Tri-X v HP5+ and Tri-X v Delta 400 - The Naked Photographer Comparison Tests

[cirwin2010]

Keep in mind that what TheNakedPhotographer is attempting is to expose and developer these films in such a way where they end up with the same density. A lot of differences that others may be perceiving are from differences in developing (time, agitation, and developer) along with differences in subjects and other factors. As far as internet comparisons go, his test method is the most consistent and "scientific" by establishing a test method and control group.

That being said, his method may not be "optimal" to achieve the desired subjective qualities of a particular film. There are virtually limitless ways to shoot and develop film and his method is but only one way to do it. D-76 is a common developer and his methods may relate to a sizable audience so I wouldn't discount is results either.



Adding my two cents on my experience with Delta 400 and TheNakedPhotographer's results, I would say that my results with Delta 400 can be pretty grainy when compared with HP5+. No side-by-side comparison has been done on my end, but D400 seems to be a similar graininess to HP5+ when shot at box speed with my methods (see below). That grain becomes much more prominent to my eye if the film is over exposed (increased density) or if pushed to 800 (small sample size of 1). My results with HP5+ pushed to 800 have not gotten as gritty. I shoot medium format and the only properly exposed film that has ever produce obtrusive grain at 8x10 was Delta 400 @ 800 (6x4.5 negative).

-120 film
-HP5+ and Delta 400 processed in HC-110 dilution B
-Times pulled from Massive Dev Chart
-6x4.5, 6x6, & 6x7 optical enlargements up to 16x20"

Personally I am moving away from the Ilford Delta films. I like the results I get from HP5+ better than Delta 400 and it seems to be a bit more flexible (and cheaper). Delta 100, unlike Delta 400, does seem to be finer grained than its cubic grained counterpart, FP4+. I currently develop my medium and slow speed films in R09 1:50 and I like the texture of FP4+ and its lower cost than Delta 100.



As a side note: I recommend The Film Developing Cookbook 2nd Edition by Bill Troop & Steve Anchell.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

The other manufacturers are essentially the only other people with the necessary kit. A handful of universities might have some equipment that will likely be lower precision for the specific purposes. Richard Henry got closest of any independent researcher and his conclusions can be largely summed up as 'the manufacturers aren't lying, though they sometimes don't explain things as well as they could.'

Where does this put industry consultants like Henning Serger who claim to do scientific standard film tests in their lab? For example, Henning claimed that, based on his tests, "the excellent detail rendition of Acros I is also given by Acros II: Resolution, sharpness and fineness of grain are identical. Both films have identical MTF curves and identical RMS value. I checked it with my sophisticated resolution, sharpness and grain tests in my test lab, and both films are again identical." How could he have compared the granularity of the two films without the equipment that only manufacturers have? From Henning's own description of his test apparatus, it seems that it is not all that uncommon equipment. Would such an apparatus and testing procedure throw clarity on the findings of the Naked Photographer?

Beyond specs, and published professional work, non-civilian work etc. the only reputable stuff I’ve seen is mostly in thesis papers that came out of RIT. Much of it is obsolete in terms of specifics, but the work shows what is involved.

I've read some of the reports by RIT and they read pretty much like a rigorous scientific study which they indeed are.

 

[Paul Howell]

Other than theory I don't it matters that much, every shooter needs to do his/her own testing to decide on which comb of film and developers gives her/him the results that he she wants. What matters to the viewer is how the print looks on the wall. When I was showing and selling buying customers never asked about a film, they wanted to know the back story of the print. And thinking back, other professionals on occasion asked about the technical details most often it was some new to photography.

 

[removedacct1]

If Ilford tells you its Delta emulsions are finer grained and sharper than its equivalent Plus emulsions, under what reasonable basis do you discount this and give at least equal weight to a layperson concluding the opposite, based on subjective evaluations of potentially flawed tests?

I've yet to encounter any substantial evidence suggesting Delta has larger/more coarse grain than other films of similar speed. In fact, I've found quite the opposite.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I used all three films. My developing and prints. And my choice (before constant prices increase galore) was with HP5+.Diffrent grain and rendering from modern TriX and way different from sterile Delta.
Don't know what this vlogger was doing, comparing, but if he cant' see the difference, especially from Delta, some of us must me doing something wrong . If it is only scans wisdoms, it has no validity to me at all.

