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

[brian steinberger]

Ok, this is where I'm at. I'm still at odds after Neopan 400 was discontinued. After a toss up between Delta 400 and HP5 I decided I liked HP5 better, but not love it. Now I'd like to hear from my fellow photographers with experience using HP5 and Tri-x (TXT) and tell how they're different and also how they're similar. I know I can go shoot them and see for myself, and I have, and will continue more testing, but it's always nice to hear what others see in their own photography.

I'd like to settle on one of these two films as my main film. I like FP4 too but I'd like more grain as I'm shooting 6x6 and not enlarging very much. A 400 speed film is also nice for hand held work. So, how do they handle in different lighting, what about curves, grain, tonality, sharpness, push-ability.. etc ??? I'm interested in the 120 versions of these two emulsions. BTW.. I develop in ID-11 1:1.

This is not an HP5 vs. Tri-x thread and I don't want it to become that.

 

[erikg]

You are asking for comparisons but you don't want it to be HP-5 vs. Tri-x thread? Good luck with that. Only way to really know is to shoot them both under the same situations and then look for differences. I went through this and ended up choosing TMY, but I think all of the 400 speed films behaved decently in 120. It's just a matter of taste for me.

 

[Athiril]

Tri-X is great, if I could choose 2 films it'd be FP4+ and Tri-X.

I haven't used much HP5+ and would like to see if its as flexible as Tri-X for me as I can get it at half the cost of Tri-X in 120.

 

[brian steinberger]

You are asking for comparisons but you don't want it to be HP-5 vs. Tri-x thread? Good luck with that. Only way to really know is to shoot them both under the same situations and then look for differences. I went through this and ended up choosing TMY, but I think all of the 400 speed films behaved decently in 120. It's just a matter of taste for me.

I mean I don't want it to turn into a heated debate between those who love Tri-x vs. those who love HP5. I just want to explore the differences and similarities.

Can you explain what made you choose TMY over HP5 and Tri-x?

 

[brian steinberger]

Ok well I'll start then. These are the differences I see between these two films:

- HP5 is sharper. I should say more so that Tri-x appears not very sharp in my experience
- Grain is very similar, HP5 maybe a touch grainier
- Tri-x has a more pleasing tonality
- Tri-x pushes better
- Tri-x film is left with a purplish cast, is curlier, and is physically thinner than HP5

I guess my main problem with Tri-x is that when I have a HP5 negative alongside a Tri-x negative both developed in ID-11 1:1 the Tri-x negative is very soft and the HP5 negative is super sharp under the loupe. And I'm using a Mamiya 6 with lenses that are amazingly crisp. Has anyone else had problems with Tri-x and sharpness? I really like the tonality so much, I just wish I could get a sharp negative like I can with HP5.

 

[tony lockerbie]

I find that HP5 has a little more bite than Tri-X, but I generally prefer the look of TX, and I have no problems with sharpness. Maybe you could try it with Pyro-cat HD as I do, or even Rodinal as you don't mind the grain. Both of these devs will give you better sharpness (acutance) than D76/ID11.
Really both are great films, and we are lucky to have them!

 

[fschifano]

Has anyone else had problems with Tri-x and sharpness? I really like the tonality so much, I just wish I could get a sharp negative like I can with HP5.

Nope.

 

[ntenny]

I'm far from expert, but I've vacillated between the two a bit and may have accidentally learned something in the process.

My impression is that they're more similar than different for "normal" uses, but at extremes---when pushed, or with an unusual range of light in the subject at normal speed---Tri-X tends to higher contrast, and sometimes gives a "grainier" impression. I'm not sure whether the latter is a real difference in grain level or just a grain structure that looks more prominent subjectively.

The strongest difference I see is in Diafine, where Tri-X becomes high-contrast and gritty-looking---the classic "Tri-X in Diafine" look---and HP5 stays relatively "smooth"-looking at the price of a lower effective speed. In practice, this means that I end up using HP5 for street shooting at night---low light, long range of values in the scene, and I'm trying for a result that resembles what the eye sees---and Tri-X for low-light indoor situations where high contrast is acceptable, or for that last stop of effective speed (I find it's good for close to a stop over HP5 in Donald Qualls's "Super Soup" recipe, for instance).

But I have to say, if you told me that I could never use one of them again, I'd be able to make do with the other.

