Head to Head: Tri-X and HP5+

David Brown · Sep 17, 2007

I've read numerous comments over the years about the differences/similarities between Tri-X (400) and HP5+. I've used both (in medium format) and I am beginning to see subtle differences in prints.

Anyway, I have decided to load up two backs and do a head-to-head comparison; taking identical pictures with the two films and see what happens. Anybody else done this? What did you find? What do you expect that I will find?

You're thinking: "Hey David, do the test and post your results on APUG!"

Yeah, well, I've done similar things in the past and been told I was wrong, so I thought I'd do this backwards and ask for the right answer first.

Roger Hicks · Sep 17, 2007

David Brown said:
What did you find? D

Dear David,

That the comparison is meaningless. We've shot both, with a lot of cameras, occasionally shooting the same subject, etc. on both. My wife prefers Tri-X; I prefer HP5. We use both, though more HP5. The tonality is different. So, probably, if you measure them, are granularity and sharpness, but not enough to matter. It's what the picture looks like, with your subjects, that matters.

What do YOU expect to find?

Cheers,

Roger

David Brown · Sep 17, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Dear David,

The tonality is different. What do YOU expect to find?

Cheers,

Roger

That the tonality is different. But Roger, I don't think that's "meaningless", I think that's possibly significant. I wasn't talking about grain or sharpness, although since I mentioned those two aspects, I guess I misled ... They're too close there (in my experience) to be concerned about. (I'll edit my OP)

I understand that the answers I asked for will be subjective - it's why I asked. Objective comparisons can be looked up.

pentaxuser · Sep 17, 2007

David Brown said:
Anyway, I have decided to load up two backs and do a head-to-head comparison; taking identical pictures with the two films and see what happens. Anybody else done this? What did you find? What do you expect that I will find?

You're thinking: "Hey David, do the test and post your results on APUG!"

Yeah, well, I've done similar things in the past and been told I was wrong, so I thought I'd do this backwards and ask for the right answer first.

David Whatever was said to be wrong with testing and posting? Seems a great idea to me.

pentaxuser

Roger Hicks · Sep 17, 2007

David Brown said:
That the tonality is different. But Roger, I don't think that's "meaningless", I think that's possibly significant. I wasn't talking about grain or sharpness, although since I mentioned those two aspects, I guess I misled ... They're too close there (in my experience) to be concerned about. (I'll edit my OP)

I understand that the answers I asked for will be subjective - it's why I asked. Objective comparisons can be looked up.

Dear David,

Fair enough. But how are you going to quantify or even describe this? "The tonality is different. I prefer this one." The test is meaningful in the sense that it might help you personally decide which you prefer, but it will help no-one else decide.

What I'm really questioning is the methodology: the usefulness of a head-to-head test, as compared with shooting real pictures with one, and the other, turn and turn about, and doing a rough statistical analysis of which gives you more pictures that you like.

Cheers,

Roger

jja · Sep 17, 2007

David, I'm glad you are going to run some tests, because although I had heard there was not much difference between HP5+ and Tri-X, eventually I decided I liked tri-x better. The reason: HP5+ seemed muddier to me developed in HC-110, while tri-x had a hint of glow I liked.

There are way too many factors that influence the final outcome--developer, developing techniques, scanning v. printing, and on and on--but for me tri-x gets better results with the way I do things.

Looking forward to seeing your results.

jja · Sep 17, 2007

Roger, agreed, there will be no absolute winner, but even seeing what works for one individual may be useful for those of us who are less experienced with these emulsions and particular developing combos.

Lee Shively · Sep 17, 2007

Go for it. Without opinions there wouldn't be much to discuss on the internet.