 

[BradS]

....
I find Tri-X and HP5+ totally different: tone, grain, shadows, EIs behaviour, everything...

Me too. I cannot imagine how any test could find these two films to be in any way similar. In my real world usage, they are completely different.
I guess this is one reason I tend to be quite dismissive of this kinda YouTube (and facebook/instagram) hooplah.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

In the scientific community, there's this idea of "peer review"-- If you're so certain he screwed up, then prove it

It's not my intention to undermine the importance of Naked Photographer's test results, his sharing of experiences is almost always interesting and sometimes useful. But a conclusion drawn from one sample in one setting doesn't merit consideration for a scientific critique of the work. For that one would like to see a conclusion, even if it is qualitative, drawn from a lot more samples and samples from different settings. That's a lot of work and of course I don't imply that Naked Photographer should do it for us.

 

[MattKing]

Greg Davis' videos are good because they set out quite well the details of his tests. The conclusions he reaches are at least partially related to those details specifically.
Test conditions are very important!

 

[faberryman]

Greg Davis's conclusions are not dispositive. They are data points. There are lots and lots of Tri-X and HP5+ comparisons on YouTube, and more on websites and blogs. Individuals participating in this thread have reached different conclusions. If you are really interested, buy a roll of Tri-X, HP5+, and Delta 400 and run your own test. If that is too much trouble, then it probably doesn't really matter which film you choose or how you rationalize it.​

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

There is nothing here which contradicts anything Ilford states (ie nothing to suggest D400 is grainier than HP5).

People are more likely to accept a conclusion that conforms to manufacturer's data than a conclusion that deviates from it whatever the real concerns about testing equipment and methodology might be.

 

[Todd Niccole]

I'm subscribe to this channel and I agree Delta 400 is grainier than Tri-X. In my opinion it's even grainier than HP5. I've tried many different developers: ID-11, HC110, Microphen, DD-X and it just comes out grainier. DD-X sucks by the way; Making everything even grainier despite Ilford's recommendation for this particular film. I like Ilford and HP5 is a favorite of mine along with their developers. But, I see Delta400 as a pointless film. Ilford needs to reformulate it.

Tri-X is remarkably less grainy than it was 10, 20 or so years ago from what I remember. The mid and highlights are very fine grain, even finer than some ISO100 films. The shadows are typically more or less grainy for a 400 film. It makes me think it is comprised of two different emulsions. It true speed seems more around ISO200. Maybe that's a clue. Developed to ISO400 it has a very contrasty look like it has been pushed. It wasn't like that years ago.

 

[DREW WILEY]

His conclusions about Delta 400 vs Tri-X vs HP5 are half-baked BS. No- I'm not stating this because I'm a curmudgeon. All kinds of misleading things can be concluded by superficially testing just a limited set of parameters. And the character of grain, which seems to be the primary consideration in this case, can in fact specifically differ from his alleged results in different developers. There's more to it than just watching just another half-baked experiment intended to snare web attention. Without going into technical details, I can just summarize all this by stating that all three of these films potentially render a different kind of "look", and for sake of real world results in actual printed fashion, I would never substitute one for the other.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I say it because I've processed hundreds of sheets of these films, plus rolls, and printed the results to very high standards. I know the visual distinctions. I also have a serious personal lab. And yes I own a couple of densitometers and know how to use them. With that much personal experience, both in the technical and esthetic aspects, it's pretty darn obvious when someone is just shooting from the hip and spouting off half-baked nonsense, whether in a web post or web flick. It's not that he did something "wrong". It's what he didn't do or apparently even know how to do. All this reminds me of Powerpoint sales presentations in the office - anything can be proven using selective parameters taken out of context. Merely starting with the factory spec sheets themselves would get you from point A to B a lot faster than some of this web video nonsense.

So yes, I've watched some of his stuff before, including the film comparisons under discussion. Some people do provide experienced useful information using that kind of video avenue. But in many cases, wannabee photo gurus are just winging it without sufficient background to even know how to get onto first base.

 

[pentaxuser]

Which "recognised scientific bodies" did you have in mind?

I don't know. If I did I would have said. Is it the case that if the manufacturers were to release its information there are no "bodies" that can review such information and draw conclusions?

Are we not in danger of getting close to a situation where there is no meaningful way of any one individual presenting videos from which useful information can be gleaned?

Maybe we are.