-NT

 

[Athiril]

Ok well I'll start then. These are the differences I see between these two films:

- HP5 is sharper. I should say more so that Tri-x appears not very sharp in my experience
- Grain is very similar, HP5 maybe a touch grainier
- Tri-x has a more pleasing tonality
- Tri-x pushes better
- Tri-x film is left with a purplish cast, is curlier, and is physically thinner than HP5

I guess my main problem with Tri-x is that when I have a HP5 negative alongside a Tri-x negative both developed in ID-11 1:1 the Tri-x negative is very soft and the HP5 negative is super sharp under the loupe. And I'm using a Mamiya 6 with lenses that are amazingly crisp. Has anyone else had problems with Tri-x and sharpness? I really like the tonality so much, I just wish I could get a sharp negative like I can with HP5.

My Tri-X is razor, flat and clear.

 

[clayne]

Tri-X is wicked sharp. One of the best films out there. When the digital kooks come to pry the film from my hands, I'll be holding onto my Tri-X. It's that good.

That being said, all Ilford films are also good.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Ok well I'll start then. These are the differences I see between these two films:

- HP5 is sharper. I should say more so that Tri-x appears not very sharp in my experience
- Grain is very similar, HP5 maybe a touch grainier
- Tri-x has a more pleasing tonality
- Tri-x pushes better
- Tri-x film is left with a purplish cast, is curlier, and is physically thinner than HP5

I guess my main problem with Tri-x is that when I have a HP5 negative alongside a Tri-x negative both developed in ID-11 1:1 the Tri-x negative is very soft and the HP5 negative is super sharp under the loupe. And I'm using a Mamiya 6 with lenses that are amazingly crisp. Has anyone else had problems with Tri-x and sharpness? I really like the tonality so much, I just wish I could get a sharp negative like I can with HP5.

The choice of film is a personal thing, so pick the one you prefer. Kodak films can leave a slight coloured cast if not fixed long enough.
Unless you really need the higher speed, I would stick with FP4 Plus and use a tripod for optimum sharpness.
Rodinal tends to highlight the grain more than ID-11/D-76, 1+1, so that may be worth considering if that's what you're looking for.

 

[Anon Ymous]

@Brian & Keith: Tri-X, just like other Kodak films, can have a magenta cast, even if it is properly fixed. You can wash it and get rid of the cast, you don't even need a sodium sulfite - HCA bath to remove it. Letting them soak for 10-15' in water will remove the dyes.

 

[okto]

Have you shot any TMY? Much closer to Neo400 than HP5 or TX. Neopan and TMY (and Delta) are tabular-grain; HP5 and Tri-X are cubic grain. Very different looks.

 

[MaximusM3]

They can take every film away, as long as they leave me with Tri-X. For as much as I use others, I always go back to it and it NEVER fails to deliver under ANY circumstance. As far as that magenta cast, it does go away after leaving the negs out to light in their sleeves for a day or two (not baking in the sun or anything, just not filed away).

 

[Tom Stanworth]

FWIW I have had TriX 120 that is strangely soft. No bite at all. I thought I was going crazy, but when compared to shots from the same camera (Mamiya 7) on anything else, the impression was still there. Funnily enough it does not seem to translate to soft looking prints. When I compared the resolution under the same loupe from the 120 TXT to the 35mm TXT the 120 was VERY soft looking, yet with my mamiya 7 lenses, there is stunning detail normally. I noted something weird going on with the TXT in 120. I never saw this issue with any other film being used in the same cameras and same developer batches. V odd. Irrespective, HP5 has plenty more acutance than TriX no matter how they are compared. Resolution is about the same, poss better for HP5+, but HP5+ has more obvious grain. Despite the lowish grain of the now old 'New TXT' the actual details is not there. Neopan 400 and D400 are miles ahead of both on resolution

Back to topic, I agree with most of what is here. TriX has to me a much more pleasing tonality for me and pushes very well. HP5+ is amazing if pulled in extreme contrast scenarios. Dont know why, I just find it lovely. With teh demise of Neopan 400, I turned to TXT and will re-explore D400, which altho modern looking, has very high resolution and creamy high values. TXT is becoming a one stop shop with Neopan 1600 going too. Means I can use this film for 200-800 or so in 35mm and 120. Thats useful. I find 35mm HP5+ a bit granular.

 

[BradS]

Tri-X (400TX) VS HP5+

For me they are completely different films. The only thing these two films have in common is the box speed.....and even that is just what is printed on the box. I rate TriX at EI-200 or 250 where as HP5+ seems to me to be a true 400 speed film (maybe even 500).

