Kinda miffed: Tri-x vs hp5+ in XTOL

[timeUnit]

I recently shot two rolls of Tri-x at EI 800 (on camera) in my Zeiss Ikon (ZM). Developed in XTOL 1+1 20°C, 10 min 30 sec. 1 min init. agitation, then 10 sec / 1 minute. Fix in Hypam 1+4 5 minutes. Wash using Ilford method.

I printed a few frames yesterday and was very surprised to find such fine grain! Print size was 24x30 cm (9.5 x 12 inches). The grain is MUCH finer than I got from HP5+ at EI 400, developing in XTOL.

As I try to avoid Kodak and support Ilford, I'm a bit miffed about these results. Might they be from a shortish developing time? The negs are a bit soft.

On the other hand, the grain I get from HP5+ is very nice, and I miss it a little. It's been a while since I shot HP5+ in 135-format, and my shooting/developing technique has improved, so the results I'm comparing with might be less than stellar.

Anyone having similar or different experiences with Tri-X and HP5?

Thanks!
Henning

 

[m_liddell]

I tried tri-x in xtol 1:1 pushed to 1600 and the grain was absolutley huge! Dev time was 12mins.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've had Tri-X (TX400) developed in Xtol as well, both shot at EI200, 400, 800, and 1600. Least grain at box speed, but the difference wasn't as large as I thought it would be. TXP320 on the other hand is a different story. Don't try pushing that to 800. It really works best at box speed or a little overexposed.

HP5 looks so dang good, regardless of grain, that as soon as I finish my current stash of Tri-X I'll start using Ilford. Did some interior shots with HP5 in medium format, developed in Rodinal. At about 10" square the grain really looks nice. Adds to the image I think, and I used to be allergic to grain.

- Thom

 

[MikeSeb]

I've found--in agreement with theory--that TriX's grain is least in undiluted Xtol. I've used it in up to 1+3 Xtol; that was one roll and I underdeveloped it a bit (accidentally); its grain was surprisingly fine but the look was not optimal. I suspect if I'd developed it fully I'd have had appreciable grain. I don't mind grain; it's what separates film from its silicon-based interlopers!

I use both films; each is lovely in its own way. Henning, not sure why people want to boycott Kodak's products when it makes film as good as Tri-X. Strange that those who want to punish EK for not "supporting" film users (perhaps yours is another reason, Henning, so not beating up on you specifically here) do so by failing to patronize its products, the one thing most likely to ensure EK's further neglect of a declining market. Those users forget that Kodak's only duty to anyone is to offer products people want to buy, to mazimize its owners' return on investment.

 

[timeUnit]

Regarding boycott:

I understand your reasoning, but my personal choice is to use a great product from a company that is committed to the BW market. We even have one of its representatives here on the forum, which I find very nice.

Kodak seems to be a company who does not care about its legacy in the BW world, and I don't see a future in that company. And as you say Kodak are only interested in selling products that the customers want and maximize the owners' profit. I think that's a sad way to run a company. And in my opinion not the only way. Call me an idealist if you want to!

Also: I don't like the purple negs I'm getting from Tri-X.

I not writing this to start an argument, it's just my view on the matter. I respect others' views 100%.

 

[timeUnit]

BTW,

I think it's really sad that Kodak are not so committed to the BW market, because many of their products are/were great. I recently tried a sheet of Elite FB paper, and I loved the Dmax and the sheen on the surface. To damn bad the product was discontinued years ago.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Side by side comparisons of both films have shown me that TriX and HP5 are both wonderful films and I use both without hesitation. There is a slight difference when using the same test setup but not significant to my clients eyes.
Lets give Kodak time to adjust to the *new film world* that we are in and maybe, just maybe they have something up their sleeves that will benifit the black and white world.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you're getting purple negs, you're not fixing enough. Make sure you use an adequate pre-wash, proper development, and fix fully- what that exactly consists of will depend on the fixer you are using. With Kodak Rapid Fixer, I fix films in a 1:3 dilution for 5 minutes.

