Film Comparison Techniques (FP4+ and Tri-X)

[Martin Lee]

So, I've decided that the best way for me to find a film I like is to compare them.

I took two identical images on 4"x5" FP4+ and Tri-X. I developed both in HC-110 B.

Looking at them I think:
FP4+ is sharper
FP4+ has more visible grain. Tri-X may have more grain, but it's smoother. Neither have visible grain at reasonable print sizes (20"x16" print simulated on my monitor looks fantastic.)

Comparing histograms from scanned negatives:
FP4+ appears to have more contrast in the shadows, midtones and highlights. This is easily apparent when printed, Tri-X looks almost washed out.

Basically, I think that apart from the visible grain, FP4+ wins on all categories. Perhaps it's my choice of developer. I think with clever printing in the darkroom I can make the Tri-X negative as contrasty as the FP4+ negative, which I prefer. The difference becomes one of sharpness, and FP4+ wins.

So, for me, I'm happier with FP4+ over Tri-X.

My question is have I performed a fair comparison? Should I have used a different developer, for example? My EI and dev times are perhaps not as scientific as they could be, but they do give me negatives with blacks that print to black and highlights that are as restrained as I'd like.

Thanks in advance.

Martin

 

[ic-racer]

Seems reasonable. The bottom line in any comparison is which prints do you prefer. Your processing may be biased toward one or the other (you did not control for gamma did you?) but it does not matter, all you need to know is which one works best for you.

 

[mrred]

Try again using 1:100 for the HC110. Use dev time x 4 (dil b), and agitate less (1 every 2-3 mins). I normally use this for stand, but medium and high formats need more agitation. You will find the grain will lower and detail will leap out on both, but I predict the FP4+ will shine more.

 

[wogster]

So, I've decided that the best way for me to find a film I like is to compare them.

I took two identical images on 4"x5" FP4+ and Tri-X. I developed both in HC-110 B.

Looking at them I think:
FP4+ is sharper
FP4+ has more visible grain. Tri-X may have more grain, but it's smoother. Neither have visible grain at reasonable print sizes (20"x16" print simulated on my monitor looks fantastic.)

Comparing histograms from scanned negatives:
FP4+ appears to have more contrast in the shadows, midtones and highlights. This is easily apparent when printed, Tri-X looks almost washed out.

Basically, I think that apart from the visible grain, FP4+ wins on all categories. Perhaps it's my choice of developer. I think with clever printing in the darkroom I can make the Tri-X negative as contrasty as the FP4+ negative, which I prefer. The difference becomes one of sharpness, and FP4+ wins.

So, for me, I'm happier with FP4+ over Tri-X.

My question is have I performed a fair comparison? Should I have used a different developer, for example? My EI and dev times are perhaps not as scientific as they could be, but they do give me negatives with blacks that print to black and highlights that are as restrained as I'd like.

Thanks in advance.

Martin

I would probably compare FP4+ to Plus-X considering they are the same speed, or HP5+ to Tri-X. I would really probably do a 4 way comparison, of FP4, Delta 100, Plus-X and TMax 100 to see which I like best as a 100 class film, then compare HP5, Tri-X, Delta 100 and Delta 400 to see which I like best as a 400 class film.

Then you need to see what speed you prefer, for the films you prefer, some people find that the like one film at one speed, but another at a different speed. Then what developer you prefer.

You can spend a lot of time and money on picking films and developers, which is why many people pick 2 or 3 films and one or two developers, and that they use for everything.

 

[zenrhino]

You can spend a lot of time and money on picking films and developers

You ain't whistlin' Dixie there.

 

[Martin Lee]

(you did not control for gamma did you?)

No. How would I? Create a test strip and use a densitometer?

Try again using 1:100 for the HC110. Use dev time x 4 (dil b), and agitate less (1 every 2-3 mins). I normally use this for stand, but medium and high formats need more agitation. You will find the grain will lower and detail will leap out on both, but I predict the FP4+ will shine more.

I did have the foresight and financial recklessness to expose two of every shot, so four sheets in total. The 2nd FP4+ sheet is souping as you describe as I type this!

I would probably compare FP4+ to Plus-X considering they are the same speed, or HP5+ to Tri-X. I would really probably do a 4 way comparison, of FP4, Delta 100, Plus-X and TMax 100 to see which I like best as a 100 class film, then compare HP5, Tri-X, Delta 100 and Delta 400 to see which I like best as a 400 class film.

