Do you like HP5+ ?

[Mike Kennedy]

I shoot tons of Tri-X and thought of getting some HP5+, just to sample the grass on the other side of the fence.My only problem is that the local shop sells it for $8.00 a roll and to make things economically sound I'd have to go bulk load.
Is it a silly idea to try another 400 speed B&W film?

Thanks

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't generally fix what's not broken. But sometimes it's fun to experiment. Mostly when I switch from one kind to another is because I find something cheap. Then I make it work until I run out, and go fishing again. Such is life on limited resources.

I've used HP5+ and it's great film. It seems very flexible, able to produce a wide range of results.

Have fun!

- Thomas

 

[reellis67]

As long as you're not just jumping around without getting to know your film (which I know you aren't) I don't see any reason not to try something different from time to time - you never know when you will find something that you really like. I use HP5+ from time to time and like it quite a bit, but I'm not a big Tri-X user so I can't suggest much in the way of differences between the two.

- Randy

 

[Markok765]

I used to buy HP5+ in rolls back when I bought rolls instead of bulk loading because it was cheaper. When B&H was out of tri-x, I bought 100' of HP5+, and I liked the film a lot! It had nice contrast and sharpness. I developed for the same time I use for tri-x.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

I have always believed in knowing a film inside out - which it sounds as you do

I have little time for those who seem to jump from one film to another in a never ending quest for more/better/finer/faster

For the experienced user of a particular film (in your case Tri-X) on the other hand trying an alternative to your loved and trusted is always worth a go

I use HP5 and love it - but its one of the two films I started with a good few years ago and have never felt the need for a change.

On my side of the pond HP5 is the standard 400ASA film just as I guess on your side its Tri-X.

It is similar to Tri-X but not the same - as I am sure you will find out

Personaly I would buy a few rolls, try them out and if you like it, buy a bulk roll - so if you hate it you don't have a huge amount which you don't know what to do with.

Have fun

Martin

 

[Uhner]

Yes, I like HP5 very much, it is the 400 speed film I use most of the time. Like Thomas says, it is a very flexible film that both expands and contracts quite well, at least when developed in pyro.

 

[jim appleyard]

$8.00/roll??? Yeah, I'd look into bulk loading, too. Try getting thru mail order, gotta save you some $ there.

 

[PhotoJim]

Short answer: Tri-X is more flexible (performs better when pushed), but HP-5 Plus is slightly higher quality at 400. I like both films. I tend to prefer HP-5 Plus, but I love how Tri-X performs in certain developers (e.g. PMK) so I shoot it occasionally. I think it's well worth some experimentation.

 

[MikeSeb]

Both good films; lately I've been shooting almost exclusively 400TMY-2. I think it's better than either of the other two in grain, sharpness, and tonality.

I used to shoot a lot of Tri-X, but I can't get it to look like it used to. HP-5 is excellent, has its own look.

 

[jmal]

I began with tri-x and was very happy with it. Then, I began buying student film/paper packs that included HP5 for the same price as the paper alone. I began using it, though I didn't like it at first. It took a little time to figure it out. Once I learned it, it became my favorite film. I think both films are comparable. HP5 seems to have slightly larger, sharper grain. If tri-x is significantly cheaper, I'd stick with it. It's a great film.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I'd definitely shop around -- $8/roll is way too much, and I'm saying that as a fellow Canadian.

It's definitely not a silly idea to have an informed opinion on films, it just depends on what you use it for.

 

[Gary Holliday]

HP5 was the first film I really loved, I did a shoot with FP4 and HP5 and the HP5 results blew me away (I was learning at the time)

Since then I've equally liked Neopan 400 and Tri X. Whatever is in fashion Try them all.

 

[eddym]

HP5 is my standard 400 speed film, and has been for over 15 years. I find that it offers a good combination of sharpness and grain at 400, and is easily pushed to 800 for more contrast or 1600 for theater photography. In a pinch, I have pushed it to 3200, but that was only when I didn't have Delta 3200 available, and had no other choice.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Thanks all!
A fellow member sent me a Canadian link (Henry's) where the prices are much lower.I'll give it a go,record my results,and end up with two 400 speed films that I can match to various lighting situations.

Mike

 

[Markok765]

Mike, Henrys is great for bulk film. Prices are the same as B&H and no shipping charges! The used section is expensive though! $800 for a F5 that I can get online in same condition for $380.

