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

[DREW WILEY]

Sanpshooter mentality. Garbage-in / garbage-out. To be objective, a whole suite of different developer results would have to be compared. But once that is done, then the differences between these respective films really stands out. Otherwise, why would these different film options have ever been marketed in the first place. I'm certainly no routine fan of old dinosaur Tri-X, but do once in awhile find a need for its specific characteristics as specially developed. Generic advice is of no value to me. The tests I've put HP5 though are substantial, with the proof in the pudding - many many excellent prints. But in the wrong developer - naaah. That's why these kinds of web videos seem so silly to me - you don't learn anything in enough depth to be really useful. So back to my credo - if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Maybe some potholes and bruises along the way, but that's how one learns fact from fiction.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply micheal_r. So I take it that all things being equal as in the method you describe there would be an appreciable difference in grain in favour of a D400 print at 11x14 and certainly greater than that shown in Greg's test?

As far as the rest of his methodology is concerned was that basically OK for the comparisons he made?

Has anyone to your knowledge actually done comparisons between granularity of identical HP5+ and D400 negs on identical size identical paper? Is so such a source would be valuable.

I agree that development to the same contrast would be useful but I am now unsure whether or not this was the case with Greg. I'd have to check what he said about this again

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

You're missing the whole point. It takes time and commitment to master any specific film or paper. There's is simply no way to dumb this all down into a single comparison. That's the curse of the web - everyone wants instant everything. But that's just not how the real world necessarily works.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Pixel peeping; grain comparisons. Arguments haven't changed with photographers in 60 years. What we need is a new film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Both grain characteristics and overall curve shape can be significantly altered according to whatever specific development is involved. The whole problem with this entire discussion is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. What is the objective - trying to figure out how to make different films match each other as much as possible, for sake perhaps of potential substitution of one for the other? Or is it about exploring the full potential of each and discovering their own native ranges of potential creative or technical applications? In one scenario, you're trying to lump them all into the same basket based on similarities; in the other, you're trying to identify their signature distinctions. No simple generic answer or dumbed-down methodology can do either.

 

[MattKing]

Political posts deleted. The photographically religious posts remain.

 

[grat]

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

I'm genuinely sorry that you feel that way, or the need to publicize it. I was being sincere when I asked what you thought was wrong with his process, and all I get is hand-waving and references to test strips-- which while he did do a step wedge, that was largely immaterial to anything other than film speed, and occupied less than 2 minutes of video. While I respect your experience and opinion, you tend to be incredibly dismissive of anything social media related (not without cause, but not every youtube video is a sham).

As I said earlier-- I don't do this for a living, I do it for fun, and working in IT, I know exactly what incredibly precise umpteen-decimal points benchmarks are worth-- very little in real world experience. If I'm scaling a server for several thousand hits per second, every bit and clock cycle matters. If I'm running a home PC, "good enough" is the rule of the day.

Actually showing me the difference between two different film emulsions in terms of contrast and observable grain? THAT is useful.

Sorry you find it to be BS.

Edit:
Since I have apparently been offensive in this thread (and given the week I've had, it's entirely possible), I have removed my other posts from this thread. Apologies to any who were offended.

 

[MattKing]

I am offended, Matt.
My post wasn't political, I like it think it was funny

On the former, we will disagree.
Not the latter though.

 

[faberryman]

... in other words, a normal & reasonable person. For those, naked photographer's content is very nicely done.

Just because Greg Davis's content "is very nicely done" does not mean his conclusions are correct. A number of members here have come to different conclusions. Because there is a difference of opinion, I would encourage those who are really interested in whether Tri-X and HP5+ have about the same amount of grain, or whether Delta 400 has more grain than Tri-X, to conduct their own experiments to ascertain the answer for themselves. Who knows, maybe they will learn other things about the behavior of those films in the process which render the relative grain issue secondary for them. Have you done tests like these when learning about the characteristics of different films, or do you just go with what some guy on the internet tells you?

