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

[Sal Santamaura]

...a small format context...120mm...

Depending on frame size, even a 4-3/4" roll film could meet the definition of large format at the Large Format Forum.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Well, just by selecting just one developer and alleged speed point, there is an automatic skewing toward a particular end. Like I said, that might make sense as a commercial service, but inherently excludes an awful lot of pertinent details, and therefore simply cannot be objective in a wider manner. It is itself a form of optimization towards their own choice of standardized development, which potentially differs from one lab to another. In other words, if someone wants Adrian to process their film, then take his advice about how to expose it. Another lab service, with different processing machinery using a different developer, might reasonably set the parameters differently.

I actually have that “how do I expose this?” Conversation with clients all. the. time. While your point is valid and well taken, it’s also not really reflective of the reality of the vast majority of film users. Yes, there are shooters just like you who want to do what you do, and those users should put the work in themselves in their own darkroom and ask questions pertinent to how to get there, but at the same time, there are a huge number of users that barely know how to use a film camera that are trying to use film and don’t give a flying you know what about much of the technical minutiae, they just want a different and fun experience, and easy to remember basic advise.

As grating as it may be for some of the more hardcore film guys out there, those users are where the money is right now, and if you want to stay in business, follow the money.

 

[MattKing]

As grating as it may be for some of the more hardcore film guys out there, those users are where the money is right now, and if you want to stay in business, follow the money.

FWIW, that is where the money has always been.
Its just that in olden times, there was more money (film photographers) to go around, so it was quite possible to follow some money into the corners where Drew spends his time, and come out the other end with a decent amount of money for oneself.
And I think I've stretched that metaphor far enough now, so I'll let it be.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I actually have that “how do I expose this?” Conversation with clients all. the. time. While your point is valid and well taken, it’s also not really reflective of the reality of the vast majority of film users. Yes, there are shooters just like you who want to do what you do, and those users should put the work in themselves in their own darkroom and ask questions pertinent to how to get there, but at the same time, there are a huge number of users that barely know how to use a film camera that are trying to use film and don’t give a flying you know what about much of the technical minutiae, they just want a different and fun experience, and easy to remember basic advise.

As grating as it may be for some of the more hardcore film guys out there, those users are where the money is right now, and if you want to stay in business, follow the money.

Painters aren't concerned with which chemicals make up their oils as much as to how pleasing the colors look to them. For people without darkrooms like myself, I'm really concerned with the basic look of the result as well, in this case film. There are pixel peepers in film as in digital and its easy to miss the forest from the trees as you can get diverted analyzing the minutiae of any craft.

 

[faberryman]

I actually have that “how do I expose this?” Conversation with clients all. the. time....

...there are a huge number of users that barely know how to use a film camera that are trying to use film and don’t give a flying you know what about much of the technical minutiae, they just want a different and fun experience, and easy to remember basic advise.

As grating as it may be for some of the more hardcore film guys out there, those users are where the money is right now, and if you want to stay in business, follow the money.

I notice you sell both Tri-X and HP5+. When your customers ask which one is "better", what do you tell them?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I notice you sell both Tri-X and HP5+. When your customers ask which one is "better", what do you tell them?

I usually ask them to quantify what they mean by better. They usually answer somewhere along the lines of which one is sharper, or which one is grainier, or some of the more technical minded shooters will be concerned with dynamic range or shadow detail. All the newer shooters that grew up shooting digital usually underexpose by a significant amount, so sometimes I'll just steer them to HP5 as it fairs better there. The more seasoned users usually ask which film requires less exposure compensation towards over exposure. For many it's a learning process and I often find myself in the position of being their source of authority with respects to film. I don't really want that position as I'm fully aware that I don't know everything, but I guess it comes with the territory as I generally know more than they do.

At the end of the day, if they can't quantify what they mean by better, I just steer them towards HP5 because it dries flatter than 400TX and makes my life easier handling and scanning it when they bring it back for processing. Sometimes they'll buy a roll of both, but afterwards comment that they couldn't really see a difference, which in a way is a bit of a testament to how good of a job I've done in normalizing my output so that it is very consistent. The reality is, most users just aren't that discerning. They notice big differences, but if two films are similar enough, and they ask me which one is better, I steer them towards what makes my life easier, or what will give them generally better shadow details as that's what they tend to notice first if they notice anything.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Painters aren't concerned with which chemicals make up their oils as much as to how pleasing the colors look to them. For people without darkrooms like myself, I'm really concerned with the basic look of the result as well, in this case film. There are pixel peepers in film as in digital and its easy to miss the forest from the trees as you can get diverted analyzing the minutiae of any craft.