Their characteristic curves are different too. HP5+ seems to me to be much less contrasty than Tri-X. I like HP5+ when I have to shoot in contrasty light (mid day sun).

I've always found FP4+ and 400TX to be more alike than HP5+ and 400TX. HP5+ is unique.

Frankly, if you're looking for a replacement for Neopan 400, I'd look long and hard at 400TMY (not 4000TX) and maybe, Delta 400.

 

[brian steinberger]

Have you shot any TMY? Much closer to Neo400 than HP5 or TX. Neopan and TMY (and Delta) are tabular-grain; HP5 and Tri-X are cubic grain. Very different looks.

I have shot TMY, plenty of it. I tried hard to make it work. It's super sharp, looked great in Xtol and ID-11. The problem was I just didn't like the way it looked. The tonality wasn't pleasing to me for most subjects.

 

[brian steinberger]

FWIW I have had TriX 120 that is strangely soft. No bite at all. I thought I was going crazy, but when compared to shots from the same camera (Mamiya 7) on anything else, the impression was still there. Funnily enough it does not seem to translate to soft looking prints. When I compared the resolution under the same loupe from the 120 TXT to the 35mm TXT the 120 was VERY soft looking, yet with my mamiya 7 lenses, there is stunning detail normally. I noted something weird going on with the TXT in 120. I never saw this issue with any other film being used in the same cameras and same developer batches. V odd. Irrespective, HP5 has plenty more acutance than TriX no matter how they are compared.

This is exactly what I'm talking about as far as un-sharp Tri-x. Maybe Tom and I just ran into a strange batch of 120 tri-x.

 

[aldevo]

Have you shot any TMY? Much closer to Neo400 than HP5 or TX. Neopan and TMY (and Delta) are tabular-grain; HP5 and Tri-X are cubic grain. Very different looks.

Neopan 400 is not a tabular grain film. Neopan Acros (Fujifilm's ISO 100 offering) does use tabular grain technology.

 

[aldevo]

Tri-X (400TX) VS HP5+

For me they are completely different films. The only thing these two films have in common is the box speed.....and even that is just what is printed on the box. I rate TriX at EI-200 or 250 where as HP5+ seems to me to be a true 400 speed film (maybe even 500).

Their characteristic curves are different too. HP5+ seems to me to be much less contrasty than Tri-X. I like HP5+ when I have to shoot in contrasty light (mid day sun).

I've always found FP4+ and 400TX to be more alike than HP5+ and 400TX. HP5+ is unique.

Frankly, if you're looking for a replacement for Neopan 400, I'd look long and hard at 400TMY (not 4000TX) and maybe, Delta 400.

I agree with your findings. HP5+ is somewhat more forgiving when the light is contrasty while exposing Tri-X below box speed in flat light is more effective at lending it "punch' than the same practice with HP5+.

 

[brian steinberger]

while exposing Tri-X below box speed in flat light is more effective at lending it "punch' than the same practice with HP5+.

Can you elaborate on this?

 

[Mark Fisher]

This is a very strange thread. People seem to have completely opposite experiences. I found that HP5 appeared somewhat less sharp to me, but I think it was more the way it rendered contrast in the mid-tones. At the time, I used D76 (I think). Today, I use tri-x with either xtol (fine grain, sharp) or rodinal (less fine grain, sharp). I actually find Tri-x more like a faster version of FP4 than anything else.

 

[jglass]

The thread is, unfortunately, not strange at all: as usual with these "which film is better" discussions, folks are comparing images made under un-controlled conditions, variables all over the place, failing to distinguish local contrast from sharpness, etc., thus rendering all results inconclusive. You just can't say Tri-x has more punch in flat light than Hp5 unless you're comparing them under EXACTLY the same conditions (and are willing to define "punch"!). We all know this, of course, but if we didn't ignore it, what would we talk about? Canon v. Nikon? MOre of the same.

Lets face it, all these traditional grain films are more alike than different... of course, hair-splitting is what us photo nerds do, right?

 

[Athiril]

Interesting to note the Tri-X and FP4+ combinations being mentioned together frequently since I use these two myself.

 

[Tim Gray]

jglass - agreed.

To throw in my 2 cents though , I've found Tri-X and HP5+ to be more similar than different (in 35mm). I will admit that I've not shot a bunch of HP5+, but the couple times I have, I treated it like I did Tri-X (but adjusted development times according to the XTOL sheet), and it came out looking like Tri-X to me.

I've not found Tri-X to be 'soft', but I have found that TMY resolves noticeably more detail. This was in a side by side comparison of the same scene.