 

[DREW WILEY]

It all depends on the dang developer! For example, I happen to prefer staining pyro formulas, and in that, the respective grain personalities between Tri-X and Hp-5 are radically different. HP5 comes out with a "watercolor grain" hardly visible, but with superbly enhanced edge acutance, while Tri-X ends up with a kind of grain which I'd liken to road spikes thrown out to puncture tires. Of course, how visible this all is, is related to level of contrast, degree of enlargement, density level in the print where grain becomes most apparent. In fact, I don't like the look of HP5 enlarged any more then 3X, so shoot it only in 8X10. And I don't like Tri-X at all generally for my own work, though other people have ovbiously done wonderful things with it. I do have one temporary project in mind where I'm going to use 120 Tri-X and develop it in something else to deliberately exaggerate its buckshot grain. Grain isn't automatically an enemy! - it's just another tool or option to be intelligently factored.

But there is film development and there is film development. I'd like to see if Old G. could balance a set of sheet film color negatives during development with his cavalier high school mentality. I'm not going to wait for an answer. One more to my Ignore list. I have no interest in promoting any kind of sloppy darkroom mentality, be it video or otherwise.

 

[faberryman]

"Correct" conclusions? Regarding grain? Are you serious? Where is this dogmatic insistence on "correctness" coming from? And why so much venom? Drew is basically calling Greg a moron three times per comment. Well, first of all that's not nice. That's an EQ of a 10 year old on display.

Secondly, Davis developed all films in D76 using manufacturer's times, basically the very same thing everyone does when trying a new film. He simply shares how prints look like when films are developed in D76, nothing is stupid about that.

And finally, I have never, not once, saw Drew's work. As far as I'm concerned he could be sitting on 40+ years of butchered negatives. His self-congratulatory monologues about "serious labs" only raise questions regarding his EQ, not regarding his ability to develop film, as it is entirely possible to be doing shit work for 40+ years. While Greg, on the other hand, did the work publicly on Youtube where it can be easily confirmed to be matching the instructions on the film box.

The photography community needs more Gregs, not Drews.

I think you need to direct your comments to Drew.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I won't receive them. Got him blocked. Have better things to do.

 

[DREW WILEY]

One more to the list. I'm open to serious conversation or personal opinion, whether positive or negative. But it needs some kind of actual basis beyond petty name-calling. I actually do my homework before offering an opinion. Otherwise, I'll deliberately qualify it as a hypothetical.

 

[Jonno85uk]

For a machine salesman, Drew, you spout more BS on these forums than anyone else I have ever read.

Do what I do and put him on your ignored user list.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Cite one instance EVER where I've made a BS statement either on this forum or any other. Yes, I've been mistaken a few times and am happy to learn from others. But making misleading statement, nope. If you simply don't understand what I write, then either admit it, or ask for a clarification. ... Gosh, this is getting easy. One more to my list of waste of time types.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Dear Greg,
I think if you've taken your good time to make your videos, you probably have two interests, web numbers and photography.
But even if you had the noblest intentions, it's very easy -as others have said- to reach opinions which are not accurate.
As Drew wrote himself, it happens to all of us at certain points.
In any case, as someone who comes here to learn from deep people, I can tell you Drew's posts and shared knowledge have been among the best information available here in Photrio for many many years.
I say it because even if you put him in your ignore list, yet you can read him and learn.
He respects knowledge deeply: saying he's a machine salesman was foolish, unnecesary, rude, and lacks taste: what matters, is he's a real photographer.
Those of us who are, will always feel happy if we can learn from you too.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Now about considering those three films more or less the same thing:
They are truly different.
A good video on them should explain the differences in image structure and tone when we use metol developers, MQ developers, acutance developers and speed enhancing developers, at EI200, 320, 400, 500, 640 and 800, with a couple of dilutions with each developer.
Then, the subject is at least covered.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Juan - I was a machinery buyer specifically the last 15 years of my formal career, for sake of distribution to professional and industrial clients, and got very good at it. But I was also responsible for numerous other categories of high-end supplies. I got an enormous amount of business because people trusted my advice. That included not only some of the best architectural renovators in the country, builders of the most expensive wooden homes and yachts in the world (including those who built carbon fiber yachts for the America's Cup contests), very high-end cabinet shops and cabinet makers, but also photo craftsmen making commissioned pieces sometimes selling for over a million dollars apiece, requiring special fabrication gear. I'm obviously not speaking about flat art just ordinarily printed, but huge hybrids of photography and sculpture, or involving very advanced alternate methods of printing and fabrication. Some of these people also became collectors of my personal prints, or else hired me on the side to photograph architectural portfolios for them. Some of our nearly daily customers owned big photo labs. University and tech facilities people were also daily customer. The military and defense contractors were especially important clients needing good technical information. Busy back then.

