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

ambaker · Jul 16, 2014

It's all tools. The film, the lens, the camera, developer, paper, filters... Tools...

Some make it easier to get what you want out of them. Some make it more difficult.

What is a boon to one, is a hindrance to another.

I do like the A/B tests, because it helps me decide which will work best for my purposes. Your choice may differ.

Allen Friday · Jul 16, 2014

After reading the post and viewing the contact sheets, it is clear to me that Tri-X is the vastly superior film. You save three minutes of developing time.

Sirius Glass · Jul 16, 2014

I prefer Tri-X 400 and use it in all formats but 4"x5". There is no Tri-X 400 for 4"x5".

brian steinberger · Jul 16, 2014

Allen Friday said:
After reading the post and viewing the contact sheets, it is clear to me that Tri-X is the vastly superior film. You save three minutes of developing time.

Haha!! That is a nice thing!

TXFZ1 · Jul 16, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
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.

+3, I thought test images of the brooms were interesting as they remind me of Tillman Crane.

David

Bob Carnie · Jul 16, 2014

I have always thought they were very similar, your test seem to agree.

fhovie · Jul 16, 2014

I like tri-x because I know tri-x - A great image on HP5 is just as good as a great image on tri-x. It is nice to know that if tri-x goes away, there is a decent alternative .... but
How well does it push? how forgiving is it in the shadows when you guessed and missed? It might be a little different but just like with fiber base paper selections, you need to work with what you can get. - A nice test - good idea.

Jaf-Photo · Jul 16, 2014

It's agreed that these films look similar. That's the whole point of HP5, to emulate Tri-X. (Or rather the original point was to emulate Tri-X at a much lower price, which is no longer the case.)

But to me Tri-X looks "right" and HP5 a little "off". This is purely subjective.

Parts of it may be conditioning, the fact that most iconic news footage and artistic images were shot on Tri-X for decades.

But you can't discount that Kodak had a huge army of photographic engineers who spent countless man-hours to make every detail look right in their films.

Everyone else, including Ilford, was just trying to catch up with them.

Bob Carnie · Jul 16, 2014

Here is a question

Is there anyone here that can say that they would recognize a 16 x20 print from a TriX neg and that of a HP5 neg considering the OP test.??

David A. Goldfarb · Jul 16, 2014

I can usually tell them apart, but it's hard to say based on these particular scans and how they look on screen.

Jaf-Photo · Jul 16, 2014

Bob Carnie said:
Here is a question

Is there anyone here that can say that they would recognize a 16 x20 print from a TriX neg and that of a HP5 neg considering the OP test.??

I can usally spot prints made from Tri-X because it does have a signature. But of course you could print it in any way to mix it up.

ambaker · Jul 16, 2014

If you print all the way to the edge of the negative from 135, I sometimes can. :smirk:

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

DREW WILEY · Jul 16, 2014

I see little similarity between Tri-X and HP5. Not only is their effective speed different, but their grain structure is totally different and it shows
in a print. Maybe not so much in small formats, where any significant degree of enlargement is essentially mush. But certainly in larger formats
there's a world of difference between the "watercolor" grain of HP5 and the salt and pepper shotgun effect of Tri-X. Curve structure is also
different, but not as dramatically as between certain other films I could mention. People who like one won't necessarily like the other.

ROL · Jul 16, 2014

Bob Carnie said:
Here is a question

Is there anyone here that can say that they would recognize a 16 x20 print from a TriX neg and that of a HP5 neg considering the OP test.??

Here's an answer, Bob.

I didn't want to expound on the OP's test all that much, because I am glad he came to some rational conclusion through his own empirical testing of 120. Good on him, in that regard. But, I've been using both TXP and HP5+ in 5x7 sheets interchangeably for most of the last ten years or so. Both are shot at 200, the only difference being that the HP5+ gets 20% less development time than TXP in PMK Pyro. I pay little mind to which is in the film holder, until developing. They both enlarge exceptionally to well beyond 30"x40". Sure, after working with a negative, I may be able to see some differences in one or the other, maybe even preferences, but most of that is likely anecdotal. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever looked at any of my prints and said, "Sure as shootin', as I live and breathe, by golly, that is TXP (or HP5+) in pyro!" (As an aside, most people, including photographers, cannot tell my MF prints from my LF prints, even at the previously stated size). A few more lab sessions down the road when I've made other prints, even I can't tell film and process, without digging into my notes. All that is left after the sausage is made is the lingering taste. Either one could go away (likely the TXP), and it wouldn't change a thing either in practice or result for me.

The only other film I use presently is FP4+. Shot only one stop faster, it could easily be my one and only if one or the other of the remaining two films disappeared, even though both the aforementioned films are relatively easier to get focussed under the enlarger due to somewhat larger and more definite grain structure. Or vice versa.

Xmas · Jul 17, 2014

Jaf-Photo said:
It's agreed that these films look similar. That's the whole point of HP5, to emulate Tri-X. (Or rather the original point was to emulate Tri-X at a much lower price, which is no longer the case.)

