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

[pentaxuser]

I was looking at the series of tests done by Greg Davis (not Davies) on films in which he compared a series of films against Tri-X. A useful series I have found. He started with HP5+ and several months later it was Delta 400's turn

I have just watched both videos again. In the first Tri-X v HP5+ test he came to the conclusion that there was virtually no difference between the two in any of the areas which he tested including grain. No surprise there you may think and certainly it was what I was expecting.

However when he tested D400 and Tri-X he believes that D400 was grainier than Tri-X which was a little surprising but somewhat more surprising and possibly worrying is that if his conclusion is that Tri-X and HP5+ are equal in this respect is correct then this implies that D400 is grainer than either, doesn't it, despite HP5+ having the "classic" grain and D400 the tabular grain or whatever Ilford calls D400's grain?.

Certainly it is food for thought for D400 users given that in every price comparison I have seen D400 is the more expensive film compared to HP5+

For those interested, have a look at both videos to see if my conclusion on what I think Greg's conclusion was in terms of grain ranking is correct

It really did surprise me.

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Maybe grain ranking is same, but I found Tri-X and HP5 to be quite different, especially in their shadow rendering, and highlights. HP5 better shadow contrast. Tri-X better highlight contrast. I am surprised that he found D400 to be grainier than Tri-X, though. Do you have a link to the videos? Thanks!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello pentaxuser,
I have not seen those videos: I stopped looking at internet tests, because -generally speaking- they don't show what films do...
Most of those tests (I don't know if that's the case here) present negative scans, so they can be whatever.
I find Tri-X and HP5+ totally different: tone, grain, shadows, EIs behaviour, everything.
D400 is considered closer to Tri-X by some photographers.
HP5+ has several possible looks, but from what I have seen on real prints, Tri-X can't imitate the watercolor type of grain HP5+ can give.
Tri-X has a more constant grain presence in my opinion, and a more contrasty tone even if both films can be worked to look differently depending on exposure and development.
I use both constantly.
Above box speed HP5+ is a much better film. Tri-X is slower. In Perceptol I use Tri-X at 200 and HP5+ at 320.

 

[DMJ]

HP5


Delta


In Greg words : "...Delta 400 has slightly, and only slightly increased grain".

In my opinion Greg has one of the best analog photography YT channels.

 

[dkonigs]

Before anyone starts making assumptions, Greg Davis not comparing scans. He's plotting H+D curves, and comparing darkroom prints of a standard scene where he holds a color card. Each video has a common intro segment where the whole process is laid out.

What he isn't doing, which I suspect most of you do, is muck around with a variety of developers.

 

[MattKing]

I corrected the spelling on Greg Davis' last name in the OP's first post.
Sorry, I'm an anal-retentive that way.

 

[madNbad]

He should be comparing Delta to TMax since they’re both t grain films.

 

[dkonigs]

He should be comparing Delta to TMax since they’re both t grain films.

The goal of this video series of his was to compare everything to Tri-X, using that as the baseline:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnsHyLR3BOehBnCUlgh6qBAyHp2seMjzx

Think of this as a long-running project, currently up to 17 different comparisons.

 

[removedacct1]

I've used Delta 400 for a long time and if used correctly, there's no possible way its grainier than Tri-X or HP5.

 

[madNbad]

I've used Delta 400 for a long time and if used correctly, there's no possible way its grainier than Tri-X or HP5.

I just developed a couple of rolls of Delta 400 in Ilfotec HC. I may switch over from TMax.

 

[gone]

Tri-X and HP5 are really not like each other at all. I don't understand how anyone could say these are essentially the same films??? Not in their grain, not in anything. I never shoot HP5 because the times I've tried it in 35mm, it didn't look nearly as good as Tri-X. Maybe it's in the exposure latitude or the grain or both, but HP looks very different to me, especially if they're both developed in Rodinal.

 

[Alan9940]

I've followed Greg for awhile now and have seen these comparison videos. I was quite surprised by his conclusion that there's virtually no difference between Tri-X and HP-5+ because, in my experience, the latter renders harsh desert sun with ease vs Tri-X; and, I've been a Tri-X shooter for 40+ years.