Absolutely. My goal is to provide personalized service, but you gotta start with a baseline, then modify from there. I try to make my baseline that I deliver fairly consistent, which is totally acceptable for the vast majority of users, but some want to deviate from that. With the bigger labs, that's hard to do without paying for it, and at some point I might get to that point where I just can't effectively do that any more, but, I view that as a good kind of problem to have.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Never understood what people mean by "watercolour grain" with HP5/PMK.

Soft in some perceptual visual contrast sense, probably (and likely thanks to the colour of the stain impacting against the paper colour sensitivities). HP5+'s granularity is plenty sharp in ID-11/ D-76 (as it should be).

If you draw a subjective conclusion that is directionally at odds with proven photographic science/theory, and you know there are several places in the test where things can go wonky on you, the first thing to do is check your results,

Strong agreement here - though with the caveats that some modern photographic science effectively contradicts a fair amount of what is written up as immutable/ infallible 'truth' in the usual problematic cookery books etc. I think the other problem is that people associate the notions of the effects of poor exposure/ process control with early Tmax films and the potential for runaway highlight contrast - which the Delta films act to tamp down on, but their visual granularity goes up significantly and noticeably if overexposed. What may be needed is a clearer explanation to the effect that the exposure/ process latitude for maximum qualitative result isn't just about curve shape and exposure placement thereof, but about the impacts on visual granularity and MTF too.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

So to simplify matters can I pose this question: If I expose both films to the same scene within seconds of each other cameras that are identical in terms of shutter speed and aperture and take it to a lab in the U.K. where one developer, ID11 is used and each film is given the time Ilford recommend for each film, namely 7:30, then when handed back to me there should be no difference in the negatives?

I just want to find out if under the conditions I mention above I will see no difference in the two sets of negatives so other than price there nothing to distinguish the two films.

If there is something to distinguish under the conditions I describe then what is/are these features?

As I saId before, I like a lot of "man in the street" film users seek the truth about various films' features and if possible seek as simple as possible explanation of why these difference arise so you are right a H&D curve is important and an explanation of what it shows but beyond that I for one may not have the time left on this earth to devote more time to the kind of in-depth knowledge that you speak of but I do desire to know if what I see on these test videos and here I am not including Greg's but only the ones that did as I described and shot various street scenes under the same lighting etc reveal a true difference and if not why not

The negatives will be different. Ilford's time for each emulsion produces different contrast for each. Unless the lab works out their own development times to produce the same contrast for each emulsion, (most don't), what you get back won't look the same between the two. In general, between 400TX and HP5 for any given developer, HP5 generally is a little faster than 400TX, so produces a bit more shadow detail than 400TX if exposed the same. Because the contrast is different, the grain will be slightly different between the two as well, with Ilford's times, HP5 will be a little lower contrast and 400TX will be a little higher contrast. In terms of the actual H+D curves, as @Lachlan Young pointed out, if both are developed to the same contrast, they differ a little in the shouldering and highlights, but otherwise are very close to each other. I've seen that same behavior between the two as well in my own testing.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks, Adrian for the above very specific answers to my questions I appreciate the time and effort you have taken when the questions were addressed to Drew in the first instance and then repeated to Lachlan

Perhaps neither has had the opportunity to reply as yet so I await their responses to what I hoped was my specific and straightforward questions. Your answers tend to suggest that what I hoped were specific and straightforward questions were just that.

I was simply trying to turn the discussion of what were these two apparent differences in shadow detail and contrast into what would be the practical outcomes for users. Those who may wish to get an opinion on outcomes of both films when they use the same camera for both and take shots in the same or very similar and submit these to a lab that develops with D76 to the same time will also benefit by getting a feel for the likely outcome for each film.

pentaxuser

 

[john_s]

About 20 years ago Geoffrey Crawley did two articles in BJP about comparing 400 speed films. Although some films have changed since then, or disappeared, there was some good description about how to make such comparison. The articles were freely available on the web then but I can't find them now. I do have pdf files of them which I could put somewhere if there is interest. I assume that since they were freely available that this would not infringe the rights of the original publisher. Is that correct?

 

[Dirb9]

Painters aren't concerned with which chemicals make up their oils as much as to how pleasing the colors look to them. For people without darkrooms like myself, I'm really concerned with the basic look of the result as well, in this case film. There are pixel peepers in film as in digital and its easy to miss the forest from the trees as you can get diverted analyzing the minutiae of any craft.

