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

[MDR]

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.

But the Question is why HP5+ is great the way it is. More midtones and a longer tonal scale is a plus not a minus imo.

 

[pentaxuser]

Isn't Tri-X a lot different and probably unique? I ask this question based on the newspaper article here on APUG a few days ago. I don't think the journalist was a recognised expert on film admittedly but what he said certainly made it sound "special"

It may be more expensive but I await the follow-up article on why you cannot put a price on that "je ne sais quoi" quality.

I have the odd discomforting flash-back to the "Music Man" and the wonderful Robert Preston who was right there in River City but he did entertain us.

pentaxuser

 

[Chris Livsey]

Talking about Tri-X:

It may be more expensive but I await the follow-up article on why you cannot put a price on that "je ne sais quoi" quality.
pentaxuser

iI see you are UK based, I don't know where you are buying but I'm off to Scotland next week, certainly needs 400, so did a quick check around and bought two bricks each of Hp5+ and Tri-X. I may not have covered every seller but as usual I find these competitive prices in the UK.

Mathers, Bolton free p&p (by value purchased) 135/36
HP5+ £4.40
Tri-X £4.29

Not enough to quibble about, and to reverse the post by AlanW above (there was a url link here which no longer exists) how can the Tri-X be cheaper when I can drive to Mobberley in under an hour (M6 permitting)?

 

[Pioneer]

Great information. I definitely appreciate your input. What I gather from the feedback is that HP5 naturally has a bit less contrast than TriX when developed as recommended. To get more contrast I will probably have to adjust my developing times. I will have to try out some HP5 while I still have a bulk roll or two of TriX to do some comparisons.

I had never thought of using AEU/Foma films in lieu of TriX. I have some lying around so I may have to toy around a bit. In the past I have run into some QC problems like pinholes in their 135 and 120 films. It seems that they must have that cleared up now.

I do realize that TriX is less expensive pre-rolled than in bulk...by a whole $20. That is still $30 more expensive than HP5, which seems ridiculous. There are several reasons where bulk loading makes sense beyond just cost. A LOT less waste for one. I load IXMOO, FILCA and Contax cassettes. I can also load the number of frames I want, not what the manufacturer wants. When I travel I can carry a few reusable cassettes and a bulk roll or two. I can go on but you get the idea.

Again, the feedback has been terrific. Thanks.

EDIT - BTW, this is not so much a cost cutting exercise as it is complete and total disbelief that Kodak has the **lls to charge that much for a bulk roll. It is good film and I am even willing to pay a premium to continue to shoot it. But this is not a "premium." This is more like highway robbery.

 

[pentaxuser]

EDIT - BTW, this is not so much a cost cutting exercise as it is complete and total disbelief that Kodak has the **lls to charge that much for a bulk roll. It is good film and I am even willing to pay a premium to continue to shoot it. But this is not a "premium." This is more like highway robbery.

Yes no-one seems able to explain Kodak's pricing on bulk rolls unless it wants to kill the market. The danger in doing this is that Ilford has no intention of following it so it kills its own market and causes loyal Kodak customers to ask themselves why they should be loyal to a company that can't be bothered to supply them with bulk film at anything except an unwarranted " king's ransom".

A great pity but it's Kodak's funeral as we say in the U.K. Is there the same expression in the U.S.?

pentaxuser

 

[railwayman3]

I've always had a liking for HP5+ (and its ancestors)....in my early days as a schoolboy snapshotter, I'd had some grotty results from some kind of cheap film and was ready to give it up as an over-rated pastime, when my Dad gave me a roll of 120 HP3, "try this, you won't go far wrong". I never looked back, and have always regarded the HP films as a go-to choice for a days shooting if the weather's a bit mixed and I need to be able to cover a variety of subjects.

I know with HP5+ that it's more or less a bullet-proof film that will give me what I want....OTOH, I sometimes think about exploring Tri-X more and whether I might get more pictorial results like the master photographers who used it. But I get the impression that it might take more careful nursing of exposure and processing with Tri-X to aspire to the best results, while I could perhaps just chuck a roll of HP5+ into a bucket of developer, and it would work fine!

Just my thoughts.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak charges more for bulk loads than Ilford because most likely it costs Kodak more to make small runs, on different equipment then it costs Ilford.

If you were buying motion picture length volumes, it would most likely cost more to buy Ilford.

A huge percentage of the costs of what we buy relate not to the actual production of the film, but instead the cutting, edge marking, packaging and labeling.

When volumes are high (like for individual rolls) those costs can be spread over more product.

 

[ColColt]

I didn't care for HP-5 over Tri-X when I first tried it but, that was way back in the late 70's-early 80's. I was using mostly ID-11 Plus then or D76 1:1. Over time I found I liked HC-110 better for Tri-X and then used Rodinal with HP-5 but didnt like the grain and tonal range.

Fast forward to the last year or so and having been introduced to HC-110 using Dilution H and you've got a different ballgame with both. I've been happy using either film with this developer/dilution but have to give an edge to HP-5 but I wouldn't buy one over the other just because of cost. I don't bulk load, never have. I just get the 24 or 36 exposure rolls and load 'em up.