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

There is nothing here which contradicts anything Ilford states (ie nothing to suggest D400 is grainier than HP5).

Having used both pretty extensively (and scanned at high res on high end scanners and/ or darkroom printed them), Ilford's statement is accurate for the materials when appropriately exposed and processed. I think people are getting themselves in a mess because under a fairly narrow set of circumstances, the very high edge sharpness/ microcontrast (for lack of a better word) of the epitaxial Delta grain structure can make the granularity more visible, but because of the specifics (and poor controls/ experimental design) of comparisons being done, the larger yet relatively softer edged (in terms of visual appearance) granularity of certain 3D crystal structure emulsions seems less visually apparent under certain circumstances.

 

[pentaxuser]

Drew, how did he do with his conclusion that Foma 400 was not a 400 at all but more like 200/250 in terms of speed. Was this the right conclusion and if so was this sheer luck or did he draw this conclusion from the evidence he had before him? In other words did his methodology have merit in this case?

He appears from the strength of your language about his methodology to be much less reliable than my impression of him was. Perhaps my definition of what BS means is different from yours. BS in the U.K. leaves little room for interpretation as to its value or complete lack of, is

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pentaxuser - you're attempting to adjudicate things from the level of consensus of web content itself. Do you think the manufacturers of these films think that way themselves? Of course not; they have real chemists and specialists properly trained and equipped, and with a lot of R&D background behind them. The web is a highly democratic medium. All kinds of stuff gets on it. And all kinds of opinions of varying quality get onto forums too. That's just the way it is. Postulates either need testing, or review in light of what has already been distinctly experienced by somebody. For example, I can immediately identify with what Lachlan just posted because I've observed the same thing. But there are no official bodies overseeing all this and pontificating for us. Personal discernment is always going to be needed. When in doubt, do your own tests; but realize what you conclude might pertain only to your own application, and not in all relevant cases. But in many web video series per se, everything involved is just so hokey that why bother? It more slapstick than utilitarian.

 

[faberryman]

I don't know. If I did I would have said. Is it the case that if the manufacturers were to release its information there are no "bodies" that can review such information and draw conclusions?

I am not aware of any "recognised scientific bodies" to which Kodak and Ilford could submit their findings for examination, which is why I was surprised you criticized Kodak and Ilford for not doing so.

Are we not in danger of getting close to a situation where there is no meaningful way of any one individual presenting videos from which useful information can be gleaned? Maybe we are.

You can attribute whatever validity and weight you wish to the findings of individuals on YouTube or other internet sites. That's your call. There are a lot of comparisons of Tri-X and HP5+ out there to evaluate. Which is why I recommend buying a couple of rolls of film and testing for yourself. I suspect you did not arrive at your current film preferences by following advice from the internet, but maybe you did.

 

[removedacct1]

Having used both pretty extensively (and scanned at high res on high end scanners and/ or darkroom printed them), Ilford's statement is accurate for the materials when appropriately exposed and processed. I think people are getting themselves in a mess because under a fairly narrow set of circumstances, the very high edge sharpness/ microcontrast (for lack of a better word) of the epitaxial Delta grain structure can make the granularity more visible, but because of the specifics (and poor controls/ experimental design) of comparisons being done, the larger yet relatively softer edged (in terms of visual appearance) granularity of certain 3D crystal structure emulsions seems less visually apparent under certain circumstances.

I believe this is as close to the facts as we can get.

 

[pentaxuser]

All I'm saying (more detail in post #39) is that since the tests in the two videos are not the same/consistent, the conclusion one draws from one video cannot be extended to the other. That was the mistake OP made. There was a comparison of D400 with Tri-X, and a comparison of HP5 with Tri-X. The tests were different, so they cannot be connected to fabricate a comparison of D400 with HP5.

.

What was different in specific terms? I assume there is no reason to believe the test were contrived to make a specific result so were accidental? In that case what should he have done differently to ensure that the granularity test was valid?