This analogy that pops up frequently in photography discussions, and it usually just shows that photographers don't interact with other artists much. Many, if not most painters are absolutely concerned with the chemical makeup, frequently you'll encounter discussions rivaling the debates over stop bath concerning; pigments, (such as where the pigments come from and how they're refined, as well as the amount/ratio of pigment to inert materials), older vs newer paints (some pigments are no longer available commercially) hues vs true colors, binders and mediums, etc. There are many painters that create their own paints out of raw materials, just as photographers who are unsatisfied with commercial chemistry mix their own out of raw components.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I was simply trying to turn the discussion of what were these two apparent differences in shadow detail and contrast into what would be the practical outcomes for users. Those who may wish to get an opinion on outcomes of both films when they use the same camera for both and take shots in the same or very similar and submit these to a lab that develops with D76 to the same time will also benefit by getting a feel for the likely outcome for each film.

I'd say the practical outcome is you shoot both at box speed. They'll both deliver totally acceptable results. We're talking about differences that not many people will notice unless they take a minute or two and really look at it. If you like a little more punch, shoot 400TX, if you like a little less, shoot HP5, assuming of course the lab uses the same contrast when digitizing each, if not, then what you'll get back is a crapshoot.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'd say the practical outcome is you shoot both at box speed. They'll both deliver totally acceptable results. We're talking about differences that not many people will notice unless they take a minute or two and really look at it. If you like a little more punch, shoot 400TX, if you like a little less, shoot HP5, assuming of course the lab uses the same contrast when digitizing each, if not, then what you'll get back is a crapshoot.

… and process “normally “ too.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Any oil painter who doesn't care what chemicals, pigments, and solvents are involved, and only cares about the final color is doomed to failure. It doesn't matter if you're a house painter or painting a canvas. Informed "fat" versus "lean" layering is crucial. Otherwise layers crack and peel as they cure at different rates of expansion and contraction. That's part of the ABC's, one of the first things to learn, and it's one of the worst analogies I can think of. Based on fundamentals like this, I tend to divide house painters into two categories : the first category I call real pro painters, and they're an endangered species. In the second category are what I term bums, drunks, school dropouts, and lead poisoning addicts, and they're abundant. But the ones who do things right the will save you a ton of money in the long run.

 

[removed account4]

Photography is a little worse because the science is a black box to most, but still the same thing.

yup. .. and the beauty of photography is that it is a practice that is dependent on science. it is the reason why it has never been considered an art form why it is in the basement of most museums and why the photography departments in many universities isn't really part of the art departments. fortunately there are people who understand the black box of science to set us all straight and tell us what is going on, but unfortunately there are many who rely on their understanding of the science and create the perfect technical photograph and these technical master works dominate the field. as an art form photography is doomed because of its ties with science and technical perfection, and that one can squirt out of their printer or darkroom a million copies of the same print, and its been that way since the beginnings in the 1840s. im probably in a minority but I think technically perfect photographs are boring.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh, Adrian. Don't exaggerate this. Yes, you have a valid viewpoint. But so do I. I'm well aware of all these young startup film shooters who want to be cool and buy a classic old Nikon or one of those fun cheap plastic cameras. But I spend about 30 bucks PER SHOT for color 8X10 sheet film. Several sheets of black and white film might be involved in prepping it for printing. And a lot more sheets go into my regular black and white work. And I'm an extremely conservative shooter, the antithesis of a machine-gunner. A single roll of printing paper might easily cost me a thousand bucks. I buy matboard a thousand dollars at a time. So either a person is rich and willing to burn hundred dollar bills at abandon, or they have to get good at things, and learn to optimize all kinds of procedures. And that's just the technical aspect. Esthetic requirements can be even more demanding.

If you're drive across the R. Bridge to this side of the Bay, you'll drive right past a big wholesale picture framer in a big building without even realizing it. I've known them to charge up to 40K for a single picture frame - wholesale - and that's just for the frame, not for the mounting etc, which is additional. And some other business already got paid to print that big thing. There are all kind of niche businesses like that in the area too, providing services to artists and photographers. So don't claim all the money to be made is the amateur arena. I personally sold many millions of dollars of specialized equipment to quite a variety of artists and artisans, including certain things to the business I just mentioned.

In the past there were Photomats and amateur film developing kiosks practically in every drugstore and at many major street intersections. But would any of the big labs have survived on that kind of thing for even a month, with their giant overhead? Nowadays, since most of thse big labs have retired for one reason or another, there are a lot of niche opportunities like yours. That's great. But probably the majority serious darkroom practitioners have started out very simply, and then got hungry for a higher level of esthetic quality.

Talking to a lot of these people, including quite a number of techies, the only reason they don't have a darkroom isn't because they don't want one, but because they're darn near broke just making house payments. As you well know, around here a six figure income isn't enough to buy a rusty camper shell sunk halfway into mud, where one has to sleep on the roof when the tide comes in. That fact goes a long ways to explain why so many of us who do have nice darkrooms happen to be older. We bought our real estate in a different era.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Gosh, Adrian. Don't exaggerate this. Yes, you have a valid viewpoint. But so do I. I'm well aware of all these young startup film shooters who want to be cool and buy a classic old Nikon or one of those fun cheap plastic cameras.

