10 work brings forth.

In short, why not just shoot medium format, or even small or subminiature? I understand that the detail and sharpness is important, but medium format will provide enough.

not in my opinion, when you can count the hairs on a persons head, when you can see every wrinkle or mole or scar or tattoo with great detail, when the eyes look like they are in the room with you, the photographs achieve a different feeling to them, a reality that can make them more compelling IF the image has strength to go along with that clarity.

You will no doubt get better results with roll film. You will have more takes, be able to shoot more models, be in and out more quickly, be able to carry more film, have perfectly acceptable quality, and do it all for less money.

More takes? is true, I would have more flow to the sessions, more shots would be made---more models? The amount of subjects I shoot depends on the amount of time I have, I would just buy more 8x10 film if I had the time to shoot more people---acceptable quality? Sounds average, why do acceptable if you work a bit harder and get exceptional quality? Laziness is not an option, as to the money part I spend money on what I love and film is by far the least of my expenses!

Another thing to consider is that when you photograph people with a large format camera it becomes something of an event, and they try harder to make good photographs, it seems more team oriented.

On a side note: Mr 2F I plan on also shooting the 8x10 subjects with a blad so when I post the images later you can see what works best for you.

So back to the question, do you think the HP5 will give me a similar negative to the Tri-x?

 

[doughowk]

For fast films, I've not been impressed with HP5, whereas Tri-X produces a better contrast image. My favorite, though, is the new T-Max 400 with its minimal reciprocity failure. The 10 sheet boxes are a pain; but I understood they are only a temporary marketing strategy.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

HP5+ and Tri-X look very different to me. Tri-X to me is more about line, and HP5+ is more about gradation. There's more happening in the midtones with HP5+, and Tri-X is more interesting at the ends of the scale. I prefer Tri-X, but that doesn't mean that interesting photographs can't be made with HP5+. As the others have said, you need to try it for yourself and see what works, and you'll know.

If 8x10" is part of the concept for the project then shoot 8x10". It's not even all about resolution. DOF characteristics are fairly specific to format. Working with large format sets a certain kind of tone in the session. The subject has to participate in ways that they don't have to with smaller formats, by holding still, not moving out of the focus zone, waiting for the filmholder to be inserted and the darkslide removed between focus and exposure. With the slower process of LF, the subject has to compose him/herself in some sense, and for your particular project, I think that's pretty important. If you wanted to slow it down more, you might even try natural light instead of strobes.

 

[Palantiri7]

When I messed around with HP5+ in medium format I found it rather too easy to blow out highlight detail. Mid-tones with HP5+ can be gorgeous, though, especially when I developed it in Paterson's (now defunct) FX-39. I love Tri-X Pan in 8x10 and its great rendering of highlight detail. I'd be a little wary of using HP5+ with strobes, but that's just me.

 

[Jim Noel]

If you're going to travel overseas, spend about $1700 on a new film, by all means test if for yourself! Don't let someone tell you what it's like. There are too many variables.

I totally agree.

I see too many posts by workers wanting to know what film/developer and time are best. There is nothing like testing utilizing ones own methods to get appropriate answers to such questions.

My personal preference between Tri-X and HP5+ happens to be HP5+, but that does not mean that it should be anyone elses preference.

 

[gerryyaum]

DOUG...temporary marketing strategy? really? does that mean they will go back to 50 sheet boxes or does that mean they will discontinue the product? I have lost my faith in Kodak, that is another reason I am shifting towards Ilford they seem to be more dedicated to the b/w shooter.

 

[wildbill]

I heard elsewhere from a reputable source that they're changing to 25 sheet boxes within a few months.

 

[gerryyaum]

David:

DOF characteristics are fairly specific to format. Working with large format sets a certain kind of tone in the session. The subject has to participate in ways that they don't have to with smaller formats, by holding still, not moving out of the focus zone, waiting for the filmholder to be inserted and the darkslide removed between focus and exposure. With the slower process of LF, the subject has to compose him/herself in some sense, and for your particular project, I think that's pretty important.

Yes agree..this sex worker series in studio is really the first time I used the 8x10 at any length to make portraits and I found exactly what you said happening. Because you are forced to move slow their is sort of a deliberate rhythm to things, it is like a dance that goes on between the photographer and model, the fact that everything is slow creates a mood that is different than zapping away with a 35mm or medium format camera. The people I photograph also have been photographed many times and are sort of jaded by photography and many things in general, when you take out that big camera and treat them with respect and kindness there is a group experience that happens during a good session. I will try to shoot some medium format stuff as well but I really like working with the 8x10.

If you wanted to slow it down more, you might even try natural light instead of strobes.

I have thought about this a lot. I had some communication with several photographers who do this and I would very much like to try it in the future. I would like to do a series of photos of people in rural Thailand with the 8x10 and available light.

Thanks very much for your help, it is greatly appreciated.

 

[gerryyaum]

wild bill:

well thanks that certainly is good news...hope that comes to pass

 

[gerryyaum]

Pal...ok hmm getting a bit worried now!

 

[gerryyaum]

I see too many posts by workers wanting to know what film/developer and time are best. There is nothing like testing utilizing ones own methods to get appropriate answers to such questions.

JIM: yes sure...the reason I did not go down that path was that my lighting (the lighting I will use for the final photos) is in Thailand and I am not! The lighting consists of a 4800w power pack and 4 lightheads. I cannot recreate that light at my home now. I guess I could try running some kind of test without the light and just look at how the 2 films respond.

I might have to try to do it another way this time thou, or take a chance and go with the HP5 and hope for the best, or just pay out for the 10 sheet (possibly 25 sheet boxes) before I leave for Asia next year.