Alternative to tri-x in sheet film?

[Jordan.K]

I have really appreciated Simon's posts and replies to the people of these forums and would like to exclusively support Ilford. I currently print on Ilford Warmtone and Iford papers in general are used for about 95% printing done at my work (a custom black and white lab). Anyhow, I currently shoot tri-x in 4x5 and will be getting an 8x10 sometime between June and July and would like to switch to an Ilford film. As film is expensive I really don't have the luxury of just trying some out. I would like something very comparable to tri-x. I currently proccess in HC-110 using a jobo expert drum and an old roller base. I have my development times down and am really fond of the results I get with tri-x. I rate my tri-x at 100 and process using straight HC-110 (1 to 75oz) processing for 12min. Not to brag but this little formula yields pretty damn good negatives. This post seems to have gone off track, but perhaps someone else will find some the crap I put in here beneficial. So, anyone have an Ilford alternative they recommend?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

FP4+ looks more like Tri-X than HP5+. The speed of HP5+ is more like that of Tri-X than FP4+.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'll second David's comment. HP5 has a different tonal scale from Tri-X (TX), while FP4 lands closer. I once did some portraits of a young child, and I used Tri-X as main film, but had to use some FP4 because I shot more than we had agreed. After developing the film I was amazed how similar the two looked. Granted, this was roll film, and the Tri-X (TXP) that's available in sheets is vastly different from the roll film, so my opinion may not be worth much.
The FP4 and HP5 are your alternatives, though. The only other film they make in sheets is Delta 100, and it's nowhere near the Tri-X (TX or TXP).

- Thomas

 

[climbabout]

I like the fp4+ as well - although I develop in pyrocat hd.
Tim

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I process FP4 Plus in Jobo Expert drums at around 45 rpm, using Perceptol 1:3, and obtain an EI of 160. This is based on Zone I density of 0.1 above film base +fog and light measurement with a Zone VI-modified Pentax digital spot meter. While I can't add to others' observations about Tri-X similarity, this at least lets you know there's a way to get 2/3-stop more film speed than what your current film provides.

 

[Amund]

I really like Simon and Ilford too, but Ilford doesn`t make Tri-X.
I love Tri-X, I buy Tri-X. As long as I can.
Changing a winning combination just because you like a certain companys profile better, is ehhh, well I won`t do it.

 

[mikebarger]

I use tri-x 400 in roll and will use it until it is way out of production, but don't like the Tri-X 320 stuff in 4x5.

I use HP-5 in 4x5.

I think this is something you'll really have to try yourself to determine what YOU like.

Think Fred Picker.

Mike

 

[Jim Noel]

Hp5+ is one stop faster and also sharper than Tri-X , according to my tests and use through the years. That explains the answer above which states that P4+ is closer to Tru X than HP5+

 

[Oren Grad]

I think David basically nailed it. If you're comfortable printing TXP on IMGFBWT, you'll likely get along with FP4 Plus.

IMO the main issue with FP4 Plus is its speed. It's slower to start with and falls off the reciprocity cliff the same way TXT and HP5 Plus do, so the problem is compounded. I do a lot of work under fading light at dusk, and FP4 Plus is just too slow for me - in typical situations I can expose four or five sheets of HP5 Plus before I'm out of commission for the evening, but only one or two of FP4 Plus. But if that's not a problem for you, FP4 Plus is a fine film.

 

[fhovie]

FP4+ is contrastier and TRI-X has greater dynamic range - I use these two films almost exclusively and with SBR of less than 7, It is FP4 - with greater sbr - it is tri-x