No exaggeration meant. We just happen to live in different parts of the same large field, that’s all. You’re in a very stratified section where very few people operate, and when cash flows, it flows big. That’s great. I happen to live down in the trenches so to speak where per person, less money flows, but there’s a lot more people. Nothing wrong with either.

 

[Anon Ymous]

About 20 years ago Geoffrey Crawley did two articles in BJP about comparing 400 speed films. Although some films have changed since then, or disappeared, there was some good description about how to make such comparison. The articles were freely available on the web then but I can't find them now. I do have pdf files of them which I could put somewhere if there is interest. I assume that since they were freely available that this would not infringe the rights of the original publisher. Is that correct?

I wouldn't mind reading them.

 

[foc]

Nowadays, since most of thse big labs have retired for one reason or another, there are a lot of niche opportunities like yours.

The big labs are gone because there are not the huge volumes of film around that can keep them running. Big labs need big film through put.
Yes, niche market processing is the way to go today.

Personally, I agree with Adrian Bacon, follow the money. They are the customers you want not the head wreckers that will argue, ad nauseam, the benefits of X, Y or Z.

When I had a shop/lab, (this is back in 1990s) every Saturday there would be a steady stream of guys (yes it was always men) into the shop, they never bought anything, just looking, BUT there was always a contest to see who knew the most. I was asked all sorts of obscure questions and eventually got fed up (and it interfered with my work from paying customers) that I told them that I was charging a fee per question. That solved that.

 

[pentaxuser]

I wouldn't mind reading them.

That makes two of us

pentaxuser

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I wouldn't mind reading them.

I think I may have seen that Crawley 400 ISO film review floating around as a pdf, unfortunately I don't have a link to hand.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Any oil painter who doesn't care what chemicals, pigments, and solvents are involved, and only cares about the final color is doomed to failure. It doesn't matter if you're a house painter or painting a canvas. Informed "fat" versus "lean" layering is crucial. Otherwise layers crack and peel as they cure at different rates of expansion and contraction. That's part of the ABC's, one of the first things to learn, and it's one of the worst analogies I can think of. Based on fundamentals like this, I tend to divide house painters into two categories : the first category I call real pro painters, and they're an endangered species. In the second category are what I term bums, drunks, school dropouts, and lead poisoning addicts, and they're abundant. But the ones who do things right the will save you a ton of money in the long run.

A pro buys the best stuff he needs to do business and gets on with business. He doesn't sit around arguing about his materials, pixel peeps, etc with other people, especially amateurs. The hard part is finding customers and selling and keeping the cash flowing and making payroll, like in any other business. The last thing on his mind is how many grains per square CM between HP5 and Tri-X.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

The big labs are gone because there are not the huge volumes of film around that can keep them running. Big labs need big film through put.
Yes, niche market processing is the way to go today.

Personally, I agree with Adrian Bacon, follow the money. They are the customers you want not the head wreckers that will argue, ad nauseam, the benefits of X, Y or Z.

When I had a shop/lab, (this is back in 1990s) every Saturday there would be a steady stream of guys (yes it was always men) into the shop, they never bought anything, just looking, BUT there was always a contest to see who knew the most. I was asked all sorts of obscure questions and eventually got fed up (and it interfered with my work from paying customers) that I told them that I was charging a fee per question. That solved that.

I get that same thing in my shop. Every week there’s at least one guy that comes in and “inspects” to see if I’m worthy. I get the same thing via email inquiries all the time. You’d be amazed by how many guys perform an “inspection” to determine if your worth their money. I’m generally happy to answer questions if people are asking because they’re genuinely curious or interested, but it’s pretty easy to spot the people who are just looking for a pissing contest or for a reason to dismiss you, and in all honesty, those are not really customers I really want to have. I’ll happily take their money if they’ll spend it, because money is money, but they usually don’t spend it, or make you work extra hard to get it.

the way I deal with those guys (and yes, it’s always guys) once I realize what they’re doing is I just make it obvious that I have paid work to tend to, and will be happy to assist them when they’re ready to check out. They usually look around for a few minutes, ask a couple price related questions, sometimes buy a roll or two of film, then slink out, never to be seen or heard from again. If they continue with their “inspection” I keep my answers short and standardized. Once they realize I’m on to them and I’m not going to play along, they usually disappear pretty quickly.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think I may have seen that Crawley 400 ISO film review floating around as a pdf, unfortunately I don't have a link to hand.

It appears that both articles were once linked to in a Photrio thread. The thread is still there dated about 2012 or so but the url has sadly gone as have many useful urls from that time

I cannot find any other link anywhere but others's ability to navigate the internet will no doubt be better than mine

pentaxuser