As I said, I had difficulty when looking at the background area to see any difference in granularity between HP5+, Tri-X and D400 in an 11x14 print. Greg who had the benefit of looking at the prints with his naked eye did not have this difficulty but did say it was a marginal difference or at least that was my interpretation of what he said. Should the difference in a print that size been clearer for all to see and such that there could be no question that the D400 was less granular?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

We were posting at the same time. I was a professional buyer for a corporation for forty years before I retired. I certainly know what BS smells like. Someone is trying to sell you something either on false premises, or they are not themselves properly informed about it and are therefore filling in with guesses. We'd give them one warning, and if they ever tried that again, they'd be booted out. As you probably know, film speed is dependent upon both developer choice and concentration as well as personal expectations. But for my own purposes, I found official Foma box speeds quite unrealistic. So cutting the speed in half starting out seems reasonable to me. He figured that out with a simple step tablet test. I would have used an actual densitometer plot to indicate the actual shape of the characteristic curve. But just experimentation in the field would have brought on the same conclusion. So does a conspicuous quantity of over-optimistic speed rating constitute BS marketing? In my opinion, yes. But I seldom make a big fuss about that because actual testing for personal film speed is always a good idea up front.

I'm not trying to sway people from watching how-to videos. Just take them with a grain of salt. Back in my own career before I retired, which involved power machinery distribution among other things, I noted that many how-to do-it-yourself web videos could easily get someone electrocuted,crippled, or killed. It was like a photo series asking you to drink a glass of glacial acetic acid just to be certain it's full concentration. You know the saying, "Get a second opinion", and preferably not from someone who outright looks like a knothead.

As far as grain size blah blah goes, all I can say is that I use top quality gear, and without being unrealistic at all, routinely do very high quality printing. There are many many potential variables involved. There mere fact someone is trying to dumb all that down into a single test strip comparison shows me they are themselves really just beginners.

 

[pentaxuser]

I am not aware of any "recognised scientific bodies" to which Kodak and Ilford could submit their findings for examination, which is why I was surprised you criticized Kodak and Ilford for not doing so.



You can attribute whatever validity and weight you wish to the findings of individuals on YouTube or other internet sites. That's your call. There are a lot of comparisons of Tri-X and HP5+ out there to evaluate. Which is why I recommend buying a couple of rolls of film and testing for yourself. I suspect you did not arrive at your current film preferences by following advice from the internet, but maybe you did.

I meant to ask what I thought was a relevant question about why Kodak in particular does not release its data if its tests show that it scores well on granularity for TMax films which I am sure it does. From the consumers point of view is there not advantages in having such info in the public domain?

Other companies such as car manfacturers release similar info on their products that is useful and meaningful so why are film manufacturers different.? However it would appear, I do admit, that on certain info, car manufacturers may have been less than honest with its info. Perhaps yet another reason why it a pity that independent bodies do not exist for film.

Other parties such as Henning Serger, respected in what they do in terms of test do similar things to Greg. I can't say I noticed the same criticism of their findings as is the case now with Greg Davis but to be honest I cannot really remember Greg's videos on his film comparisons drawing much if any negative comment until I drew attention to what I thought may have been a food for thought conclusion last night but I regret starting the thread now

The "Try it for yourself" certainly has a place but as I said good information can be very valuable. I cannot speak for the the U.S. but in the U.K. a magazine called Which was set up to cater for the need for consumers to get useful info on consumer goods such as "white goods where buy and try over a whole range of products was not really practical in terms of money and time.

Indeed by buying all the films he did and testing them and releasing his findings via videos Greg Davis is performing the same useful service, is he not?


pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

Indeed by buying all the films he did and testing them and releasing his findings via videos Greg Davis is performing the same useful service, is he not?

If you find his reviews helpful, by all means watch them. I haven't been all that impressed with the couple I've seen, but I have no interest in arguing with you about them. I'd rather just test for myself and draw my own conclusions.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Drew I remain unsure how much of what of your experience and being able to smell BS applies to the videos in question but we maybe can agree that in the matter at hand we may not get any further so I'll call it a day in terms of our conversation. In general terms and addressing all who wish to be part of this thread I need to say I want to avoid Greg Davis and his film test videos drawing anymore acerbity. I don't recall his videos creating this kind of thing first time around and I must admit that I am now concerned that my conclusion from my thread last night has generated this response.

Sorry Greg, if you are aware of this thread. What has happened was never my intention. I thought I had generated a simple food for thought thread that might be useful and have relevance to those for whom a decision on HP5+ v D400 but I'd like to propose that the thread has reached the end of its useful life and is now ended .

It has ended for me

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, I'm out too. Much ado about nothing. Just one more worthwhile task left to do - put grat on Ignore.