I apologize if this came across rudely. But none of it was an exaggeration. You might say I was a professional experimenter. I personally tested the majority of items we sold. I was often the first person big international manufacturers sent a prototype to, to get a balanced opinion. The company owner actually appreciated all this, including when I was given free personal samples for sake of in-depth testing, or paid on the side for a review, because it brought in lots of high-end business. But gosh I worked hard.

 

[Lachlan Young]

As I compared more Ilford films there was a common theme against Kodak films: the shadows show more separation in tones, but the highlights are less separate. Kodak is the opposite, more distinct highlight tones at a loss of shadow separation.

What you seem to be essentially describing is that Ilford films (under your test methods) are delivering slightly higher shadow speed than Kodak - which would pretty definitely deliver the results you describe above. I'd look into normalising those slight speed differences before drawing too many firm conclusions about tonality.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bingo. I peeked. Show me a single extant Ilford film with as much shadow separation potential as TMax films. There isn't any. The official published characteristics make that perfectly apparent. Personal curve plotting plus real world experience makes it abundantly apparent. All kinds of serious users already know it and depend on it. If you use Ilford's best candidates, FP4 and Delta 100, you have to double the exposure to boost them onto the straight line section of the curve where low values well differentiate. Both speeds of TMax film have a longer straight line section way down, and therefore a less gradual or steeper native toe, than either of those two Ilford films. You got it all backwards, Greg. So that makes your entire methodology suspect. Don't take it personally. Go back to the drawing board. Or is the only Kodak film you are basing this on Tri-X?, which might explain things. If so, which Tri-X, 320 or 400? I'm guessing 400 since you seem to be working with roll film.

And not only developer choice factors into all this, but concentration, temp, all kinds of variables, including how you're using the paper, and which one. Until you do lock horns with that set of variables, everything is tentative.

And unless you actually plot FAMILIES of curves for each combination, or studied those produced by others, it's all a guessing game. I've done hundreds of such detailed plots. So have others. This certainly doesn't mean that one has to go through all of that to get excellent results in print. But it can sure help in terms of matching the appropriate shoe size to the contrast range of the scene and how the result will turn out. It factors every single time I go out to shoot black and white film, and which films are most appropriate for the conditions likely to be encountered, cause either use or have used quite a variety films.

 

[pentaxuser]

What you seem to be essentially describing is that Ilford films (under your test methods) are delivering slightly higher shadow speed than Kodak - which would pretty definitely deliver the results you describe above. .

Isn't this what all the those who make videos on "tests" carried out on HP5+ v Tri-X conclude as well? I have looked at nearly all the YouTube tests on this( a lot of time on my hands these last 20 months since lockdown) and have yet to see even one conclude anything different. To be accurate about what each tester seems to find, it is that HP5+ delivers more shadow detail and Tri-X better contrast. Other than Greg the others are simply going out with two 35mm cameras which are identical i.e. the same Olympus, Nikon etc loaded with the two films and taking the same scene with a few seconds at same aperture and shutter speed and to complete the all other things being equal conditions are having the two film developed at the respective times for each film

That being the case it would appear that the man in the street film user who will largely do the same, will see the same effect as the tester
Yes the number of testers may not be sufficient for the number to be at a statistically significant level, nor might the tests conform to the kind of scientific rigour that meets a definition of such a test but to the man in the street and I'd classify myself as that in terms of knowledge of the science of photography, it just seem too much of a coincidence to be a purely random finding

