Kodak TriX or Ilford HP5+ -- How alike are they?

[Pioneer]

Ooof, I am just about out of TriX so I went to BHPhoto to see how much it was going to cost to redo my stock.

Holy Maloney!! I can see now why Kodak is feeling fat and happy and does not feel as though they will stop making film anytime soon! A 100 foot roll of TriX is $110!

So, I checked into Ilford's HP5+, which is purported to be a similar film. A 100 foot roll costs $57.95. That is way, way, way, way (how many "ways" should I type here?) better than the cost of TriX.

So, my question for the gurus. Just how similar is HP5+ to TriX. Right now I either mix up D23 or D76 to develop my TriX and have been very happy with the results. If I move to HP5 am I going to have to change my process drastically or can I leave it pretty much the same?

Sorry, I would love to continue to use TriX, and I do understand that Kodak needs our support. But I am having serious trouble understanding why it has to be twice as much per 100 feet as HP5.

 

[02Pilot]

I went through exactly the same calculation a while back. I switched to HP5+ and haven't looked back. I develop exclusively in Caffenol, and with it I have found the Ilford product to actually be a bit less grainy than Tri-X. HP5+ doesn't curl, which makes it nicer to handle as well. Both HP5+ and FP4+ are really nice products, and I have no complaints. HP5+ even pushes to 1600 reasonably well, though I think Tri-X may still have an edge in this regard.

 

[juan]

I've never been able to get the contrast out of HP5 that I do from Tri-X - that said, I'm in Florida, which has different light.
BTW, the last time I checked it was cheaper to buy 18 individual rolls of Tri-X than to buy a 100' roll.
juan

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Well both are ISO 400 films. 400TX is the more modern emulsion. It incorporates technology used for T-grain films although not in itself a T-grain film. The latest Tri-X emulsion is finer grained than any other ISO 400 film including Ilford HP-5+.

 

[Roger Cole]

I've never been able to get the contrast out of HP5 that I do from Tri-X - that said, I'm in Florida, which has different light.
BTW, the last time I checked it was cheaper to buy 18 individual rolls of Tri-X than to buy a 100' roll.
juan

That last part - I gave up bulk loading a considerable time ago. Even in the less expensive films I didn't save enough to make it worthwhile to me (that's an individual thing, of course) and in Kodak, forget it. But bought in preloaded 35mm or in 120 the prices are close enough to just use whichever you prefer without considering price. Sheets tilt the field WAY (etc. etc.) back toward Ilford.

Well both are ISO 400 films. 400TX is the more modern emulsion. It incorporates technology used for T-grain films although not in itself a T-grain film. The latest Tri-X emulsion is finer grained than any other ISO 400 film including Ilford HP-5+.

Really? Finer grained than TMY-2?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Really? Finer grained than TMY-2?

You really cannot compare TMY and TX they are entirely different classes of emulsions. I was speaking of more "conventional" emulsions.

I must admit to a certain amount of blindness with respect to T-grain and Delta type films. I don't like them and never use them. So I often fail to consider them in discussions.

 

[gzhuang]

Ilford over Kodak anytime for half the price. Kodak's recent pricing is near extortion.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Negatives are not similar, prints, it depends. I printed from HP5+ @1200-1600 negatives and it is just fine.

 

[BradS]

Aside from their box speeds, Tri-X and HP-5+ are not similar at all. Look at their curves and spectral responses.

 

[Roger Cole]

You really cannot compare TMY and TX they are entirely different classes of emulsions. I was speaking of more "conventional" emulsions.

I must admit to a certain amount of blindness with respect to T-grain and Delta type films. I don't like them and never use them. So I often fail to consider them in discussions.

Actually - if you tried TMY-2 you'd find that for the most part it's more like TXT than it is different. A BIT different, granted. I don't like it as much in 35mm and 120 either, though I like it "ok" and really like it in 4x5 since I can tailor development per sheet. You can certainly compare them. They are both 400 speed black and white negative films and developed to the same contrast and printed at less than, say, 6x magnification, I'd bet most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

[summicron1]

In my own test HP-5 does not push to 1600 as well as Tri-X does, and I do that a lot, so I said the heck with it and bought a cupla bricks of Tri-x. Look at Adorama, last I checked theirs was cheaper, but the difference between bulk and rolled was not a huge amount.

 

[Roger Cole]

Aside from their box speeds, Tri-X and HP-5+ are not similar at all. Look at their curves and spectral responses.

That may be, but shoot the same subject in the same light and develop to the same contrast in the same developer and then print on the same paper and those differences become largely academic.

I think TXT is slightly finer grained but the difference is not huge.

 

[markbarendt]

HP5 is fun.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Aside from their box speeds, Tri-X and HP-5+ are not similar at all. Look at their curves and spectral responses.

Their spectral sensitivity is far more similar than you think it is. You see, Kodak's spectral sensitivity chart is an "equal energy" one, meaning that neutral light was used for the spectral sensitivity test. Ilford's on the other hand is made with 2850K Tungsten light, which has far more red light than blue light. Obviously, the red end of the chart would be boosted, while the blue end would be compressed, giving an impression of a fairly equal sensitivity across the spectrum. That's not true, it's quite more blue sensitive, just like most of the films.

Ilford used to publish better datasheets in the 90s, but strangely they decided to dumb them down. They used to include both an "equal energy" and a "2850K Tungsten light" chart. Bellow you can see the charts for both films, do you think they are very different?