 

[timeUnit]

Maybe my HP5+ comparison shots are way out regardning development. Much has changed in my technique the last two years. I'll shoot a roll or two of HP5+ at EI 800 and see what I get.

TFC: I have tried to fix longer on Tri-X but the purple is still there. Generally I use Hypam 1+4 for 5 minutes.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

If you're getting purple negs, you're not fixing enough. Make sure you use an adequate pre-wash, proper development, and fix fully- what that exactly consists of will depend on the fixer you are using. With Kodak Rapid Fixer, I fix films in a 1:3 dilution for 5 minutes.

I have had some with a v slight purple to even after fixing to death in fresh solution and it happens. Some Ilford films are the same unlike Fuji all of which are crystal clear (and APX00).

 

[Lee L]

Where I currently live we have atrocious water. It seems to have almost saturation levels of calcium compounds. The first roll of film I developed here had a spiderweb of dried minerals across it. It took me a long time to figure out how to take care of the problem. What solved it was a long final soak in distilled water, somewhere between 30 minutes and an hour, to leach out and disperse the minerals enough to get clean film. I have discovered that this can also leach out most of the antihalation and other dyes in the films I'm using, and leaves me with the most neutral film base I've seen.

Lee

 

[eclarke]

What percentage of Kodak's sales were color film and how much were black and white 10 years ago? What kind of production capacity did Kodak have versus Ilford? I think Kodak is in a spot and just fighting for it's life and if they sell all the black and white film in the world it won't save them. Kodak is a huge company and the shareholders want to be paid...EC

 

[erikg]

Back to the OP: to really be fair you should test each film side by side, same scene, exposure etc. Exposure and subject matter can affect apparent graininess more than one might think. As to purple negs, over-fixing is not the best way, that can cause other problems, just fix for twice the clearing time. Using a hypo-clear and an extended soak as Lee recommends will do the trick much better. In any case, a little purple tint doesn't hurt anything.

 

[MikeSeb]

I not writing this to start an argument, it's just my view on the matter. I respect others' views 100%.

No worries, you have disagreed without being disagreeable in the least.

Kodak seems to be a company who does not care about its legacy in the BW world, and I don't see a future in that company. And as you say Kodak are only interested in selling products that the customers want and maximize the owners' profit. I think that's a sad way to run a company. And in my opinion not the only way. Call me an idealist if you want to!

Unfortunately for you idealists it's the only economically-sensible way to run a company. All the other stuff you allude to may be nice and sound PC, but it has nothing to do with the sole function of a company: making a profit. So Kodak has no moral or ethical obligation to commit corporate suicide by making an excess of unwanted product, and at some point their share of the market becomes too small to service profitably given their investment in infrastructure. No amount of wishing it weren't so will change that economic fact. They may be nearly there already.

I doubt that B&W film will die off entirely; I suspect that there will be more consolidation so that a handful of smaller "boutique" companies buys up Kodak's sold-off film lines and produces them from a right-sized infrastructure base at a sufficient profit to attract and keep investors on board. I just hope that Tri-X is one of those films!

Imagine that--Ilford Tri-X! Ilford Plus-X? (yeah, right!)

As long as we are speculating....

 

[Oldtimer Jay]

Hi All,

I like both films a lot, but in a well controlled comparison I did with all variables held constant, I found that Tri X indeed does have significantly finer grain than HP5 in both Xtol and PMK. If you are not boycotting Kodak and have not used 35MM Tri X since it was re-formulated in the new coating facility a few years back, you will be impressed at what fine grain it has now compared to its earlier version ( with equally nice tonality). A side note is that the same "finer grained than the old formulation" applies to Plus X. It approaches Across 100 in grain size with a different but pleasing tonality.