 

[pentaxuser]

I corrected the spelling on Greg Davis' last name in the OP's first post.
Sorry, I'm an anal-retentive that way.

Thanks Matt. I ought to have checked instead of assuming it was the spelling most often used for the "Welsh" Davies

Thanks DMJ for linking both videos and yes the other contributor is right, Greg does use and rightly so an "all other things being equal" approach to each test.

It was just that putting D400 into second place behind Tri-X and HP5+ which were first equals did surprise me. Don't forget that his comparison prints for the series are 11x14 which for a 35mm film which would seem to stretch a 35mm film's grain to the point that the likes of HP5+'s classic grain would start to show more grain than D400

So even if HP5+ is even a virtual match for D400 in the grain stakes let alone marginally better then I'd be looking for other offsetting benefits to justify the price difference between HP5+ and D400. The latter is always, based on U.K. retailers and my buying experience more expensive.

In the future when a newcomer says he is looking for lower grain lford film in the 400 speed range and wonders if he/she should buy D400 as opposed to HP5+, I'll will try to remember to point that person in the direction of these 2 videos of Greg's

In my early days, I for one assumed that buying D400 was likely to give me a less grainy print even in 8x10 and it was probably a better film all round which was why it cost more

It would have been helpful if sources such as these videos had been available then.

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

I think it makes sense to buy a couple of rolls of film and see for yourself whether you prefer Tri-X, HP5+, or Delta 400. It’s like relying on someone on the internet to tell you whether you like vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry ice cream based on how much sugar he thinks is in each one. If that is too much effort, at least consult several internet sources to see if there is a consensus opinion. You may be shocked to learn that not everyone is in agreement about these things. If there is some difference in opinion, you will then have to determine whose opinion to trust. You may decide to go with the naked guy in a darkroom apron making sexual innuendos on YouTube, or you may go with someone else. Always your choice.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Ilford and Kodak have already done proper micro-densitometry on their films to objectively measure granularity.

I understand that film manufacturers do and report measurement of granularity of their own films, but is there a report by Kodak or Ilford that compares the granularity of their films with those of the competitors? I mean, an instance where Ilford has measured and reported granularity of both HP5+ and Tri-x? And vice versa. Just curious to know.

 

[pentaxuser]

Each time I have looked at one of Greg's comparisons between film X and Tri-X I have looked at his grain comparison and in all or nearly all cases I have agreed with Greg. Yes, on occasions the difference may be so marginal as to be barely detectable in an 11x14 print and what Greg says is a slight difference I maybe see no difference. This describes what I saw in the D400 comparison with HP+ and Tri-X. He uses the same background on each occasion, the same lighting etc so it would seem that for all practical purposes the comparison with respect to grain is a fair one

If anyone hasn't done so yet but want to see for themselves then do have a look at the two videos to see what you think. If anyone thinks that they see a clear improvement in the background grain of D400 v Tri-X and HP5+ such that D400 is clearly and unmistakably the winner then please try and say what Greg has done wrong or at least may have done wrong and say what it is that I and Greg are failing to notice in the area which he uses for the grain comparison

Looking to those threads, often from newcomers, who are still finding their way, I felt it important that Greg's 2 videos be mentioned as each might give important information for said newcomers to enable them to decide for themselves.

I agree that there are a lot of videos out there of various value that use Tri-X and HP5+ in comparison and In most I have seen, HP5+ tends to win in the shadow details stakes and lose in the contrast stakes but I recall not so long ago that Lachlan Young, I think, stated that this was largely a wrong conclusion. Each film was capable of being used in such a way that 2 negs of the same scene would be identical. I note that Greg uses similar comments in his video on several occasions, saying that if he hadn't know which print was which then he did not believe he could have distinguished which was which. In all of the film tests I have seen between HP5+ and Tr-X there was very little information given about how rigorous or flawed the tests may have been may have been. Certainly less information that Greg gives.

It might well be that in this and other areas of film photography there is a tendency to exaggerate differences and "take sides" Fine for those of us who have made up our minds but those who seek information so they may, if they wish, make up their own minds, deserve to have it given to them or to be referred to useful sources

pentaxuser

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

They of course do these measurements on competitors’ products for a variety of reasons (including to support marketing statements), but do not publish them.

