Kodak, Ilford, Efke Film Shootout Redux - A More Controlled Experiment

[chuckroast]

I while back, I did a quick and dirty comparison of 400TX and HP5+, but the test conditions were not well controlled. So I decided to be more rigorous about it.

There is a dead fallen tree in a forest preserve near where I live that just lights up with high angle light in the mid-morning to early afternoon. Not only do the dead branches have a lot of detail, so too does the forest behind it.

I tripod mounted a "Baby" Speed Graphic with a 180mm f/5.5 Tele-Arton lens there on two different days.

The first day. I shot old (11/1969) Tri-X and and (2018) HP5+ sheet film the first day. Which was semistand processed for 25 min in D-23 1+9 with 0.5g/l NaOH added to it.

The second day, I took the same two films with me but added Efke PL100M, all of which were semistand processed for 25 min in D-76 1+3.

Although taken on different days, the lighting conditions were essentially the same with bright high sun and clear blue cloudless sky above.

I wanted to see how much difference the developers and films made as regards to sharpness and grain, noting that I was working with out of date/unavailable films in these tests. (I happen to have a fairly large stash of out of date HP5+, PL100M, and Tri-X in 2x3 in my freezer.)

I made 8x10 silver prints from these negatives and roughly matched them for exposure and contrast.

Preliminary findings, subject to revision as I inspect more carefully:

• All things being equal, HP5+ is somewhat less contrasty in this controlled experiment than Tri-X. However, it is possible to get nearly identical print results from the two negatives using split-VC printing and exposure management under the enlarger.
  
  
• The Efke PL100M produced a somewhat thinner negative than the Tri-X and HP5+ did in D-76 semistand development. However, the negative was properly exposed and - again - split VC printing and enlarger exposure management brought the resulting print in line with the other. It's not shocking this negative was different since the emulsion is rated at 1/2 the daylight speed of the other two films. Probably some tuning of the development time might be in order. I care about this, because even though Efke is long out of business, I have tons fo this film in 2x3 in my freezer. Moroever, Adox CHS100II may be a close replacement, so what I figure out or the Efke should translate, at least to get going.
  
  
• I would have expected the ultra-dilute D-23 with lye to produce much sharper outcomes than the D-76 1+3. It did not. The observed sharpness of the final prints is almost indistinguishable between the two developers.
  
  
• Even though this is very old Tri-X out out date as of 11/1969 (Kodak has not made 2x3 sheet film in ages), it seems visibly slightly sharper with less "crunchiness" than HP5+. This is consistent with my less rigorous testing of the films with more recent 35mm emulsions.
  
  
• The prints are still just a tad damp and I need to go look in detail, but the Efke looks like it may have been the sharpest of the lot. This is consistent with my prior use of this film is which has very high acutance out of the box.
  
  
• I did not notice any objectionable grain, but I wouldn't expect to at 8x10.
  
  
• At some point, I'd like to drill into this a bit more and compare, say, Tri-X and Efke against these findings but using HC-110 1:128 and Pyrocat-HDC 1.5:1:200, again using semistand development.

Questions, comments, corrections, complaints, condemnations etc. welcome ...

 

[john_s]

Interesting comparison. The one thing that stands out for me is that the 50+ year old Tri-X did so well!

 

[chuckroast]

Interesting comparison. The one thing that stands out for me is that the 50+ year old Tri-X did so well!

I have generally gotten very good results with old films using semistand development.

The one exception was old Plus-X that had terrible bromide drag when I did this.

I even got good results from Super XX expired in 1961, although the film surface itself was compromised mechanically having been stored all those years. The emulsion stuck together and some of it chipped off. Still, the film was otherwise photographically sound.

 

[pentaxuser]

chuckroast, is it possible to show us the negs and or prints ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[chuckroast]

chuckroast, is it possible to show us the negs and or prints ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I will try to scan some of the prints when they are flattened to share here.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Health warning:

This whole 'test' is so fundamentally flawed for various (rather obvious) reasons to the point that it's essentially irrelevant to anyone other than the tester. Nothing wrong with playing around with various expired materials if that's what makes you happy, but nobody should place any meaningful value whatsoever on the conclusions.

It also needs a title change to make explicit that these are all (very) expired films.

P.S. if you know about the effective real-world shadow speed differences between 400TX and HP5+, all of the confusion about HP5+ supposedly being 'less contrasty' or 'grainier' than pre-2003 400TX makes a whole lot of sense - you're overexposing it. Not a lot to it. Ilford had a commercial interest in getting HP5 to deliver ISO 640 in Microphen.

 

[chuckroast]

OK, some scans.

But first a few notes and caveats:

• Scans are of a small central section of 8x10 workbook prints on an Epson V800.
  
  
• The only post scan processing was to adjust contrast and white/black point as best I could to match the actual look of each print. There was no sharpening or other fiddling.
  
  
• There is no guarantee that you will see what I see because monitors may not match and monitors never properly match reflective print media.
  
  
• Tri-X and HP5+ were rated at EI 250, PL100M at EI 160.
  
  
• Development for both developers used was 3 min prewash, 2 min continuous agitation, 15 sec agitation at around 13 mins, and total development time of 25 min. Processing was in a Kodak 1/2 gal rubber tank with the film suspended vertically from a single pinch clip (Kodak Hanger #6).
  
  
• I did these tests to check my film and way of working. I have hundreds of sheets of 2x3 stashed in a freezer and I want to make sure I get everything I want out them, since they are a non-renewable resource. If this doesn't interest you, do feel free to ignore - it won't hurt my feelings

tl;dr

The actual prints show differences:

• PL100M sharpest followed by Tri-X then HP5+
• The difference in sharpness between Tri-X and HP5+ was more pronounced with D-76 1+3. D-23 1+9+lye showed both to be very sharp.
• Tri-X showed most natural contrast, followed by PL100M, then HP5+
• The Tri-X and PL100M contrast differences were more subtle.
• The HP5+ contrast differences were more obvious
• With very close inspection, the PL100M had the least grain, and the Tri-X and HP5+ were comparable but in no case was it objectionable or visible in the 8x10 work prints.

Tri-X D-23 1+9 0.5g/l NaOH

HP5+ D-23 1+9 0.5g/l NaOH

Tri-X D-76 1+3

HP5+ D-76 1+3

PL100M D-76 1+3