Tri-X @ 800 & HP5+ @ 800

[MDR]

Iso 800 is nothing in Ilford DD-X HP5+ has a native ISO of 640 so that little push is nothing. HP5 and Tri-X are different but for most purpose they are very close HP5+ is a bit like England lots of greys, Tri-X is a bit like the bible belt stronger contrast and lacking mid-tones, compared to HP5 that is.
But as Thomas said they are very close. In grey weather I would choose Tri-X for that tiny tiny bit of oomph.

As for Adox great marketing that I don't quiet believe, they also promise a lot and deliver very little. Still make good products though.

 

[Jessestr]

Iso 800 is nothing in Ilford DD-X HP5+ has a native ISO of 640 so that little push is nothing. HP5 and Tri-X are different but for most purpose they are very close HP5+ is a bit like England lots of greys, Tri-X is a bit like the bible belt stronger contrast and lacking mid-tones, compared to HP5 that is.
But as Thomas said they are very close. In grey weather I would choose Tri-X for that tiny tiny bit of oomph.

As for Adox great marketing that I don't quiet believe, they also promise a lot and deliver very little. Still make good products though.

I guess I should shoot a few rolls like I always do and then see if I like!

I heard the argument about a lbit less contrast too (hp5+) but isn't that a good thing? Little more work on enlarging/scanning maybe.. With Tri-X I just know what I will get.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Ilford had also cut some lines for the same reason

Hi Sirius!
Can you point out what lines of Film were cut at Ilford, please?
They have cut/changed some papers, but since Harman Technology is in charge for the last 10 years, not a single film was cut. In fact, they have introduced 2 new films in 2009: the Kentmere range.

As for Adox great marketing that I don't quiet believe, they also promise a lot and deliver very little. Still make good products though.

Please, explain what is this "great marketing" and what "promises" were made.

HP5+ is a bit like England lots of greys

You might want to come and visit the UK and see for yourself the great range of colours we have.
We accept Euros in the hotels!

So Jesse, you want to change to Ilford?
Have you considered other Ilford films?
These are all ISO 400 and can be pushed:
Ilford PAN 400 (you might have to buy from Eastern Europe or the UK)
Kentmere 400
the lovely HP5+
Delta 400
XP2 Super (the only C41 B&W remaining).

Still is 5 films, a lot more than anyone else offers.

 

[Jessestr]

Hi Sirius!
Can you point out what lines of Film were cut at Ilford, please?
They have cut/changed some papers, but since Harman Technology is in charge for the last 10 years, not a single film was cut. In fact, they have introduced 2 new films in 2009: the Kentmere range.



Please, explain what is this "great marketing" and what "promises" were made.



You might want to come and visit the UK and see for yourself the great range of colours we have.
We accept Euros in the hotels!

So Jesse, you want to change to Ilford?
Have you considered other Ilford films?
These are all ISO 400 and can be pushed:
Ilford PAN 400 (you might have to buy from Eastern Europe or the UK)
Kentmere 400
the lovely HP5+
Delta 400
XP2 Super (the only C41 B&W remaining).

Still is 5 films, a lot more than anyone else offers.

Thanks! I have considered them but I'm more after a classic rendering like HP5+ & Tri-X. It really suits the look I want in combination with HC-110

 

[gone]

One thing we've all overlooked in this conversation..... if Adox truly loses money on each roll of film they sell (permit me to doubt), then the best way to put them put of business is to buy their film. The more film they sell, the more money they lose.

 

[Mark_S]

I shoot mostly LF, and in the old days, shot Tri-X in the summer time because it did such a great job with deep shadow, and you could pull detail out of most anything with Tri-X. In the winter time, I would switch over to Plus-X since it did a great job with holding details in the highlights, and I lived in an area with a lot of snow (Maine). I developed in HC-110. Then Kodak discontinued Plus-X and I started trying other films to replace it, and I ended up settling on HP5+, which is now pretty much the only film I shoot. I still develop in HC-110, and I need to be a bit more careful about exposures since it does not forgive underexposure the way Tri-X did, and doesn't forgive overexposure the way Plus-X did, but I know that I will have a better chance of never having to go through evaluating films again using HP5+, whereas I don't trust Kodak to continue supplying anything.