 

[Smudger]

Your quest may take a little longer : you should really try Fuji Neopan 400 as well - excellent film.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'll second Neopan 400 as a viable alternative. And Foma 400. And TMax 400. And Delta 400... So many good films. So little time!

Seriously, though. Neopan 400 is like Tri-X. Forgiving but with less grain. It's beautiful.

- Thomas

 

[Andrew Moxom]

I concur with the last two statements.....Of note, Neopan-400 is way better price point wise as well in the US over Ilford equivalents and by a huge margin at that....That soon adds up with the amount of film I've shot this year so far. Over 100 rolls While I am certainly not a cheapskate, Ilford is way over priced for what you get IMHO... You have to make the choice.

I've used HP5+ a lot in the past and still have some to use up, but never can seem to get the contrast I need from it in 120.. The sheet film version appears to be different in that regard for whatever reason and is one of my favorites though, but I rarely buy it and prefer T/MAX in 4x5.

 

[Michael Kadillak]

IMHO HP5 is a terrribly limited film in the fact that it has piss poor density building character at the top end. It reached gamma infinity as fast as Bergger 200. If you are printing silver and developing normal it is acceptable. But Azo or an alt process and anything less than normal in full mid day light is simply not going to happen. Been there and done that and I have the density test curves to prove it.

I gave away a box of HP5 11x14 less two sheets for this very reason.

Use the right tool for the task at hand. I would opt for Efke 25 long before I would bother with HP5. FP4+ is a horse of a completely different color and is a great film to be perfect honest on this subject.

 

[David Brown]

I recently did a head to head test with Tri-X vs. HP5+ in medium format. I loaded two backs and took two negs (1 on each fim, obviously) of every picture.

I found that I "liked" the Tri-X better. But, I have some lovely prints from HP5 negs and I would have to have them side by side to tell which was which. So, depending on all the many variables, someone else doing the same comparison could come up with different results, or opinions.

But then, last night I printed a 10 year old neg made on TMax. Hmmm, may have to use more of those films ... :rolleyes:

 

[fschifano]

Both good films; lately I've been shooting almost exclusively 400TMY-2. I think it's better than either of the other two in grain, sharpness, and tonality.

And that's the way I see it too. Nothing wrong with HP5+; it's good stuff. For a conventional grained film, I prefer Tri-X; but that's more a question of personal taste than any perceived deficiency of HP5+. On the subject of TMY-2 though I could not be more in agreement with Mike. The film is really one of the nicest all around films I've seen. Currently, I'm using more Tri-X than TMY-1. When my current supply of TMY-1 draws down and is replaced with TMY-2, it is quite likely that my usage patter will reverse.

 

[nemo999]

I love HP5+ in 120 and sheet. For 35 mm, I go for Delta 400 Pro. Too bad about the prices, in Britain the best prices are from www.7dayshop.com (no sales tax/VAT): 120 £1.65, 35 mm 36 exp. £2.26.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

I've gone through one can (100') of Neopan and did like the film.Unfortunately Fuji doesn't sell bulk loads anymore and it's far too expensive to purchase single rolls.

 

[mario Ag+]

Hp 5 is my favorite film by far. Beautiful tonal range and sharpness. Works well with nearly all developers, very versatile. Tri x is also a great film. The grain of HP 5 is imo finer and Trix is a litle bit sharper at ISO 400.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Very interesting Michael. I'm not contesting your findings, but it would be interesting to see your results with development expansion, as an educational exercise. What other films did you test?

I've never compared FP4+ and HP5+ like you have, and I've used far more FP4+. I agree it's a fantastic film. I wish I had the money to afford FP4+ as it is my favorite film of all, next to Delta 3200, used for different purposes.

- Thomas

IMHO HP5 is a terrribly limited film in the fact that it has piss poor density building character at the top end. It reached gamma infinity as fast as Bergger 200. If you are printing silver and developing normal it is acceptable. But Azo or an alt process and anything less than normal in full mid day light is simply not going to happen. Been there and done that and I have the density test curves to prove it.

I gave away a box of HP5 11x14 less two sheets for this very reason.

Use the right tool for the task at hand. I would opt for Efke 25 long before I would bother with HP5. FP4+ is a horse of a completely different color and is a great film to be perfect honest on this subject.