Tri-X @ 800 & HP5+ @ 800

[Jessestr]

Hi all

I'm used to shoot Tri-X since I ever started with film photography. Never tried anything else except for a few rolls of HP5+, Delta etc.. but not for serious stuff.
So I love how Tri-X looks in HC-110 dil B @ 6:30 with gentle agitation every minute.

But I have no love for Kodak anymore and I'm mostly a b/w shooter so I was wondering how HP5+ feels like? Does it handle like Tri-X?

I shoot Tri-X @ 400 & 800 and just develop for 400 so no pushing, just losing the shadows and I loveeee the look, but is HP5+ capable of doing this? I'd like to stick with HC-110..
There's just no better formula for portraits in my opinion.

 

[NB23]

Why "no love for kodak anymore" if you "loooooove" the look? Just trying to understand.

Yeah, HP5 pushes exceptionally well.

 

[Jessestr]

Why "no love for kodak anymore" if you "loooooove" the look? Just trying to understand.

Yeah, HP5 pushes exceptionally well.

Because Kodak made good film in the past, but the company Kodak with it's philosophy about film makes me sad. So I don't want to give my money on a company like that, but rather to Ilford who still love making film.

And thanks! But is it also able to just underexpose a stop and not edit dev times and keep the saming good looking images as Tri-X would give, just wiht a stop less shadow?

 

[RattyMouse]

Because Kodak made good film in the past, but the company Kodak with it's philosophy about film makes me sad. So I don't want to give my money on a company like that, but rather to Ilford who still love making film.

Ilfotec HC can replace your Kodak HC-110 easily.

 

[Terry Christian]

Jesse, you'll have to extend your development time a little, but HP5+ will handle the push very well and is very similar to Tri-X. One stop is easy; it is only with two or more stops that you'll start to see a real difference, but it can certainly be done! Good luck!

 

[NB23]

I think it's wrong logic. If we keep on buying it, they won't stop making it.

Hp5 is amazing @800 and 1600 in hc110. Try it and believe it.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Questions like this are hard, since peoples' tastes - and development techniques - are so individual and hard to truly convey via text/online.

The only real answer is for you to try HP5+, with your methods and your gear, and see what YOU think.

The only answer I can give is, HP5+ does push very well. The difference between 400 and 800, to my eye, is minimal and really is almost just a slightly contrastier, "snappier" looking image.

If you're that determined to say sayonara to Kodak, then I guess the only real move is to pick up a few rolls of Ilford and get to work.

 

[Xmas]

It depends on

-how you print
-how you judge shadows

Not the ISO number

HP5+ (& Kentmere400) have a different toe shape from Tx.

Kodak are about to say goodbye anyway...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Because Kodak made good film in the past, but the company Kodak with it's philosophy about film makes me sad. So I don't want to give my money on a company like that, but rather to Ilford who still love making film.

And thanks! But is it also able to just underexpose a stop and not edit dev times and keep the saming good looking images as Tri-X would give, just wiht a stop less shadow?

If you take that attitude then you will have to avoid Fuji because the market has forced them to cut back. Ilford had also cut some lines for the same reason. You are helping eliminate all the film companies, is that what you really want?

If you will swallow your pride, use Kodak XTOL in the replenished method for increased ISO, finer grain, smoother tonality, and more shadow detail with both Tri-X and HP5+. You will be glad you did.

 

[Jessestr]

If you take that attitude then you will have to avoid Fuji because the market has forced them to cut back. Ilford had also cut some lines for the same reason. You are helping eliminate all the film companies, is that what you really want?

If you will swallow your pride, use Kodak XTOL in the replenished method for increased ISO, finer grain, smoother tonality, and more shadow detail with both Tri-X and HP5+. You will be glad you did.

I'm avoiding Fuji too. I only support companies who show real love for film. I don't want to use XTOL, I've used it, it's good for street work etc not for portraits and I don't want the shadow detail, I want great mids, which are easy to get with HC-110 and get the classy feel!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

XTOL is a wonderful developer, the shadow detail means you have a good effective film speed. You can adjust the tonal representation in printing, I'd rather have the information on the film to start with. T-Max 400 should also give very good results at "800".