Cheers,

Jay L

 

[RoBBo]

Over-fixing can easily bleach your negs a bit and NOT get rid of that purple bit.
"If it's still purple you're not fixing enough" is true only to a slight degree with a few films.
Wash, wash, and more wash, if you're using anything that's not a TMax, Delta or Across, then your fix shouldn't be more than 3 minutes (greater dilutions would result of course in longer times of course...) and not more than 5 or 6 minutes for those films.
Final was should be 15 minutes in 'good' water. If you work in a situation like Lee where the entire process your film has had these bad elements introduced into it by the water, then your wash in the 'good' water should be even longer.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Robbo,

Agreed, but some films have a less clear base than others. I use the Ilford wash method but with long stand periods in between and sometimes and extra few tank fulls of water with stand only and this really helps get rid of the dyes, but even still sime just are not as color free as acros, Tmax etc. Once can fix to death as you say, but without the time to allow for diffucion, you just dont get it as clear as it could be.

I agree that new TriX has fine grain. It is less 'salt and pepper' than HP5 I find even if the grain is no much smaller. This results in much less visible specks to my eyes. I just love the look of the new TriX.

 

[timeUnit]

Michael,

Thanks for your nice response!

I believe Kodak saw the conversion to digital too late, and therefore are struggling to survive today. Kodak has made their name by producing great-to-excellent quality film and chemistry in enormous quantities. With the huge drop in consumer film sales they were bound to take a big hit, due to not adapting their production in time. I also believe that given the right attitude and management they can continue to cater to us passionate film users, by adapting production and letting the market settle. This might cost quite a lot initially, but can be worth it in the long run. With the statements I've read from the men in power at Kodak, I'm not betting that they are willing to take the chance on the BW market.

Your reasoning is essentially correct in a strict captialist world, but things need to be seen in longer perspectives. And also, one can definitely run a company that makes lots of money in one area, but lose money in another. My guess is that Kodak made very little profit from pro film sales, and huge profits on consumer film sales.

But in all honesty, I don't know anything about Kodak or economy, I just go with gut feeling. So I might be totally wrong! But the purple on my Kodak negs ain't an illusion! ;-)

 

[timeUnit]

Back on topic:

Nice to see more people see the differences in the new Tri-X compared to HP5+. I actually miss the sharp grain from HP5+. On the other hand, if I'm making big enlargements from 35 mm film, Tri-X might be the way. My HP5+ doesn't hold up that nicely in enlargements bigger than 9x12 (24x30).

 

[Ed Sukach]

To address the TOPIC (remember that?) I would suggest that one considers the film HOLISTICALLY - for all of its characteristics; acutance, tonality, sensitivity in processing etc... and how it "FITS" the work you are doing.
The latter depends greatly on aesthetics ... and I'll be the last one to argue aesthetics.
"Fineness" of grain is one characteristic, but I do not believe it should blind us to all the others.

I believe Kodak saw the conversion to digital too late, and therefore are struggling to survive today.

In retrospect - Kodak suffered a great deal from "Enormous Corporation Inertia" - something like an enormous elephant faced with finally realizing that their audience had been mesmerized by cheap Ballet videos - and trying a desperate attempt to perform "Swan Lake".
How they could have foreseen the future, I don't know. One would question their Market Research Group, if they had one - they were *very* rare in American industry - or how seriously upper management paid attention to them - or whoever performed their function.

Now, the hard-asses (present company COMPLETELY excepted) bring what they feel is a lighting bolt of information, something they assume we didn't already know: "Corporations HAVE to earrn money NO MATTER WHAT!!"
That is, simply put, a GROSS oversimplification. Corporations HAVE to make a profit, but TIME has to be considered; that profit must be sustainable over the long run - well into the future, and morality and ethics are very important to that sustainability.