I've used a lot of both films, mainly used Rodinal, FG7 and D76 as developers and my take is that HP5+ has a prettier tonality and that Tri-X has a snappier contrast. Both have grain that's about equal and both seem to push to 1600 about equally with HP5+ still showing nicer tonality and Tri-X still showing more contrast. I'm certain that I've shot more Tri-X than any other film--probably tens of thousands of rolls during my time as a newspaper photographer. I've preferred HP5+ for the last several years and right now I have nearly 200 rolls of HP5+ in the freezer so I'll be using it for the foreseeable future. If I couldn't get HP5+, I'd be happy to use Tri-X again.

Shannon Stoney · Sep 17, 2007

I did this comparison about two years ago and to me, Tri-X was visibly grainier. So I switched to HP5+ for roll film. But I still use Tri-X in sheet film, because I have not yet done the tests for HP5+.

gainer · Sep 17, 2007

There is a way in which HP5+ is demonstrably better, at least as of a few years ago. It has about 1/5 of the low intensity reciprocity failure. If you have an indicated reading of 100 seconds, HP5+ will need an additional 200 seconds while TX400 will need an additional 1000. These are not manufacturers propaganda, but the experimental results of Howard Bond who is about as meticulous as anyone I know of.

gainer · Sep 17, 2007

I should add, and in fact am adding, that HP5+ will not achieve as high a maximum CI as TX400, especially with Rodinal.

Roger Hicks · Sep 17, 2007

jja said:
Roger, agreed, there will be no absolute winner, but even seeing what works for one individual may be useful for those of us who are less experienced with these emulsions and particular developing combos.

What worries me is the variables. Frances and I keep EVERYTHING else the same -- cameras, lenses, developers, enlargers, printing paper, you name it -- and we still come out with different preferences. Change ANY ONE of those variables and everything is turned on its head. That's before the images are strained through a scanner and put on a monitor....

lee · Sep 17, 2007

Roger,

Why would it worry you about the variables? David is a very experienced photographer and has a pretty air tight processing system. And the info is for David and not you.

lee\c

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 17, 2007

It's always interesting to hear what people see as the difference between these two films.

My own take is that Tri-X conveys a stronger sense of line, and HP5+ is more about smooth gradation. I go for line.

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 17, 2007

I have exactly the same feeling as David. HP5 can be amazing for certain things. I tend to like HP5 for still lifes and portraiture.
Then again, Tri-X is no slouch in those areas either, but where I want some real sharp bite to the image, Tri-X is probably better.
I tend to go with Tri-X more often than HP5, but that's my personal taste. I have a feeling that things like your developer, agitation method, your printing methods, et al, will affect your results almost as much and with some variable even more than your choice of film. But I digress. I believe that wasn't what the question was about to begin with...

Both will serve you very well, but there is a distinct difference between them. It's up to you what you do with it.

- Thomas

Roger Hicks · Sep 18, 2007

lee said:
Roger,

Why would it worry you about the variables? David is a very experienced photographer and has a pretty air tight processing system. And the info is for David and not you.

lee\c

Dear Lee,

I didn't mean the variables in HIS processing: I meant the variables between his and anyone else's -- variables which would render the experiment useless to anyone else. This is quite apart from personal preference.

As I say, what I'm really questioning is the methodology. Most of the time, I find it just about impossible to concern myself simultaneously with aesthetics -- which involves taking everything for granted, materials and equipment -- and comparisons (carefully set up shot with time to switch backs). There are a few areas in which head-to-head comparisons are easier than others, especially still life and some kinds of landscape, but that's only a part of what I (and most others) shoot.

My point is this: I see no advantage in performing such a test under the artificial constraints of taking the same picture twice. What is the objection to shooting the two films alternately, taking real pictures of real subjects (not empty 'tests') and seeing which, on average, you prefer? The latter makes far more sense to me. What advantage do you (or does anyone else) see in the OP's approach?

I'm not trying to be combative. I'm just thinking about 40+ years of my own photography, with a wide variety of equipment and materials, and the approach which I have found to give the most meaningful answers. Anyone who wants to do a head-to-head test, the very best of luck to them; but the OP did ask what differences others have found from similar exercises.

