• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

HP5 and Tri-X in 120, differences, similarities.. ?

Well, one issue is that most people are discussing TX and the original poster is referring to TXT. TXT is 320 speed and is apparently discontinued. I believe it is largely the same as TXP, which is 320 speed sheet film. TX is 400 speed and comes in 35mm and 120. They are not the same films. That said, I have never used TXT, but have found that the sharpness of TX in D76, HC-110, Diafine and Xtol to be fantastic. It does have a pinkish color that is hard to wash off, but will come off if you wash it enough. I have not worked enough with HP5 to be able to compare sharpness with TX.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.pdf
 
brian steinberger said:
The problem was I just didn't like the way it looked. The tonality wasn't pleasing to me for most subjects.
Click to expand...

It is veeeery crispy. I can definitely see not liking the look if you like either more grit or more cream. The way I've always described the look of TMax is "clinical".
 
If you are choosing between Tri-X and HP5 you can't go wrong with either. Just buy a hundred rolls of one or the other and go make some pictures. By the time you are done with the hundred rolls it will be your favorite film. If they are no good then you screwed them up. It is not the film. They are both fantastic.
 
I do find HP5 sharper, and this is probably because the grain is more sharply defined and the emulsion has more "bite." Tri-X's grain seems more "mushy" and "clumpy" to me, however, it is not what I would call unsharp. I also find that HP5 is contrastier and that it holds the shadows more. HP5 is easier to block up with overexposure and/or overdevelopment, so for low light hand held shooting, I prefer Tri-X, even though it doesn't grab as much in the shadows. Neither are particularly forgiving compared to T-Max-type films, but they are forgiving enough for most things.

I love both, and it would be hard to decide which one to hold onto if one had to go bye bye. Fortunately, this is not the case. We can still shoot both. I generally prefer Tri-X for people and HP5 for other things. Right now, I am shooting Tri-X as opposed to HP5 in 35mm, since it is available as Arista Premium 400 for less than half the price of HP5. In 120, I generally shoot HP5, as it usually suits my medium-format subject matter better. When I use Tri-X in 120, I am really used to using Tri-X 320, which is a totally different emulsion than Tri-X 400, but which is now discontinued. I intend to get some Tri-X 400 in 120 size and try it out to see how I like it. Again, I will probably use Tri-X for people, and HP5 for other things.

So, in short, I would not settle on just one, since they are notably different. However, they are both excellent.
 

Paul, yes I'm referring to tri-x 400 in 120 (TX) in this thread. Sorry for any confusion.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone! This thread has been of great help to me and I'm sure others too. Looks like this weekend in my part of the world will have one overcast day and one sunny day. I have about 5 rolls of Tri-x and HP5 and intend to begin my film/dev time tests with each in ID-11 and also just go shoot some of my typical subjects.
 

When I first took an interest in photography as a schoolboy, I nearly gave up after grotty results using various cheap pocket-money films (Woolworth's Standard, etc. ). My late father, himself a keen photographer, told me to "use a decent film.. try HP3" and gave me the few pence extra to buy this. I never looked back, going through HP4 and HP5 to HP5+ as time passed. Without the better results and flexibility of a fast film, I'd have probably given up on photography as an over-rated pastime!

So I've a soft spot for this and Ilford products generally, but, as partickjames says, I guess that the use of several hundred rolls over the years has given me the confidence in using it to make HP5 a favourite film. If Dad had said "use Tri-X", I'm sure that the same would have applied.
 
...and for me the reason I prefer Tri-X over HP5+ is exactly the same as why you prefer it the other way around. Tri-X is the film I grew up with and learned to love at an early age. They're both great films, no doubt.
 

TXT has not been made for some time. TXP is only available in sheet formats. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the OP was discussing roll film, so I assumed that he meant TX.
 
2F/2F said:
I also find that HP5 is contrastier and that it holds the shadows more.
Click to expand...

I should explain this seemingly contradictory statement. When I said "contrastier," I was referring mainly to the shape of the curve, not overall contrast. In other words, HP5 is straighter in both the shadows and the highlights. Therefore, it both hangs on to shadow detail more, and has more biting high tones. Bad choice of words on my part.
 
So my question is, if HP5 has a straight line curve, why are people recommending it for use in high contrast scenes? Wouldn't you want a film with a shoulder to help compress the highlights?
 
brian steinberger said:
So my question is, if HP5 has a straight line curve, why are people recommending it for use in high contrast scenes? Wouldn't you want a film with a shoulder to help compress the highlights?
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. Though the other option with a straight line film is to pull process a little bit.
 
brian steinberger said:
So my question is, if HP5 has a straight line curve, why are people recommending it for use in high contrast scenes? Wouldn't you want a film with a shoulder to help compress the highlights?
Click to expand...