I have done some testing of Ilfotec HC as a replacement for HC-110, and that seems to work, so I can be completely free of Kodak.

 

[Mark_S]

One thing we've all overlooked in this conversation..... if Adox truly loses money on each roll of film they sell (permit me to doubt), then the best way to put them put of business is to buy their film. The more film they sell, the more money they lose.

The economic model for making film is not like the economic model for making prints or many other products. There is a huge fixed cost in machinery, in trained personnel, etc. and relativley low costs for the actual materials. If you figure your cost per roll, you can either figure out the total cost which is the total amount spent divided by the number of rolls made, or you can figure out your marginal cost - the cost to make one more roll of film. Many film companies today are using equipment which was built when the market was much bigger, so the machines and facilities are much bigger than they need to be, which results in higher fixed costs, but with slightly lower marginal costs. My guess is that many companies in the film industry today sell at a price that is higher than the marginal cost, but lower than the total cost. That way, although they may sell each roll at less than what it costs them to make it, they would lose more money if they sold less film.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

No, TriXis one thing and HP5 is another;different film,different look and processing requirements.as a B&W shooter, get used to the idea of balancing film speed woth dev time.That's what B&W photographers do to get optimum Zone System'. It works great once it is mastered.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

Yes, it is really that simplebut too late for many.

 

[RattyMouse]

"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.

Kodak Alaris doesn't manufacture anything at all. It is a marketing company and nothing more.

 

[jim appleyard]

I guess I should shoot a few rolls like I always do and then see if I like! QUOTE]

That's what it boils down to. It's great to listen to folks here and absorb their advice and experience, but in the end, it needs to be what YOU like. I would recommend at least 10 rolls.

 

[flavio81]

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?

Don't worry, that's just a typical post by NB23. He likes to offend and patronize.

Enjoy Tri-X or HP5, they are both just fine and with unlimited uses (at least in medium format).

 

[Jessestr]

No, TriXis one thing and HP5 is another;different film,different look and processing requirements.as a B&W shooter, get used to the idea of balancing film speed woth dev time.That's what B&W photographers do to get optimum Zone System'. It works great once it is mastered.

So, the exposure lattitude of HP5+ isn't as big as Tri-X? Or at least that's how Kodak's datasheets says it. That you can expose it from 320 to 800 without changing the development proces. I love that because it gives you some ISO range to work in.

 

[MattKing]

So, the exposure lattitude of HP5+ isn't as big as Tri-X? Or at least that's how Kodak's datasheets says it. That you can expose it from 320 to 800 without changing the development proces. I love that because it gives you some ISO range to work in.

Exposure and development recommendations always involve a balancing of priorities.

Kodak's opinion is that Tri-X under-exposed by one stop (metered at EI of 800) is of higher over-all quality when developed normally than when the development time is increased ("pushed"). No doubt this is because they have evaluated the decrease in the quality of the highlights (due to increased development) as being more important than the increase in the quality of the shadows and near-shadows.

There is exposure latitude in both films. If you carefully evaluate your results, you may find that you get more latitude from one or the other. But unless you have the same experts test the two films, using the same methods and applying the same criteria, you won't be able to definitively tell from the manufacturer's data sheets which film has the most exposure latitude.

I shoot T-Max 400, and do develop intentionally under-exposed (by one stop) film normally, when the scene contrast is either high or normal.

 

[NB23]

Don't worry, that's just a typical post by NB23. He likes to offend and patronize.

Enjoy Tri-X or HP5, they are both just fine and with unlimited uses (at least in medium format).

The original poster comes in and says he doesn't want to give my money to Kodak anymore because they don't love film. He wants to use Ilford instead. Then he's irked because someone told him he should also switch to Ilfotec-HC. He replied that giving 18$ to Kodak wasn't "really" helping them so he'll continue to buy HC110 (helping Kodak, but "not that much") but wants to switch to a company that "Loves" film. But won't go to Adox who REALLY LOVEs film to the point of losing money while producing that lovely stuff because their film is different. And he's asking us to give him insight regarding HP5.