Cheers,

Roger

John Anders · Sep 18, 2007

Price!

An important difference for me is the price. At 7dayshop.com Hp5 120 is £1.40 and Tri-X is £2.15. As a pensioner, that's decisive!

Roger Hicks · Sep 18, 2007

John Anders said:
An important difference for me is the price. At 7dayshop.com Hp5 120 is £1.40 and Tri-X is £2.15. As a pensioner, that's decisive!

Reminds me of a friend who used to work for Ilford: "They're all very good. Actually, I slightly prefer Plus-X to FP4, but as I have to pay for Plus-X, well, Plus-X isn't that much better."

Plus-X was, incidentally, the only Kodak film he preferred to Ilford.

ChuckP · Sep 18, 2007

If you only shoot one roll of each how are you sure you have the optimum speed and developing time. First you need to run all your film tests to do it right. Or at least bracket your exposures and run a few rolls using different processing times.

lee · Sep 18, 2007

Roger said this, "My point is this: I see no advantage in performing such a test under the artificial constraints of taking the same picture twice. What is the objection to shooting the two films alternately, taking real pictures of real subjects (not empty 'tests') and seeing which, on average, you prefer? The latter makes far more sense to me. What advantage do you (or does anyone else) see in the OP's approach".

So, it is just testing that you don't like? The OP said he was gonna take "real" pictures and "SEE" which one he liked. How is this an "empty test". It looks like to me that the posts agreeing with the OP are running about everyone agreeing that this would be ok with the exception of YOU Roger. You say you are not trying to be combative but it surely appears that way to me.

lee\c

Mark Layne · Sep 18, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Reminds me of a friend who used to work for Ilford: "They're all very good. Actually, I slightly prefer Plus-X to FP4, but as I have to pay for Plus-X, well, Plus-X isn't that much better."

Plus-X was, incidentally, the only Kodak film he preferred to Ilford.

Plus-x is an extraordinary film but so few have learned to unlock it's secrets that it will probably get the axe. That's why there is a lot in my freezer.
Mark

mikebarger · Sep 18, 2007

I guess for me the OP's decision to make two negatives of the same shot, make the best print possible from each, then decide which he likes has merit.

If several of these tests are made, for a variety of circumstances, looks like a good decision could be made.

Mike

ooze · Sep 18, 2007

FWIW, I have shot TriX400 and HP5+ a lot in both 35mm and 120 (developed in ID-11 or D76, 1+1). I prefer the look of TriX400(latest version) in 35mm and HP5+ in 120...haven't yet figured out why:confused:

Cheers,
omar

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Sep 18, 2007

I want to see the pictures, David.

Roger Hicks · Sep 18, 2007

lee said:
It looks like to me that the posts agreeing with the OP are running about everyone agreeing that this would be ok with the exception of YOU Roger. You say you are not trying to be combative but it surely appears that way to me.

lee\c

Dear Lee,

There is a difference between holding a different opinion, and being combative. Neither of you is obliged to agree with a word I say; nor am I obliged to believe everything (or indeed, anything) anyone else says. If you see this as being combative, and if you feel the need to resort to capital letters (generally equated with shouting in a post like this), well, tough: you are perhaps someone who sees combat and dispute as the same thing. I don't.

I think I have explained well enough my own experiences with 'head to head' tests and why I find them valueless even for me, let alone being able to understand how my comparisons might benefit others. But I have also said that I wish the very best of luck to anyone who wants to do it. What is your problem with any of this?

Cheers,

Roger

Head to Head: Tri-X and HP5+

David Brown

Roger Hicks

David Brown

pentaxuser

Roger Hicks

jja

jja

Lee Shively

Shannon Stoney

gainer

gainer

Roger Hicks

lee

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Thomas Bertilsson

Roger Hicks

John Anders

Roger Hicks

ChuckP

lee

Mark Layne

mikebarger

ooze

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Roger Hicks

Head to Head: Tri-X and HP5+

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency