I for one appreciate Brian's contribution of this test. My take away is that the differences are probably well within the other gazillion differences I flirt with in my typical photo projects. I was a bit crushed when Plus-X went to the great darkroom in the sky, but found FP4+ to be pretty satisfying, and I've shot a few rolls of HP5+ with decent results. (I just tried my first roll of Neopan 400 and liked it around the time its imminent disappearance was announced -- Darn!) It does seem to me that the Ilford materials have a clearer base and come out flatter without being stashed in ClearPrint files for a month, which I rather like. So I'm sure I will muddle along as per usual.
When I don't have a sprained ankle
minimum of 14x36
max of 49x36
per week.
They are street shots in the same Genre as Garry Winograd, close in with 28 or 35 mm, he stands further back. Cept I don't have his back log for processing, Id run out of reloadable cassettes and my print portfolio is about 20 shots, Ricardo has seen them, some are rude.
I use a light box rather than contacts.
I get one keeper every 7 cassettes, maybe.
Auto focus on a x100 would not work.
Here are films scans. Again, not much difference IMO as far as grain. Most think HP5 is grainier, as I always have. The Tri-x is on the left, HP5 on the right. They are 3200dpi scans of the chimney from frame #11. Scanned on an Epson V600.
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.
After looking at the scans I´m even more surprised. When the new 400TX was released some 10 years ago many people claimed that the grain was much finer than before. At this resolution, I had expected it to be visibly finer than HP5+ but now I cannot make out any difference.
Blind wet print test @ 16x20... might be different.
eg as scanning may be masking differences.
Here are films scans. Again, not much difference IMO as far as grain. Most think HP5 is grainier, as I always have. The Tri-x is on the left, HP5 on the right. They are 3200dpi scans of the chimney from frame #11. Scanned on an Epson V600.
I agree. However when I look at the negs through a loupe HP5 still looks a little grainier. It may be a different story with optical printing since scanners pick up grain like crazy. I might wet print that same section of chimney on 8x10 paper an scan the prints. That would be a better test.
Gran is impossible to call, especially as the films were't developed exactly the same.
Brian: if you had to pick one and only one, which of the two films would you pick? HP5? Tri-X?
Brian: if you had to pick one and only one, which of the two films would you pick? HP5? Tri-X?
When I don't have a sprained ankle
minimum of 14x36
max of 49x36
per week.
They are street shots in the same Genre as Garry Winograd, close in with 28 or 35 mm, he stands further back. Cept I don't have his back log for processing, Id run out of reloadable cassettes and my print portfolio is about 20 shots, Ricardo has seen them, some are rude.
I use a light box rather than contacts.
I get one keeper every 7 cassettes, maybe.
Auto focus on a x100 would not work.
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.
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?