Illford price hike aftermath: Tri-X 320 vs. Tmax 400 vs. HP5+ for pushing

[BetterSense]

The Illford price hike means HP5+ is no longer any cheaper than Tmax or TXP. I need a film for shooting handheld in 4x5, so I'm looking for maximum pushability when the situation calls for it. Because of film holder logistics, I would also like to only shoot one film.

I've steered away from tmax in roll formats because it seems "difficult" compared to say TriX. I believe TMY would have the greatest real speed out of these three, but I have never gotten good results pushing it. Increasing development time doesn't seem to do anything but blow out the brightest highlights. The best I can do is expose it at 800 and develop normally.

I've shot tons of TriX at 1250 developed in Diafine, but I have never shot TXP. Does it have the same magical Diafine affinity as regular TriX? Despite being a "portrait" film, does it do well with everything else too?

I've never shot HP5+ at all. I was really only considering it because it was cheaper than the Kodak films. Now that it's the same price, what's good about it?

 

[2F/2F]

You have answered your own question. You don't like T-Max, you do like Tri-X 400, and HP5 has no cost advantage, so.........use Tri-X 320.

 

[BetterSense]

Only Tri-X 320 isn't the same as 400TX. Notably, based on the box, it's the slowest film of the three and slowness is not really what I'm going for here.

I love some tri-x especially because of its magical diafine affinity...I know I can shoot it at 800-1600(ish-there is no 'ish' with tmax) and magically get printable negatives. Maybe HP5+ is faster than TXP. Maybe I should read more about TXP. Maybe I should consult my 8-ball. But why do that when there's APUG?

 

[Tim Gray]

From what I've read, some people really like the new Tmax 400 pushed.

 

[Colin Corneau]

New TMY is quite different than the old.

Although you say you like regular Tri-X, it meets your needs, price is the same, sooo-ooo....

But if it's experimenting you want to do, fine. HP5+ always pushed very well, although I used it in 35 and 120.

 

[jim appleyard]

Although I like HP-5, I have never pushed it and it's reputed to only go 1 stop, YMMV. I do get EI 1000 out of TXP in Diafine and it doesn't look pushed. I would think EI 1000 would be fast enough for your held-held 4x5 work?

Yes, TXP was/is designed for studio work, but you can do anything esle with, too. It does look different from TX.

 

[Robert Budding]

I assume that you're shooting 135 . . Why push HP5+ when you can just shoot Neopan 1600?

 

[erikg]

"I need a film for shooting handheld in 4x5" ... no neopan in 4x5 that I know of. Maybe in Japan? To really know the answer you have to run your own comparisons, but like 2F/2F said, you have already answered your question.

 

[2F/2F]

I assume that you're shooting 135 . . Why push HP5+ when you can just shoot Neopan 1600?

Why do you assume this when he stated he is shooting 4x5?

Tri-X 320 has the slowest ISO speed of the three, but in all practicality, it won't matter much. This lower ISO rating may simply come from the softer contrast that the film has vs. Tri-X 400. You have already stated that the fastest film of the lot in the low tones is not to your liking in the high tones when pushed. I have to agree. I would only push that film (T-Max) in very flat lighting. It is a champ for that. Of the three, Tri-X 320 will allow you to push the most while blocking up the least. T-Max will allow you to get the most shadow detail. HP5 is kind of like Tri-X in the low tones ("toey"), and kind of like T-Max in the high tones (straight), so you get the worst of both worlds for this application. It also does not have the same spectral sensitivity as Tri-X. (Tri-X's spectral sensitivity, by the way, will also open up your sky-lit shadows a slight bit compared to HP5, which may give you the effect of slightly higher "speed" in the shadows in certain pictures). HP5 is a lovely film (perhaps my favorite film, all things considered), but I would try Tri-X first for what you want to do. Of the three, it has the most latitude and retains the most high-end detail upon pushing.

 

[Ian Grant]

HP5 is an excellent film for hand-held 5x4 work, it's very significantly cheaper than Tri-X or Tmax 400 in the UK (HP5 £50 - 2x 25sheets Tmax 400 £66 for 50 sheets).

It's likely Ilford's US prices are more exchange rate driven while Kodak may well have their own US price rise in the pipeline.

Ian

 

[2F/2F]

I would also say that HP5 is great for hand held 4x5 shooting...but not for pushing two stops, unless the light is pretty flat. I find that it has a good "bite" in the high tones even when developed to normal contrast, while Tri-X 320 lacks this. The OP stated that he does not like the T-Max look in the high tones, and pushed HP5 is much closer to this than pushed Tri-X 320. It is part of why I love the film, but I also love Tri-X. I use both. I wish Tri-X 400 was available in large format sizes. It is not the easiest film to find in medium format either.

 

[Ian Grant]

Have to agree on the pushing, when I used HP5 in 35mm at Rock Concerts the contrast flew up as you pushed it, at that time pre 1980 it was much better for push processing than Tri-X.

If you do push HP5 then Microphen (ID-68) or DD-X are the best developers to use.

Ian