Head to Head: Tri-X and HP5+

[Dave Wooten]

So what did you all decide?

 

[dxphoto]

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

Can you be more specific? Thanks.

 

[lawrenceimpey]

Personally I think this is an interesting question and I'm looking forward to the results. For once, I don't agree with Roger as a controlled test should show up the differences more quickly and decisively than general usage. A crucial point, I think, is which developer to use -- D76/ID11 1:1 would probably be a good choice. I've recently been shooting a lot of Tri-X and Neopan 1600, which are like chalk and cheese with Tri-X giving better gradation in the shadows and Neopan better in the highlights (both rated at EI640). By the way, I am scanning rather than printing. Past use of HP5+ tends to show that it is more grainy than either Tri-X or Neopan but the tonality is more important that grain and also, for films in this class, pushability. Good luck with the test.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am looking forward to the tests. I do get something from comparing the same photo with two different films. It gives me a common point of comparison.

Steve

 

[fhovie]

I bought both. I shot both. They are both good. But, when enlarged, the HP5 has a different paisley shape grain than the very point shaped grain of the TRI-X. If you look really close. I prefer the point shape grain. There are probably cases where HP5 tonality is nicer. But there is no test that will say one is "better" than the other. Pepsi tried to do that with Coke. Prove their product "tasted" better. Coke is still doing fine. Different tastes, different soda pop, different film, it is almost a silly question except if there was something wrong with one of the films. Like the film speed is way off, like APX400, or the film is blue and curly like the old J&C films. But that is not the case with HP5 and TRI-X - If HP5 was cheaper here than TRI-X (it is not) I might get used to the paisley shaped grain ....

 

[rjas]

I shot them both side by side in 35mm depending on what was readily available during my travels and no one has ever said to me, "Hey that one shot's grain looks different than the one next to it," or even hinted remotely that they had any idea I was using two different films. I can see a difference in grain structure and tonality but from a normal viewing difference 11x14 prints are almost indistinguishable.

 

[Discpad]

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!

I agree with John, except in my case Kodak is a bit less expensive. Less expensive film = more photos; and when one Dead Link Removed with a Speed Graphic, that's a whole box of 100 sheets!

Thank G-d for Grafmatic film holders!

 

[aldevo]

Back in 2004 I did shoot Tri-X and HP5+ head-to-head on a test subject and developed the roll in Ilford DD-X to what I expected was the same CI (the test subject was not a step wedge, though). These were my impressions based on viewing the negs under a good quality 7x loupe:

-HP5+ was sharper
-They were more or less the same as far as graininess, but the character of the grain is different (HP5+'s is of a more regular consistency)
-Speed was about the same

Having shot the stuff in the field, those impressions generally hold up. I do think you'll find that HP5+ is sharper in most developers, though you'd have to enlarge beyond 8x10 for that to become apparent - and the two are curiously equivalent sharpness-wise in Gainer's PC-TEA formula. In a contrasty scene, I might also be inclined to give Tri-X about 1/3 stop more exposure (due to its longer toe) in the interest of greater shadow separation.

Gradation-wise, I have always preferred Tri-X. It's a bit contrastier and, for me, it's always flattered flat-lit scenes, yet is still quite managable in contrasty light. I've also felt that HP5+ showed a tendency to compress its mid-tones excessively in certain accutance developers, such as Pyrocat-MC , though HP5+ redeems itself by exhibiting tremendous sharpness in such developers. And I find that HP5+ does manage to give a marvelous "silvery" look to foliage under certain circumstances that I just can't quite duplicate with Tri-X.

That said, it's generally Tri-X for me. Still, I'll be shooting HP5+ in sheets if I ever get around to using my 4x5 camera regularly since I struggle with TXP.

 

[aldevo]

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

This does not surprise me. If you look at Agfa's own published figures for Rodinal, you'll see that development times for its own films start to increase dramatically once G-bar exceeds 0.5.

And if you did a survey of alt-process folks (who typically develop to G-bars of 0.7 and higher), you'd find that many are shooting TXP, TMY, etc. which have upswept characteristic curves and are capable of reaching greater densities before shouldering off. HP5+, on the other hand, doesn't seem all that popular among such users.

 

[Rolleijoe]

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?

Well, being in Big-D, (when I lived there 22 years ago), the sun is going to be great for shots. I used to use HP5+ for portraits, because (at the time), I thought it to be the finest grained 400 speed film out there. Plus, HP5+ gives softer contrast rendition than other films (an Ilford trait throughout their line), which softened facial features etc.

Tri-X is great for anything. Rate it at 200EI, process in Rodinal 1:50 10min and you've got beautiful scenics/architecturals. Take that some 200EI Tri-X and process in HC-110 1:50 from syrup for 6½-7min, and it'll look smooth enough for portraits with still enough "punch" for regular photography.

Rolleijoe

 

[Usagi]

It would be very interesting to see comparable characteristic curves of both films.

The best would be characteristic curves of 'N' development in same chart. That should give at least some information about tonality differencies.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Has the death match happened? I can't wait to see whether the upcoming challenger will defeat the established champion. Let's get ready to rumble!

 

[Usagi]

No deathmatch

I am just curious to see the details of these films. Ofcourse such comparison does not tell anything about grain and tells 'truth' only in one developer.

 

[Woolliscroft]

I've always slightly prefered HP5, but if asked to say why, I honestly couldn't tell you. I just do. It could be something as illogical as the fact that it was the first I used of the two all those years ago or that I live almost in sight of the Ilford factory.

David.