I put these film tests in inverted commas because none I have seen were as well thought out as Greg's nor were the testers attempting to demonstrate the kind of additional film qualities that Greg was such as colour response, film speed or granularity. However each demonstrated with identical scans of each neg/print that the shadow details did seem better for HP5+ and the contrast was lower than for Tr-X. Usually for me I preferred the look of HP5+ but on occasion the higher contrast of Tri-X made a more pleasing shot even though shadow detail was less. I add this simply to show that this is my taste and that my comparison does not help to settle a kind of a which is better contest. A point I note that Greg made as well

Yes based purely on my viewing there was the occasional two shot comparison that showed close to the same shadow detail and contrast but these seemed to be the exception and seemed only to occur when the overall difference between shadow and highlight was less due to the softer light conditions but this is what I understand would happen anyway, wouldn't it?

pentaxuser


pentaxuser

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Greg has been doing good work in that video series. No, he isn’t locking down every single variable, but for the ones he isn’t locking down, at the end of the day, his results are fairly representative of what a run of the mill user will see.

in my own experience, using the same developer and actually working out development times to produce the same amount of contrast between the various emulsions, HP5 is the faster film by a solid 1/3 to half a stop compared to Tri-X. If you take that into account and adjust your exposure so that each film is developed to ISO contrast and exposed at the speed it has at that contrast, the two emulsions are very difficult to tell apart.

I have not looked closely at delta 400, and don’t really intend to as it is actually not a popular seller and I see very little of it come through my doors.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the explanation in #80 Michael. I don't think from memory that Greg's curves for the two films showed what your example showed so I think you are saying that the actual curves for both do not exhibit anything that which would give one better shadow detail and the other better contrast, all other things in a test being equal. Am I right in this assumption? If so then what is it in these 2 films in the several tests I've seen on YouTube that appears to make one have better shadow detail and the other better contrast in scans of prints or negs done as positives? If there is no intrinsic reason why this should occur then what have the "testers" done by accident or deliberation that has caused this?

Unfortunately for this discussion all I can draw on is experience of one of the films, HP5+ and from my darkroom prints from that film and all I can say is that my prints resemble what I saw on the film tests much more than any semblance to what I saw of the Tri-X scans.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

in my own experience, using the same developer and actually working out development times to produce the same amount of contrast between the various emulsions, HP5 is the faster film by a solid 1/3 to half a stop compared to Tri-X. If you take that into account and adjust your exposure so that each film is developed to ISO contrast and exposed at the speed it has at that contrast, the two emulsions are very difficult to tell apart.
.

Would the above then lead to HP5+ and Tri-X in the same developer, ID11, at the box speed and for the Ilford times for both films result in this let's say, apparent difference in shadow detail and box speed. I mention ID11 as Ilford gives times for both films at 400 so presumably ( but this is an assumption only) to the same contrast index.

It may make no difference but I could not find any Kodak publication listing both film for D76. Alaris give times only for Kodak films. I mention this only as an explanation why I have used ID11 in my question.

So can I ask that while this discussion proceeds along the specific lines of shadow details and contrast, will no-one else bother to make comment on the rights and wrongs of what KA apparently ignoring times for other than Kodak films. I wish to avoid any chance of it becoming
a KA v Ilford discussion

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pentaxuser - there are decades of hard sensitometric science behind all these films, with scientific ways of comparing them. They are manufactured for either anticipated market niches or to carve away niches at the expense of older more traditional films via alleged improvements. Tri-X is a holdover from the past, and by itself, cannot be made a generic blanket describing Kodak films in general. Kodak had widely differing films in the past too, a distinct selection. By the time all of this gets mangled out of shape through hearsay and casual web-usage scans and ridiculously simplistic tests, almost all the real scientific basis of comparing such things has been thrown out the window. There is plenty of valid literature on this from the manufacturers themselves that can be accessed even on the web if one if patient. But even native film curves are somewhat like rubber bands that can be stretched and contorted to a degree. It takes time to understand them.

But get ahold of a good basic textbook or article on Sensitometry. The later editions of the old Kodak Black and White film guidebooks explain these things in the introductory pages. A few posts up, Michael already pointed out a basic set of curve features important to recognize. Compare the shape or geometry of the two distinct lines he has drawn and what that difference implies.