Then you need to see what speed you prefer, for the films you prefer, some people find that the like one film at one speed, but another at a different speed. Then what developer you prefer.

You can spend a lot of time and money on picking films and developers, which is why many people pick 2 or 3 films and one or two developers, and that they use for everything.

Well, I did the test this way as I've used FP4+ and Tri-X on 35mm in the past and liked it, but never been scientific enough to compare it. Large format is making me more analytical. My thought process is that if I'm taking so much care over the photographs, I may as well get the images I want now and not compromise, only to discover in 10 years time that I never needed to. 35mm and medium format was always more of a relaxed affair, and probably will be in conjunction with large format for a while.

I've used HP5+ and Delta 400 in the past, I preferred HP5+ for some unquantifiable reason.

As the majority of my large format photographs are landscapes and cityscapes I think I'll standardise on a 100 speed film. Reciprocity failure is the only thing that is discouraging me from FP4+, perhaps Fuji Acros will be my next stop.

 

[K-G]

I think we are talking about two different Tri-X films. Tri-X 320 ( available in sheet formats and 120 and 220 rols ) and Tri-X 400 (available in 120 rols and 35 mm ) are not the same film. They both have their unique characteristics and personally I am very fond of both. To me it seems as if 320 is at its best in good lighting conditions and 400 is exelent when it comes to sort out shadow details. Besides, 320 is the only remaining BW film in 220 size today.
I am sure someone else has different opinions.
Best regards

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Martin Lee]

I knew they were different, but I didn't know how different they were.

I've just finished developing that FP4+ negative at 1+100. It's beautiful. I'll let you all know how it scans in a couple of hours and how it prints in a couple of weeks. I won't have time to develop the Tri-X negative tonight, perhaps tomorrow morning.

 

[Martin Lee]

(click for Flickr page)

That's the FP4+ at 1:100. Perhaps slightly too little contrast in the midtones for me, so perhaps some split grading to get that right. A yellow filter would probably have helped as well.

Lots of detail, fine grain, though still noticeable compared to the mushier grain of the Tri-X.

Overall: Happy! I think I'll standardise at this for a while until I feel an urge to explore elsewhere.

 

[fschifano]

Since you're comparing FP4+ against Tri-X in sheet films, you're comparing FP4+ against Tri-X 320. It's no surprise that you're finding result that you like better with FP4+. Tri-X 320 is a film that has a very long toe, and is really designed for and best used under lighting conditions that allow for complete control over light values. It does not start separating out shadow details until it is pretty far along the contrast curve. Now, does this mean that Tri-X 320 cannot be used under uncontrolled daylight condition? No. I and many others have used it that way, but one must give special considerations for the film's properties. Extra exposure will open up the shadows considerably, but then one must consider cutting back on development to keep the highlights from becoming too dense. A more valid comparison would be to test FP4+ against Delta 100 or TMax 100. If you really want to see something special, try it against TMax 400. You'll get plenty of shadow detail with good contrast, and two stops more speed, at its ISO speed without the need to worry about blown highlights. You can do this with nothing more exotic than D-76, and by following the manufacturer's recommendations to the letter. I can practically guarantee that if your meter, shutter, and development techniques are reasonably withing spec., you'll have negatives that are easy to print. Lighting conditions that would present difficulties with other films are easily handled by this film.

A light yellow filter would only deepen the shadows more in the example you've posted. Yellow filters remove blue light, and shadowed areas are relatively richer in blue light than are areas lit directly by daylight. Remove some of the blue light and you force the lower values even lower down the scale, and the lower to lower middle tones further into the mud.

 

[Hughes]

Ive used Across for about 20 rolls & Quickload 5x4. It is the finest grain, especially in Perceptol.
Great for Portraits but too smooth for landscapes. The easiest film to process. A quality product.
Hughes Hampshire UK

 

[Don Wallace]

Try again using 1:100 for the HC110. Use dev time x 4 (dil b), and agitate less (1 every 2-3 mins). I normally use this for stand, but medium and high formats need more agitation. You will find the grain will lower and detail will leap out on both, but I predict the FP4+ will shine more.

I really like the image Martin got using your suggestion. I shoot FP4 in 4x5 and 8x10 and would like to give this a whirl. What volume of syrup do you use per sheet of 4x5? When you say agitate less, can you be a little more precise?