It can't be cheaper unless there is something different (inferior) about it. Otherwise, why make HP5+?
Films aren't monolithic. Different films have different characteristics, and the various characteristics have different levels of significance for different users in differing usages.
Otherwise why make Hp5+ and Delta 400 and Kentmere 400?
Or for that matter, T-Max 400 and Tri-X 400?
Kentmere 400 is superior to HP5+ if its relative economy and less effective anti-halation and excellent availability better meet someone's needs.
Films aren't monolithic. Different films have different characteristics, and the various characteristics have different levels of significance for different users in differing usages.
Otherwise why make Hp5+ and Delta 400 and Kentmere 400?
Or for that matter, T-Max 400 and Tri-X 400?
Kentmere 400 is superior to HP5+ if its relative economy and less effective anti-halation and excellent availability better meet someone's needs.
Sharpness/fineness of grain:
1. Kodak T-Max 400 II
2. Ilford Delta 400
3. Tie: Ilford HP5+ / Kodak Tri-X
4. Kentmere? I don't know exactly, but I am sure it is inferior to the films above.
I am more and more leaning towards TriX
I don't understand Ilford pricing
For much better film, at the next price bracket, I am more and more leaning towards TriX, which I'm finding (in my own workflow, for my own needs) a superior film to HP5+ in all ways, and a noticeably different film all other variables being the same.
I am in fact puzzled by people reporting HP5+ to be largely equivalent to TriX. Must be again a question of "poor user tolerances" as discussed above by some. Or perhaps historical opinions by people using older versions of TriX.
That's a distributor problem, not a Harman problem. K400 in 120 should be around 75% of HP5+ price, and in 135/36 about 60% of HP5+.
No, but you are illustrating the point about baseline technical competence failures rather well, just not in the way you might want to.
Under your exposure conditions, Tri-X's useful shadow speed is about right for what you think it should look like. That's where most of your errors of comparison are coming from. Tri-X today is aimed to look like what people think Tri-X should look like when exposed at 400, HP5 (and HP5+) were intended to beat Tri-X for useful speed, thus when you use them under identical exposure conditions, you are effectively driving your exposure up the scale on HP5+ and making it look grainier and somewhat flatter in rendering. K400, because of side-effects of its lower cost construction, has a higher useful shadow speed than might be assumed, at a cost elsewhere (it's not as sharp, grainier than HP5+ etc and a noticeably lower image content capture/ transmission capacity). All things being equal, simply by adjusting exposures, you can make Tri-X and HP5+ look like what people assume/ claim the other must look like, but in absolute terms at larger scale enlargement or with high quality scanning, current Tri-X has slightly better granularity/ or at least 'cleaner' grain than HP5+, and HP5+ has slightly later highlight roll-off and a bit more of the grit (without as much of the image detail loss) that people used to associate with Tri-X. I use a lot of K400 in 120, but if you really think it's indistinguishable from current HP5+, then that's more about your equipment/ process/ practice limitations being inside the limits of K400, and not being able to address all of HP5+'s capacity.
That's a distributor problem, not a Harman problem. K400 in 120 should be around 75% of HP5+ price, and in 135/36 about 60% of HP5+.
No, but you are illustrating the point about baseline technical competence failures rather well, just not in the way you might want to.
Under your exposure conditions, Tri-X's useful shadow speed is about right for what you think it should look like. That's where most of your errors of comparison are coming from. Tri-X today is aimed to look like what people think Tri-X should look like when exposed at 400, HP5 (and HP5+) were intended to beat Tri-X for useful speed, thus when you use them under identical exposure conditions, you are effectively driving your exposure up the scale on HP5+ and making it look grainier and somewhat flatter in rendering. K400, because of side-effects of its lower cost construction, has a higher useful shadow speed than might be assumed, at a cost elsewhere (it's not as sharp, grainier than HP5+ etc and a noticeably lower image content capture/ transmission capacity). All things being equal, simply by adjusting exposures, you can make Tri-X and HP5+ look like what people assume/ claim the other must look like, but in absolute terms at larger scale enlargement or with high quality scanning, current Tri-X has slightly better granularity/ or at least 'cleaner' grain than HP5+, and HP5+ has slightly later highlight roll-off and a bit more of the grit (without as much of the image detail loss) that people used to associate with Tri-X. I use a lot of K400 in 120, but if you really think it's indistinguishable from current HP5+, then that's more about your equipment/ process/ practice limitations being inside the limits of K400, and not being able to address all of HP5+'s capacity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?