But to me Tri-X looks "right" and HP5 a little "off". This is purely subjective.

Parts of it may be conditioning, the fact that most iconic news footage and artistic images were shot on Tri-X for decades.

But you can't discount that Kodak had a huge army of photographic engineers who spent countless man-hours to make every detail look right in their films.

Everyone else, including Ilford, was just trying to catch up with them.

I've never been able to buy Kodak cheaper than Ilford, HP3 and on - today Trix bulk is x2 HP5+. Kentmere400 even cheaper. I know film is expensive in Se.

Lots of our news shots were on Ilford film.

I've only ever used Kodachrome last century, this century only doublex and 320 trix in 220 cause Ilford stopped 220 and cine.

I buy cheap film Adox, Agfa, Ilford, Ch, Forma, Orwo, and Russian, past expiry date, stillusing HP5+ cine.

Post '15 you won't have any Kodak... cept in fridge.

The test needs to be Formapan 400 v HP5+?

Roger Cole · Jul 17, 2014

DREW WILEY said:
I see little similarity between Tri-X and HP5. Not only is their effective speed different, but their grain structure is totally different and it shows
in a print. Maybe not so much in small formats, where any significant degree of enlargement is essentially mush. But certainly in larger formats
there's a world of difference between the "watercolor" grain of HP5 and the salt and pepper shotgun effect of Tri-X. Curve structure is also
different, but not as dramatically as between certain other films I could mention. People who like one won't necessarily like the other.

I don't doubt that the technically minded and competent can see these differences. I don't doubt you can. Heck, I'm sure if I made the effort I could see differences in curves resulting in different tonality and certainly differences in grain. But most people won't notice them very much, and even if one does I don't think they are going to make that much difference in whether a photo is seen as good or not.

Roger Cole · Jul 17, 2014

Xmas said:
Post '15 you won't have any Kodak... cept in fridge.

The test needs to be Formapan 400 v HP5+?

I doubt this about Kodak film being gone by then.

And between Fomapan 400 and HP5+ I've used both and in almost any objective terms HP5+ will spank Fomapan. That's not to say Fomapan is without merit or isn't fun to use or can't produce good results - it isn't, it is, and it can in that order. But if I had to choose only one of those two HP5+ would win hands down. Faster, finer grained, pushes far better, better QC, not nearly as soft and delicate in handling etc.

pbromaghin · Jul 17, 2014

Bob Carnie said:
Here is a question

Is there anyone here that can say that they would recognize a 16 x20 print from a TriX neg and that of a HP5 neg considering the OP test.??

Hell, no.

Just go shoot what you have.

baachitraka · Jul 17, 2014

Bob Carnie · Jul 17, 2014

Other than printing the rebate and seeing the type, I think I agree with ROL 's response as I sure as hell cannot tell the difference .

For those who can see the difference, could you elaborate on what you are seeing that tells you that it is Tri X over HP5 ... enquiring minds need to know.

JackRosa · Jul 17, 2014

brian steinberger said:
I have never had great luck with Rodinal with either if these films.

Meaning what exactly .. .:confused:

baachitraka · Jul 17, 2014

Meaning, that gentleman don't belong to 'Church of Rodinal'

brian steinberger · Jul 17, 2014

TXFZ1 said:
+3, I thought test images of the brooms were interesting as they remind me of Tillman Crane.

David

David, I just spent the last half hour looking at Mr. Crane's work. Fantastic!!

brian steinberger · Jul 17, 2014

JackRosa said:
Meaning what exactly .. .:confused:

I like Rodinal, but I prefer it with FP4. As for 400 speed films HP5 and Tri-x grain got a bit excessive in it. I have had luck with Tmax400 and of course my beloved Neopan in it. But I have found with FP4 that in ID-11 diluted 1:2 I get sharpness just as good as rodinal but with less grain. But then again I don't get that wonderful rodinal tonality!

JackRosa · Jul 17, 2014

Tri-X & HP5 in Rodinal

brian steinberger said:
I like Rodinal, but I prefer it with FP4. As for 400 speed films HP5 and Tri-x grain got a bit excessive in it. I have had luck with Tmax400 and of course my beloved Neopan in it. But I have found with FP4 that in ID-11 diluted 1:2 I get sharpness just as good as rodinal but with less grain. But then again I don't get that wonderful rodinal tonality!

Thanks Brian for your reply. Years ago I conducted tests and settled on using Rodinal with pretty much all the films I use: FP4+, HP5+ and Tri-X. I don't know where my notes are and do not remember what made me conclude Rodinal would be my developer of choice. I do remember that one of the developers I was using for the test was PMK Pyro and remember I liked the tonality achieved with Rodinal even better than the one achieved with Pyro - which was surprising to me.

I use HP5+ in 8x10 format exclusively. Don't remember why I settled on this. For 4x5 I use both, Tri-X and HP5+ and seem to lean toward Tri-X . . . . the look. FP4+ however, wins hands down (for me / 4x5 size). All fins developed in Rodinal 1+25

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

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency