Tri-x vs. HP5, a simple test I did.

[gone]

Interesting comparison, and I applaud you for doing it and posting it here, but in my mind I'm thinking, ah, if only things were this simple! The deal is, if you take Tri-X and develop it in a particular developer in it's OPTIMAL manner (and this can only be found by trying it several ways), and do the same w/ the HP5, you still don't have much as far as a base.

What may be an optimal developer for Tri-X is not one for HP5. I can look at my Tri-X negs that were developed in Rodinal (boy, a little grainy there, but really nice grain), in D76 or TD11 (wow, great tonality, but not the sharpest) and Acufine (sharp as the dickens, but not the same tonality as the previous developer) and the only consensus I can get is that they're all different. And we haven't even thrown HP5 into the equation, nor the fact that one film may look better w/ a little under exposure, while the other may work better at box speed.

As for the scan thing, it's an internet forum, so something is gonna have to be scanned or we can't see it. Scanned prints or just scanned negatives, it doesn't matter, we're all at the mercy of post processing and individual monitor calibration. Ideally we'd all be looking at the prints in person, but that isn't going to happen. Even then.....you can print one neg a LOT of different ways to get very different results.

 

[brian steinberger]

Interesting comparison, and I applaud you for doing it and posting it here, but in my mind I'm thinking, ah, if only things were this simple! The deal is, if you take Tri-X and develop it in a particular developer in it's OPTIMAL manner (and this can only be found by trying it several ways), and do the same w/ the HP5, you still don't have much as far as a base.

What may be an optimal developer for Tri-X is not one for HP5. I can look at my Tri-X negs that were developed in Rodinal (boy, a little grainy there, but really nice grain), in D76 or TD11 (wow, great tonality, but not the sharpest) and Acufine (sharp as the dickens, but not the same tonality as the previous developer) and the only consensus I can get is that they're all different. And we haven't even throw HP5 into the equation.

As for the scan thing, it's an internet forum, so something is gonna have to be scanned or we can't see it. Scanned prints or just scanned negatives, it doesn't matter, we're all at the mercy of post processing and individual monitor calibration. Ideally we'd all be looking at the prints in person, but it isn't going to happen. Even then.....you can print one neg a LOT of different ways to get very different results.

Good points. There are tons variables in photography as we all know. I chose ID-11 for the test simply because it's my most used developer and it is the standard (D-76). If I were to do these tests again with say pushing these films to EI 800 or EI 1600 I'm sure the results would be not so similar and I would have probably used a developer like Xtol.

But for general shooting at just below box speed, as most of us shoot these films I was surprised how similar they can look.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks for posting, Brian. If you obsess over the little differences too much, it gets in the way of picture making. Anybody who thinks you need to capitalize on the small differences between these two emulsions I feel is artfully missing the point about what's important in photography - the photographs are either interesting or they're not. No film is going to change that. Only how you use it.

I switched to HP5+ from mainly Tri-X 400 and it has made no meaningful difference in my resulting prints. Especially after I learned to give HP5+ a bit more developing time than I expected to.

Have fun making more amazing prints, Brian. I'm sure you can make either of these films sing.

 

[brian steinberger]

Thanks for posting, Brian. If you obsess over the little differences too much, it gets in the way of picture making. Anybody who thinks you need to capitalize on the small differences between these two emulsions I feel is artfully missing the point about what's important in photography - the photographs are either interesting or they're not. No film is going to change that. Only how you use it.

I switched to HP5+ from mainly Tri-X 400 and it has made no meaningful difference in my resulting prints. Especially after I learned to give HP5+ a bit more developing time than I expected to.

Have fun making more amazing prints, Brian. I'm sure you can make either of these films sing.

Thanks Thomas. Even after all these years things are becoming clearer to me, as I have been one known for chasing the magic bullet. I know recently you've simplified your photography and I am preparing to do the same. Thanks again for the kind words.

 

[winger]

If you obsess over the little differences too much, it gets in the way of picture making. Anybody who thinks you need to capitalize on the small differences between these two emulsions I feel is artfully missing the point about what's important in photography - the photographs are either interesting or they're not. No film is going to change that. Only how you use it.

This should be in huge letters across the top of every page of APUG.

And thanks for posting 'cause I think it might calm some people down if they think Tri-X might go away sooner than HP-5. They really aren't that different - I think the differences are in people's heads, not the prints.

 

[Roger Cole]

Those contact sheets are dark and muddy looking. They really don't tell us anything. Enlarge some of the photos with the correct print exposure and contrast to make each individually look its best. I like both films, but they're not the same.

I agree. Maybe it's my monitor but I can't convince myself I see ANY difference between the two from those images. The Tri-X seems to be developed to maybe a tad more contrast but a) I can't convince myself of that for sure at all, and b) even if it is that's just a tweak of development time to get what you want.

I can't see any real difference.

 

[Roger Cole]

This is exactly what I was trying to show. They are more similar than I ever thought. This was a surprise to me. I kind of regret posting this now. I'm sorry to those whose time I wasted, but maybe some APUGers out there will find this of benefit when debating over film similarities and differences.

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure what you meant to imply and others seemed to be saying they saw the Tri-X as superior. I certainly don't.

HP5+ is a fine film. The biggest reasons I've preferred Tri-X are just that I've used it for decades and am more familiar with it (though it has changed over time) and it gets a bit faster in Diafine. I develop in D76 1+1 for normal speed but it's nice having that option for lower light.

 

[bernard_L]

First off, congratulations for doing this clear A/B test. All too often (possibly answering a question from a beginner) someone posts a single image as proof that his/her film/dev combination is better (than what?).

Second, after looking carefully, I see (in some A/B pairs) that the shadow detail/separation is better with HP5 (e.g. frame 1, the wall corner to the right of the window); the other side of the coin is that the highlight separation is less with HP5 (e.g. last frame). I guess that is the same as Michael_R expressed in his comment. Altogether I would prefer TX, I think. But the differences are minute.

@ Drew Wiley. You have a right to have your opinion, but a little civility won't hurt.

you need to do a controlled experiment to get meaningful results. Test target step wedge (Xmas)

I don't hang on my wall prints of step wedges. While I agree that a step wedge might help give a quantitative basis on the perceived (or not) differences between the two films, given the choice of just one i'll take the "natural" pictures to compare the two films.

 

[Roger Cole]

Thanks for posting, Brian. If you obsess over the little differences too much, it gets in the way of picture making. Anybody who thinks you need to capitalize on the small differences between these two emulsions I feel is artfully missing the point about what's important in photography - the photographs are either interesting or they're not. No film is going to change that. Only how you use it.

I switched to HP5+ from mainly Tri-X 400 and it has made no meaningful difference in my resulting prints. Especially after I learned to give HP5+ a bit more developing time than I expected to.

Have fun making more amazing prints, Brian. I'm sure you can make either of these films sing.

This should be in huge letters across the top of every page of APUG.

And thanks for posting 'cause I think it might calm some people down if they think Tri-X might go away sooner than HP-5. They really aren't that different - I think the differences are in people's heads, not the prints.

+1.

The differences between these films are tiny in comparison to differences in composition. No photograph is going to succeed or fail because it was shot on one versus the other.

We should all argue less about films and shoot and print more photographs.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Thanks Brian for this thorough testing. I must admit that I see very little difference either. Like others said, it would be great to see some higher resolution scans to have a look on the grain.

If you obsess over the little differences too much, it gets in the way of picture making. Anybody who thinks you need to capitalize on the small differences between these two emulsions I feel is artfully missing the point about what's important in photography - the photographs are either interesting or they're not. No film is going to change that. Only how you use it.

Word! And quite true for everything: films, developers, papers, paper developers, lenses. Though I think that lenses still make the biggest difference, but if you compare 5 different lenses of the same focal length and aperture from 5 different manufacturers within the same film format, the differences will be small. Film developers make some difference too, but after all, these things have quite a homoeopathic impact compared to lighting, accuracy of focus, camera shake, proper development, proper scanning or exact focussing when making prints.

 

[darkosaric]

Thanks for nice tests - i does show that both films are great.

I like to shoot different films, and develop with different developers. It is a part of the game and fun for me. But anyhow I get similar prints, and often I see bigger difference using different lens than film/developer. All todays B&W films are superb (all from Ilford, Kodak, Adox, Foma, Agfa...), or good enough (Polypan, Lucky, Shangai, Lomo...). The worst film in the market today is probably Polypan 50 - and I get nice results that I can print on 30x40cm from it. We are lucky to have so many good and not expensive films on the market. And thanks to digital - we can buy awesome cameras for next to nothing. It is great to shoot B&W film today .

 

[Xmas]

I don't hang on my wall prints of step wedges. While I agree that a step wedge might help give a quantitative basis on the perceived (or not) differences between the two films, given the choice of just one i'll take the "natural" pictures to compare the two films.

The resolution chart and step wedge are merely less subjective.

A full H&D tells you how many zones are going to be on the film, useful to know before you shoot.

The toe shape the consequences of underexposure if you 'push' your luck.

When Tmax came out the photo mags did full comparisons with plusx and trix apart from grain there was no significant difference, IMO

 

[baachitraka]

Not again...

Just make sure you got enough detail on the negative and rest is what you show to the paper in the darkroom.

 

[MDR]

They are very very close the differences in contrast are minimal and of no real importance. Thanks for the Test. As Michael Kenna once said "he uses any film he can get" and yet he manages to get his signature look in all of his Images. Thanks for the test.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

This kind of testing is to be commended.

I do notice a bit more contrast in the Tri-X contacts, making the HP5 look a bit flatter by comparison. That is indeed one of the reasons I use Tri-X.

But really you would need a lot more resoution to be able to tell.

If you dont want to print, how about some full-res scans?

 

[JackRosa]

Tri-x vs. HP5+ in Rodinal

Has anyone conducted tests to compare Tri-X vs. HP5+ in Rodinal 1+25 or 1+50?

 

[brian steinberger]

Thanks guys for the positive comments! I may try to get some neg snans tonight for those interested in grain.

 

[brian steinberger]

Has anyone conducted tests to compare Tri-X vs. HP5+ in Rodinal 1+25 or 1+50?

I have never had great luck with Rodinal with either if these films.

 

[Xmas]

This kind of testing is to be commended.

I do notice a bit more contrast in the Tri-X contacts, making the HP5 look a bit flatter by comparison. That is indeed one of the reasons I use Tri-X.

But really you would need a lot more resoution to be able to tell.

If you dont want to print, how about some full-res scans?

If you soup for longer you get more contrast.

HP5+ has a softer toe than most of the other films I use.

If you swap to Harman there also is Delta3200, Kentmere 100 and 400, FP4+, PanF+, ... options you don't get with Kodak.

Id miss Double-x an option you dont get with Harman.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

If you soup for longer you get more contrast.

HP5+ has a softer toe than most of the other films I use.

If you swap to Harman there also is Delta3200, Kentmere 100 and 400, FP4+, PanF+, ... options you don't get with Kodak.

Id miss Double-x an option you dont get with Harman.

I see it more as a question of Tri-X vs HP5, rather than Kodak vs Ilford.

I did test a lot of Ilford film in the last year, but the only one I stuck with is FP4.

It's a purely personal choice, and I'm not saying that Ilford or any of its films suck.

 

[brian steinberger]

I see it more as a question of Tri-X vs HP5, rather than Kodak vs Ilford.

I did test a lot of Ilford film in the last year, but the only one I stuck with is FP4.

It's a purely personal choice, and I'm not saying that Ilford or any of its films suck.

FP4 is an amazing film. My personal favorite in 35mm when I don't need speed.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thanks for sharing this. I'm not a wet prints expert, but beginner.
So, for my eye, the scan of most contact prints are nearly the same.

I rate HP5 as 200 for summer time only in 135 format.
But in MF I really need it at 400.

 

[ignatiu5]

Thank you for your test and posting your data; helpful information. It's something I should have done (and honestly, still should with my lenses), but now I have an excuse to justify my laziness. It's already been done!

 

[nworth]

Not much difference, as expected. When I think I see a difference between the two, I look at another frame and see the opposite. Overall, they handle shadows and highlight very similarly, and there are no big differences in the midtones between the two. You certainly nailed the exposure and development to make the comparison, but other choices might show more differences.

 

[ROL]

Thanks for posting, Brian. If you obsess over the little differences too much, it gets in the way of picture making. Anybody who thinks you need to capitalize on the small differences between these two emulsions I feel is artfully missing the point about what's important in photography - the photographs are either interesting or they're not. No film is going to change that. Only how you use it.

+1, can't say it early and often enough!