Tom

 

[skysh4rk]

I'm avoiding Fuji too. I only support companies who show real love for film.

There is no company that produces film purely out of love; these companies will only produce and support film as long as we continue to buy it.

I might disagree with some decisions made by Kodak or Fuji, but I can't see how avoiding them helps any film user in the long run.

 

[Jessestr]

There is no company that produces film purely out of love; these companies will only produce and support film as long as we continue to buy it.

I might disagree with some decisions made by Kodak or Fuji, but I can't see how avoiding them helps any film user in the long run.

Again not true... Have you read the interview I did with Adox few months ago? They make loss on every roll they make, they have to compensate it with paper. They do it because of love for film.
If Ferrania wouldn't love film, they wouldn't start their company again..

But hey, it's my point of view. If I want Ilford....

 

[skysh4rk]

Again not true... Have you read the interview I did with Adox few months ago? They make loss on every roll they make, they have to compensate it with paper. They do it because of love for film.

If you want to use Ilford, then fair enough. I think it's terribly naive, however, to expect Fuji, Kodak, or any company to produce film at a loss.

Even if Adox are losing money on film sales, I'm assuming that it's only to bolster sales of their other core products (e.g., paper and chemicals) in much the same way many supermarkets actually lose money on bread and milk.

If Ferrania wouldn't love film, they wouldn't start their company again..

If it didn't make business sense, they wouldn't be starting again. If they don't do enough business, they will end again.

Love doesn't pay the bills, even if it does make the work day go by faster.

 

[gone]

"Love doesn't pay the bills, even if it does make the work day go by faster".

Especially if you can run home for a nooner.

I would take whatever was said in that interview w/ a grain of salt. Making products at a loss is a lousy business model. I support Kodak by buying their products, and they have some of the finest photographic chemicals and films in the world. Bad business decisions forced them into bankruptcy, and to their credit they were able to spin off the film business into another company that continues making the products. They didn't have to do that. They simply could have sold the patents to someone else that may or may not have continued the production, marketing and quality control. For what it's worth, HP5 is a good film, but it ain't Tri-X.

 

[Nuff]

"Love doesn't pay the bills, even if it does make the work day go by faster".

Especially if you can run home for a nooner.

I would take whatever was said in that interview w/ a grain of salt. Making products at a loss is a lousy business model. I support Kodak by buying their products, and they have some of the finest photographic chemicals and films in the world. Bad business decisions forced them into bankruptcy, and to their credit they were able to spin off the film business into another company that continues making the products. They didn't have to do that. They simply could have sold the patents to someone else that may or may not have continued the production, marketing and quality control. For what it's worth, HP5 is a good film, but it ain't Tri-X.

Threads like this make me wonder if the people who post them actually work for free or even give the companies they work for money out of love? How do they pay their own bills? Why would they expect companies to be any different?

To me it sounds like this southpark episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts

 

[flavio81]

HP5+ not only works at ISO 800, but I find it that it works wonderfully well pushed to ISO 1600. They could re-brand it as "Ilford Pan 1600" if they wanted to! It is an extremely versatile film, sharp and with good tonality. However for ISO 400 i prefer Ilford Delta 400, which is sharper and finer grained, and with very nice tones.

As for Tri-X, i have not used Kodak Tri-X in a long time because in my country it is ridiculously expensive, but according to this test, the current Tri-X ("400TX") is very very similar to HP5+:

http://www.pirate-photo.fr/pages/viewpage.php?f=51&t=35

 

[NB23]

Again not true... Have you read the interview I did with Adox few months ago? They make loss on every roll they make, they have to compensate it with paper. They do it because of love for film.
If Ferrania wouldn't love film, they wouldn't start their company again..

But hey, it's my point of view. If I want Ilford....

Why didn't you become an Adox user, then? I mean, after they told you their secret and after they revealed their LOVE for film how come are you not buying their films??

 

[brian steinberger]

Jessestr, if your so against kodak why are you using HC-110?