Ok. So there is no published independent confirmation of the measurements of granularity published by the manufacturer? Not that we need to distrust what the manufacturer says about their films, but it's a pity if those measurements haven't been publicly confirmed independently by others.

 

[dkonigs]

Ok. So there is no published independent confirmation of the measurements of granularity published by the manufacturer? Not that we need to distrust what the manufacturer says about their films, but it's a pity if those measurements haven't been publicly confirmed independently by others.

Every damn film seems to brag about its "fine grain" but no one ever bothers to actually quantify that beyond the level of a marketing statement. At least as far as I can tell.

 

[dkonigs]

If anyone hasn't done so yet but want to see for themselves then do have a look at the two videos to see what you think. If anyone thinks that they see a clear improvement in the background grain of D400 v Tri-X and HP5+ such that D400 is clearly and unmistakably the winner then please try and say what Greg has done wrong or at least may have done wrong and say what it is that I and Greg are failing to notice in the area which he uses for the grain comparison

What heresy is this? We're on an Internet forum full of old curmudgeons who love to get up on their soapboxes, and don't think too kindly of these new-fangled YouTube videos. Do you seriously think anyone sharing strong opinions here will actually bother to watch his videos or review his methods before sharing their strongly-held knee-jerk reactions to the initial claims?


(But seriously, I suspect that very few of the comments and reactions in this thread are from people who actually bothered to review the analysis being discussed.)

 

[Tom Kershaw]

There are a variety of things that can explain erroneous conclusions in this case.

Delta 400 can give misleadingly high levels of grain if overdeveloped or exposed.

 

[pentaxuser]

Ok. So there is no published independent confirmation of the measurements of granularity published by the manufacturer? Not that we need to distrust what the manufacturer says about their films, but it's a pity if those measurements haven't been publicly confirmed independently by others.

Generally we applaud those who give out information and while I can understand say Ilford not wishing to state that its granularity tests revealed that D400 is grainier than TMax 400, it is a little more surprising that if Kodak has the competitive edge in this aspect of its film it does not state its findings or is not prepared to put its findings into the sphere of recognised scientific bodies for examination.

Short of that kind of information from the makers, it falls to the likes of Greg to devise tests that attempts to make meaningfúl comparisons. If his granularity test is flawed to the extent that it does reveal the true differences in granularity then what is its flaws?

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

Generally we applaud those who give out information and while I can understand say Ilford not wishing to state that its granularity tests revealed that D400 is grainier than TMax 400, it is a little more surprising that if Kodak has the competitive edge in this aspect of its film it does not state its findings or is not prepared to put its findings into the sphere of recognised scientific bodies for examination.

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

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Well, one of the problems is that no laypeople are in the position to do this objectively. The industry standard objective measure of graininess is RMS granularity. It requires micro-densitometry. Once you introduce prints, you add additional subjective factors such as the perception of graininess at different reflection densities. This has all been well studied.

It doesn't have to be a layman doing the tests. I was more interested in knowing if anyone other than the manufacturer who is competent and well-equipped did the tests and confirmed the measurements reported by the manufacturer in either a published journal paper or a technical report. I understand that the manufacturer's competitors might have done the study but their findings will not be made public for obvious reasons.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Classic. Ilford evaluates granularity, a darkroom consumer contradicts what Ilford says, and someone supporting statements by Ilford is the one on the soapbox? Wow.

The other couple of data points that seem to be getting ignored are that Delta films can potentially produce significantly more visual granularity if they get even a little bit too much exposure (with the other side of the coin being that they tend to have well modulated highlights, despite some users' best efforts to boil them to dmax) - and that they have immensely high MTF performance at both low frequencies, and possibly somewhat further up the scale than Kodak go for - which in the perennial juggling act with RMSG, can make the granularity more apparent. Under the rigorous analytical methodology of Kriss etc, I suspect that the numerical outcome would be far closer than many on this thread want to believe.

 

[Lachlan Young]

who is competent and well-equipped did the tests

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.'