I, for one, didn't particularly recommend HP5 for high contrast scenes. In fact, I said it can easily go overboard with contrast. However, there are two schools of thought on this. One says what you say. In a high contrast scene, you want a film that compresses the high tones. The other says that a straight lined film is actually better for high contrast scenes, as it holds highlight separation and detail better, which can be brought back into the print via manipulation.

I am of both schools of thought, and pick one depending on what I want. I like compressing the high tones a lot of the time, as I appreciate the unrealistic and often graphic look it gives. Sometimes, however, I prefer to have more tonal separation in the high tones.

The other thing is that HP5 does not really have an extremely straight lined curve in the grand scheme of things. It is pretty straight for a good distance up into the high tones, but not as much so as T-Max in the lower tones.
 
2F/2F said:
Neither are particularly forgiving compared to T-Max-type films, but they are forgiving enough for most things.
Click to expand...

Really? I've always thought of it the other way, with Tmax being very picky about proper exposure and development (particularly with regard to blown highlights), and Tri-X being suuuuper forgiving because of its characteristic tone curve.
I'd like to hear more about this.
 
Personally I haven't found T-Max any more or less difficult to work with than Tri-X. But then again, I can read both thermometers AND clocks

Seriously though, my first roll of TMY was just as useable as the roll of Tri-X I had developed before it. I think if you are semi consistent in your development, it's not a hard film to use.
 
So last night I developed a roll of 120 tri-x that I had shot yesterday just for fun in my RF645. I developed the film in ID-11 1:1 for 11 minutes and the film came out beautiful, with just a trace of pink. So as the film was drying I said to myself "well we'll see if they're sharp though," since I've been having problems getting soft negatives with tri-x. Once dried I cut the film, threw them in sleeves and threw them on the light box and they were crisp and sharp! Still not as sharp as HP5, but sharp enough to not be a determining factor to make a decision between the two. So then I got to thinking, what did I do differently this time that I hadn't done before? The answer was I didn't pre-soak the film for 2 minutes before development. That's probably not the real answer, but could it be? Could a pre-soak cause tri-x, or any film to lose shapness or cause mushy grain? I probably just got a bad batch of tri-x at some point, similar to what Tom experienced.
 
I didn't think pre-soaks were recommended these days. Just dump in the developer I thought.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find holding the steel tank in my hands warms it up nicely though I doubt that makes it through to the reels. I've thought of putting one into a shallow water bath but I'm afraid of having an accident and dunking it.

I think the usual advice is to warm up the developer solution a degree or two higher than the stated temperature so that it can cool off a bit in the tank without dropping below the temp needed for the time you are choosing. I sometimes crank the furnace up a bit so that the ambient is perfect and then avoid using any tap water if possible and of course this is only possible in the winter.
 
Brian, have you tried shooting HP5, TMY, and 400TX all of the same scene with the same camera? Just to have a solid baseline in which to compare the 3...
 
Really? I've always thought of it the other way, with Tmax being very picky about proper exposure and development
Click to expand...

With development, well, maybe. I think it's hard to kill it, but the film does respond well to changes in development time/temp. As far as exposure goes, TMAX must be the most forgiving of all films. I use it particularly because you can expose all over the map and still have a negative without tonal distortions from the different exposures...in other words, you have a fully printable negative. The other side of this coin is that the film doesn't do you any favors in terms of compressing the shadow or shoulder. You have to do that with your paper and with D&B. I think this is why some people don't like the look of TMAX...TMAX has no look. It looks perfect. It looks like nothing. You have to give it a look. It allows you the freedom to create any look. But you will always have a negative with very fine grain, good sharpness, and without blocked up tones anywhere, and that's an ideal negative film IMO.

(particularly with regard to blown highlights)
Click to expand...
That depends on your definition of blown.

If by 'blown' you mean the highlights may extend up beyond the range of your printing paper, then yes, TMAX will do that to you. It does not compress tones for you. However you will find that you can bring those highlights back down with burning or with the proper contrast paper, and there will be detail there.

If by "blown" you mean that the have been compressed by the film shoulder to the point where they have poor detail/separation, then no, TMAX is very resistant to that kind of blockup.
 
Tim Gray said:
Brian, have you tried shooting HP5, TMY, and 400TX all of the same scene with the same camera? Just to have a solid baseline in which to compare the 3...
Click to expand...

Tim, yes I plan on starting this weekend. First I'm going to run EI/dev time tests to get EIs and times for each film, then I plan to go shoot same scenes side by side since I have 2 Mamiya 6's. So maybe the shooting part next weekend...
 
Cool. It's a fun process. I did a half-assed version of it and was surprised at how much I like TMY.
 
Brian, I will be very interested to see what your test shows this weekend. I like Tri-X and HP5. To me HP5 seems to give an every so slightly more silvery image where Tri-x has a hint of warmth...if that makes sense???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register