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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.you need to do a controlled experiment to get meaningful results. Test target step wedge (Xmas)
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.
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 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.
Has anyone conducted tests to compare Tri-X vs. HP5+ in Rodinal 1+25 or 1+50?
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?