Bottom line-they're both great films but, I'd toss both to have a few bricks of Agfapan 400 once again.

 

[NB23]

HP5 is the real men's choice.

Manly, ready to go to war, can shoot nudes like it's nobody's business.

Pushes extremely well. Looks best at iso 800.

I asked my wife to pitch my leica bodies, lenses and many rolls of HP5 in my coffin, all over my body, when I'll get burried. And a bottle of JD.

 

[ColColt]

Take a picture of the devil. I'd like to know what that dude looks like.

 

[NB23]

I think I'm supposed to go to heaven...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think I'm supposed to go to heaven...

I firmly believe that only happens if you shoot Hasselblad 6x6.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Heaven IS shooting 6x6 Hasselblad

 

[Sirius Glass]

See I told you so!

 

[railwayman3]

I firmly believe that only happens if you shoot Hasselblad 6x6.

Or make and project movies on 70mm film (ideally with a carbon arc lamphouse, as God decreed)....

 

[Dismayed]

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

Odd. I've found that HP5+ responds very well to differing development times.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

For HP5+ I had to add 15% to the time in the Jobo processor and replenished XTOL to get the contrast to be compariable with Tri-X and other films.

 

[bascom49]

Yes no-one seems able to explain Kodak's pricing on bulk rolls unless it wants to kill the market. The danger in doing this is that Ilford has no intention of following it so it kills its own market and causes loyal Kodak customers to ask themselves why they should be loyal to a company that can't be bothered to supply them with bulk film at anything except an unwarranted " king's ransom".

A great pity but it's Kodak's funeral as we say in the U.K. Is there the same expression in the U.S.?

pentaxuser

Does anyone have any actual data on Kodak's profit margin of their products ?

From a personal standpoint there are products in the marketplace that have no peer that I enjoy and am willing to pay for.
Velvia and Tri-X to name a couple.

To not buy Kodak Tri-X because of a perception that Kodak is taking advantage of you does not seem like a rational basis for picking Kodak over Ilford.

 

[Pioneer]

Does anyone have any actual data on Kodak's profit margin of their products ?

From a personal standpoint there are products in the marketplace that have no peer that I enjoy and am willing to pay for.
Velvia and Tri-X to name a couple.

To not buy Kodak Tri-X because of a perception that Kodak is taking advantage of you does not seem like a rational basis for picking Kodak over Ilford.

If I were in the midst of a big project and had started with TriX I would agree with you and buy enough to finish my project.

I like Kodak and I shoot a lot of their film. On my last buy I picked up 20 bulk rolls of 100 TMAX. That cost $1400 plus or minus a dime or two. It was a bit pricey but still not way out of line based on Delta 100 prices. Now it is time to do the same with TriX. Big difference this time. Either I pay $2200 for 20 rolls of TriX or I pay $1140 for HP5+. Based on your rationale it would appear that Kodak can continue to charge twice the going price for their bulk film. I am curious then, how much higher should they go? Don't forget, you can still buy 36 exp rolls of TriX for $4.95 per roll. In other words the pre-rolled film is actually priced less than their bulk film.

That is part of the reason for my OP. As a part of my workflow I use a lot of bulk film. It would appear by their pricing policies that Kodak is attempting to price themselves out of the bulk film market. Since Ilford seems to be willing to sell their bulk film for about 50% of the Kodak price, why not support Ilford?

HP5+ is a traditional style film with a film speed of ISO400. What makes TriX different than HP5+? Grain...Contrast? Those two things can be adjusted in development. Even more can be done during printing. It would appear the quality control is not an issue.

So perhaps TriX does have a peer, at least for my purposes. You are probably right about Velvia though.

 

[wblynch]

Everyone makes Tri-X out to be the holy grail of black and white film.

I guess Kodak believed you all and decided the holy grail was worth holy grail prices.

Personally I don't get on with Tri-X at all and wondering what to do with the 40 loaded rolls I've got of the stuff.

Now Neopan 400, that stuff is delicious and I still adore Fomapan 400 so I guess there's no accounting for taste.

Only tried HP-5+ once and liked it quite well. In the context of this thread I'm sure I would choose the Ilford.

 

[images39]

I'll offer up my experience. When I used to shoot both Tri-X and HP5 (35mm), I would rate them both at box speed and develop them both in D-76 per the Ilford/Kodak times. In doing that, HP5 was consistently more grainy. When I switched to having a lab process my film (in XTOL), it was the same thing, HP5 noticeably more grainy. That may be fine, depending on your taste, but to me the HP5 grain was a bit excessive for the look I wanted in my prints. I realize that you can reduce the grain by rating at a lower ISO and reducing development time, but I'm just saying that rated at box speed and developed per manufacturer's recommendations, HP5 was more grainy. So I standardized on Tri-X, and have been happy with that. I haven't tried HP5 in medium format, but have some 120 HP5 and will try that.

Another thing... I've never tried pushing HP5 to 1600, but have shot several rolls of Tri-X at 1600 and have been surprised at how well it pushes.

Just my experience, but it all comes down to what aesthetics appeal to you...

Dale