The characteristic curve is to a large extent a matter of developer used and agitation scheme. Likewise, the older datasheet had a characteristic curve for HP5+ developed in ID11. If you compare it to Tri-X developed in D76, you'll notice that both are S shaped, a mild S shape actually.

 

[gone]

They look quite different to me, at least the way that I shoot. You're right about the scary Tri-X prices. It's a great film, but that is just too much money, so I learned to love Arista EDU Ultra films. They're as cheap as you can find, have excellent consistency, and once I decided on a developer and a found the right routine, it's been a good experience.

 

[Vilk]

having shot several hundred rolls of each, i would never be able to tell now, which was which just by looking at the prints. same for DD-X, ID-11 and D76, all of which i used to develop the two. the lighting of the scene--and the scene itself--has always been way... oops! more important for the result (sorry, was never enough of a grain peeper to shoot the same scene six times to compare the different pairings)

still, that did not prevent me in the past for posting in favour or against any of the six combinations!

 

[removed account4]

Ooof, I am just about out of TriX so I went to BHPhoto to see how much it was going to cost to redo my stock.

Holy Maloney!! I can see now why Kodak is feeling fat and happy and does not feel as though they will stop making film anytime soon! A 100 foot roll of TriX is $110!

So, I checked into Ilford's HP5+, which is purported to be a similar film. A 100 foot roll costs $57.95. That is way, way, way, way (how many "ways" should I type here?) better than the cost of TriX.

So, my question for the gurus. Just how similar is HP5+ to TriX. Right now I either mix up D23 or D76 to develop my TriX and have been very happy with the results. If I move to HP5 am I going to have to change my process drastically or can I leave it pretty much the same?

Sorry, I would love to continue to use TriX, and I do understand that Kodak needs our support. But I am having serious trouble understanding why it has to be twice as much per 100 feet as HP5.

hi dan

i felt the same way about big k's film.
last time i bought in bulk it cost 65 shipped from b/h for 100 sheets ( 4x5)
now it's something like 250 shipped for 100 sheets.
i switched to ilford's offerings and couldn't be happier
i am sure a box or 2 tested and developed for your own
sweet-spot film speed and development will allow you to compare the 2 films.
i'm guessing you might like what it does, but maybe you won't ..

 

[Alan W]

I use HP 5 and Tri-x.It doesn't matter to me which one I use anymore-they are too similar to differentiate for me.It is strange that HP5 can be shipped to New York and have a cheaper price tag than a product made "down the road",so to speak.

 

[mdarnton]

I think that with anything you can name there will be people who see differences that don't exist and those who don't see differences that do exist, so the only right answer here is to do your own test and decide for yourself.

After decades of using Tri-X I've been jumping around trying all of the various EI 400 films. Most of them work OK for me in spite of their differences.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

In my own test HP-5 does not push to 1600 as well as Tri-X does, and I do that a lot...

Those are 8x10 prints from HP5+ @1600. What is missing?

 

[ME Super]

I've never been able to get the contrast out of HP5 that I do from Tri-X

juan

This is precisely why I like HP5+ better than Tri-X. HP5+ has lower contrast, so I can see more details in the (machine) prints, but the prints aren't flat or muddy by any stretch.

 

[BradleyK]

I use HP 5 and Tri-x.It doesn't matter to me which one I use anymore-they are too similar to differentiate for me.It is strange that HP5 can be shipped to New York and have a cheaper price tag than a product made "down the road",so to speak.

+1. I use the two interchangeably as well, and have done so for several decades. My observations (subjective, of course): 1. The current iteration of Tri-X seems to have marginally finer grain; 2. HP5+, to my eyes, bears an uncanny resemblance to the early 1980s iteration of Tri-X in terms of its granularity and tones; 3. HP5+ dries much, much flatter after processing than Tri-X; 4. Modern Tri-X has a slight purple hue post-processing.

Those observations aside: 1. With my Nikons, I use a nominal rating for Tri-X of ISO 200, and for HP5+, ISO 250; 2. For "pushing," I think Tri-X "looks better" at 1600 than does HP5+ (That said, I love the look of HP5+ at ISO 1000 - being subjective, here, folks); 3. If I have to push beyond 1600, I either stick with Tri-X or use Delta 3200. Note that, I have yet to ever attempt stand development; normal processing, is either D76 or ID11 and "push processing" has generally been with Diafine.

 

[MDR]

Tri-X is more contrasty, HP5+ has more midtones than Tri-X if you want more oomph Kodak Tri-X is the choice if you want subtle and like your midtones (greys) HP5 is the choice. As for grain very little difference they are both not that grainy. The way you print the neg will have more impact on the final look of the image than the slight differences between those films. Either Film is great.

 

[Roger Cole]

If your Tri-X is more contrasty develop your HP5 longer and that difference will disappear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[John Bragg]

+1 for HP5+ and Tri-X interchangability, at least in HC-110. I could easily use either and be happy. Minor differences are HP5+ has more shadow detail and holds highlights better. Would choose it over Tri-X for long scale subjects. Tri-X has smoother grain but less bite. Modern Tri-X is closer to Tmax than the last iteration. Uk pricing is almost the same if you shop around. In the long run, my photos look like "my photos" no matter which I use. I was extremely lucky with dialing in HP5+ and havent changed a thing since my first SWAG (SCIENTIFIC WILDASS GUESS).