And then, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, he goes on saying that he's using Tri-X and HP5 regularly and he can't see the difference between them. Now if we all could come up with images proving him that they're different, he'd be happy.

Now I'm reading all this and it all rubs me the wrong way. Doesn't want to help Kodak BUT he loves Tri-X BUT he doesn't want to buy IlfotecHC because he still wants to help kodak BUT JUST a little bit BUT not too much, BUT yet doesn't want to help ADOX while they totally fit his ideology? And asks us about HP5 BUT yet he uses it regularly?

I don't know for you, flavio81, but to me this whole thing's a big joke. Or to be more polite: illogical.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I don't know for you, flavio81, but to me this whole thing's a big joke. Or to be more polite: illogical.

Well yes, if you like Kodak Tri-X then use it...

Tom

 

[eddie]

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?

It seems, to you, there is no discernible difference, so I'm wondering why you're looking for something your own testing can't detect.

As for products coming and going, it's been occurring from the beginning of photography. Do it long enough and you'll see a lot of your favorite products no longer manufactured. The key to a stress free photo-life is to keep using what you like, and cross the discontinuation bridge when you have to, not before. If photography is truly a passion, one must adapt to the realities. I've never heard anyone say they're giving it up because their favorite product is gone.

 

[Xmas]

So, the exposure lattitude of HP5+ isn't as big as Tri-X? Or at least that's how Kodak's datasheets says it. That you can expose it from 320 to 800 without changing the development proces. I love that because it gives you some ISO range to work in.

Not in my plastic tank.
If you need that freedom use BW400CN or XP2+.
Otherwise for normal film google zone system Ancell Adams.
If you have a contrasty scene you need to meter to just get the zone one areas with silver in the negative or burn more highlights.
If the scene is flat ie no contrast and you take an average light reading you could use 800 or 1600 ISO.
There is a genre of prints with no detail in shadows of prints and/or Ansells school depends what you like.
You need to look at your negatives when they are dry on a light table if you have clear film you have black shadow.

 

[Jessestr]

Not in my plastic tank.
If you need that freedom use BW400CN or XP2+.
Otherwise for normal film google zone system Ancell Adams.
If you have a contrasty scene you need to meter to just get the zone one areas with silver in the negative or burn more highlights.
If the scene is flat ie no contrast and you take an average light reading you could use 800 or 1600 ISO.
There is a genre of prints with no detail in shadows of prints and/or Ansells school depends what you like.
You need to look at your negatives when they are dry on a light table if you have clear film you have black shadow.

Hey, thanks for the information! I only shoot 35mm so I cant measure the shadows and developt for the highlights. But I sure do use the zone system. I love it when I lose some shadow detail and get these really deep and dark moody prints out of them (with correct exposure, just deeeeeeeeeep shadows). And if that is still possible with HP5+ I'd love to try it out!

If I need much more shadow detail I'll make sure I do so!

What do you mean with when there isn't enough contrast int he scene, just underexpose a stop or two and don't change development?

 

[jeffreyg]

I haven't read all the posts so this may already have been suggested... take a roll of each and run a test to see what your personal ISO actually is. An easy way is to set your camera on a tripod and set up an 18% gray card so that it fills the entire frame (in is not necessary to focus). With a constant light source at box speed meter off the gray card*. With the lens cap covering the lens click off a couple of frames** as these will be necessary to later check for film fog. Then (keep a record) make a series of exposures at half-stop intervals starting with +3 down to *0 then on at half stops to -3. Develop both rolls as per mfg's recommendation. Once processed, make a test print using the **clear frames. Using the time interval that you can first see a different black, expose each of the other negatives. Cut and mark pieces of the paper you use and if it is multigrade expose each at the time previously mentioned. Process all the same way. Once they are washed and dry, the one that is closest to your gray card is your personal ISO taking into account your equipment etc. This will give you a standard from which you can modify as desired. There are other similar type tests that others might suggest.

Increased contrast can be through development time and/or filters with multigrade paper.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/