 

[Harry Lime]

I also had the purple problem with the new Tri-X. Oddly enough that went away when I used Kodak's TMAX fixer (as opposed to Ilford or Nacco fixer)

 

[MikeSeb]

I also had the purple problem with the new Tri-X

Why is purple a "problem" other than a cosmetic one? I process in a Jobo, which adds a 5-minute prewash that gets rid of most of it. The rest is mostly gone after a 4-minute run thru Formulary TF-4 alkaline fixer and a 6-minute wash.

Corporations HAVE to make a profit, but TIME has to be considered; that profit must be sustainable over the long run - well into the future, and morality and ethics are very important to that sustainability.

Exactly! Kodak has realized that its profits from film are not sustainable over the long run as things now stand, and like a lot of companies caught fat and happy by huge technological upheaval, Kodak is trying to figure out what size/kind of company it will be in the 21st century. Clearly, to continue to allocate infrastructure to producing film at 1980's production levels against 2000's demand is corporate suicide.

Corporations are amoral entities, despite the insistence of some upon imposing moral "duties" upon them--often as a prelude to extorting money from them for some currently popular purpose. (Not speaking of anyone on this thread here.) They exist only to organize the efforts of individuals under a legal framework enabling the distribution of returns on investment. The law grants this status in recognition that corporations' economic activities benefit society at large in numerous ways. Corporations have no "moral" duty except to pursue profits within the law.

Morality and ethics are important, strictly speaking, only as they affect the customer's willingness to purchase the company's goods or services; the employee's, to work there; and the shareholders', to purchase its stock. In the long run, companies that behave "responsibility" are more likely to enjoy success in the marketplace, a realization that drives most corporate "good" behavior; but they have no moral or ethical duty to do things extraneous to their mission, like saving baby harp seals or building affordable ice cream sundaes for the treat-less.

I guess I am a hard-ass after all. And perhaps the occasional lightning bolt is helpful if it reminds people of these fundamental truths. The willingness of some (again, present company excepted) to mindlessly blame "big corporations" for all of society's ills until it's time to apportion the carcass just gets under my skin.

 

[rusty71]

I recently shot two rolls of Tri-x at EI 800 (on camera) ...

As I try to avoid Kodak and support Ilford, I'm a bit miffed about these results. Might they be from a shortish developing time? The negs are a bit soft.

Thanks!
Henning

I like Tri-X and HP-5, but they are very different animals. I have always gotten finer grain from Tri-X, and better tonal seperation from HP-5+. Since I usually shoot 400 speed in 120, grain is rarely a problem with either film.
But if I shoot 35mm 400, it's generally Tri-X.

Your logic is rather foggy to me. Kodak is still making black and white film and chemstry. If you like it, buy it and maybe they will keep making it. Why cut off your nose to spite your face? I agree the current Kodak CEO is a moron, and the shareholders pinheads. But I think Monsanto does far more harm in the world than Kodak ever did. If you like Tri-X, buy it. It's not the #1 B&W film in the world for nothing.....

 

[snaggs]

Your logic is rather foggy to me. Kodak is still making black and white film and chemstry. If you like it, buy it and maybe they will keep making it. Why cut off your nose to spite your face? I agree the current Kodak CEO is a moron, and the shareholders pinheads. But I think Monsanto does far more harm in the world than Kodak ever did. If you like Tri-X, buy it. It's not the #1 B&W film in the world for nothing.....

Easy, Kodak DONT want our business, and are actively trying to close it down. They WILL get rid of film as soon as they can, 100% guaranteed.

Ilford WANT to be in the B&W film business. We've lost them once already, so its time to vote with your wallet and insure they stay around. Otherwise they will not be profitable and will vanish. The end result being a very dark future for B&W photography.

Clear the fog?

Daniel.

 

[timeUnit]

snaggs,

Couldn't have said it better myself. That is exactly my stance. And the punch in the grain on HP5+ is a sight for my eyes. Personal (sicko) note: sometimes when the grain is just perfect on a print, I want to eat the print. I'm not joking. I haven't tried it yet, and I think I would be quite disappointed if I did. Still... my tummy rumbles...