I personally love Tri-x, there is nothing like it. I hope Kodak never gives up on it. Though there is some doubt in the back of my head I hope for the best and continue to buy tons of Tri-x and also Kodak selenium toner. Buy what works best for you and worry about changing when and if discontinuation does come. Other than that have fun and shoot shoot shoot!!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I like Kodak b/w film, but they don't like my level of income with their pricing.
Using HP5+ and Kentmere 400 now. 60m vs 30m price makes big difference for regular film shooter.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I use Ilford HP5+ and Tri-X side by side. I usually buy HP5+, but have had the good fortune of having either earned Tri-X film in trades, or have been gifted some. I've come to the realization that there is no difference between them that is meaningful enough to make my photographs any better. Their developing times are slightly different for me, so they are not 100% interchangeable, but the end result is so similar that I can live happily everafter with all my prints being a mix of prints from negatives of both kinds. I have to go back and check my neg sleeves to be able to tell which film was which, unless I remember it off the top of my head.

You may choose one over the other for many different things. Do whatever feels right and use what gives you the results you like. Throw a political judgment into your decision too if you want to. But don't expect everybody to sympathize. I don't shop at certain stores for political and humanitarian reasons, so I won't pass judgment. All I can say is that all of the available 400 speed emulsions out there will give you really great results. Except maybe Foma 400, which I would not try to underexpose and expect good results.

Good luck!

 

[NB23]

There is a huge difference between tri-x and hp5. I see them when printing. Always clear to me. However, both are excellent so i dont mind the differences.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Again not true... Have you read the interview I did with Adox few months ago? They make loss on every roll they make, they have to compensate it with paper. They do it because of love for film.
If Ferrania wouldn't love film, they wouldn't start their company again..

But hey, it's my point of view. If I want Ilford....

Yes Adox takes a loss on every product but they make it up in volume. They use Earl William "Madman" Muntz's business model. [I am in a giving mood so reference I provided a reference.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_Muntz

 

[Vaughn]

There is a huge difference between tri-x and hp5. I see them when printing. Always clear to me. However, both are excellent so i dont mind the differences.

Agree. For my use, Tri-X expands wonderfully and seems to look cleaner/crisper when given the 100% or more extra development. HP5 is poor when trying to greatly expand the contrast range (different than pushing), though I have not tried D-19 with it yet.. My goal is a DR of between 2 and 3 for alt printing.

 

[Jessestr]

HP5+ not only works at ISO 800, but I find it that it works wonderfully well pushed to ISO 1600. They could re-brand it as "Ilford Pan 1600" if they wanted to! It is an extremely versatile film, sharp and with good tonality. However for ISO 400 i prefer Ilford Delta 400, which is sharper and finer grained, and with very nice tones.

As for Tri-X, i have not used Kodak Tri-X in a long time because in my country it is ridiculously expensive, but according to this test, the current Tri-X ("400TX") is very very similar to HP5+:

http://www.pirate-photo.fr/pages/viewpage.php?f=51&t=35

Thanks !

Why didn't you become an Adox user, then? I mean, after they told you their secret and after they revealed their LOVE for film how come are you not buying their films??

Because, Adox's films aren't the ones I need. I do portraiture, they have a different style of films. Stop posting these stupid comments. I just want to switch to Ilford, you don't have to do that for me ;
What's with all the hate? If I want to buy Ilford, that's just my case, really. If people ask my why I'll be honest about it, but no reason to get shitty.

Jessestr, if your so against kodak why are you using HC-110?

I personally love Tri-x, there is nothing like it. I hope Kodak never gives up on it. Though there is some doubt in the back of my head I hope for the best and continue to buy tons of Tri-x and also Kodak selenium toner. Buy what works best for you and worry about changing when and if discontinuation does come. Other than that have fun and shoot shoot shoot!!

Why shouldn't I use HC-110? I only need one bottle in two years or so.. For the €18 I won't support Kodak that much. However I buy film much more regulary.

People always say Tri-X is so different than HP5+ but nobody shows me any difference... I shot them both myself.. I can't see the difference either. There tonal curve looks quite the same to me too.. So what is the real difference?