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

John Bragg · Mar 9, 2015

I know this is a long thread that has recently been revived, but I too am amazed at the similarities between the two emulsions. I have also been using mainly HP5+ for the last few months, and can honestly say that any differences are minor. For me, I will see HP5+ as my go to film as the minor differences are in its favour, although that is in my personal workflow and others may see it differently.

Xmas · Mar 9, 2015

Jaf-Photo said:
Wow, this is a massive amount of work for a couple of keepers per week. Almost a full-time job.

Regarding your comment on autofocus on the Fuji x100, have you considered using a mirrorless digital body with a legacy lens? Then you could use hyperfocus for instant snapping. It would save you an enormus amount of time and quite some money too. Processed with Silver Efex, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference from film anyay.

Matthew 4:10; but Most of the digital cameras either:-

- wont tolerate being carried with first pressure taken up for a days shoot and/or have slow power ups.
- cost money and my laptop is slow already...
- have limited life

and I have thousands of feet of film in fridge, though the cost of chemistry seems to be increasing here.

It does take me ages to repair the simple cameras & enlargers and wetprint, but I've nothing better to do really.

Xmas · Mar 9, 2015

John Bragg said:
I know this is a long thread that has recently been revived, but I too am amazed at the similarities between the two emulsions. I have also been using mainly HP5+ for the last few months, and can honestly say that any differences are minor. For me, I will see HP5+ as my go to film as the minor differences are in its favour, although that is in my personal workflow and others may see it differently.

If you shoot each of the current 400 ISOs (and Double-x) and do 16x20 blind tests you should be able to split out the Fomapan 400, the Delta and TMax, maybe the Double-x but the Tx, HP5+, Kentmere, Pan, etc. might be difficult unless you look closely.

If you have a step wedge you will detect some toe differences, but how many of us use step wedges?

quisnox · Jun 29, 2015

So sad Kodak is dying and Ilford is going to be the only one replacement

Peter Schrager · Jun 29, 2015

Kodak only dies if we don't support them! buy film; all film
best,peter

Sirius Glass · Jun 29, 2015

quisnox said:
So sad Kodak is dying and Ilford is going to be the only one replacement

Welcome to APUG

So buy film and support Kodak, Fuji and Ilford.

RalphLambrecht · Jun 30, 2015

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

I'm a big FP4+ fan too.For 400 speed,I prefer Tmax-400,just what I like(personal taste)
Iappreciate the test and was surprised too;still believe that there is more difference between films than between developers(maybe Rodinal excluded).

Xmas · Jun 30, 2015

Peter Schrager said:
Kodak only dies if we don't support them! buy film; all film
best,peter

EK are dependent on profit from cine so attending films shot on film is all we can do they only make marginal profit on stills KA now gets the lions share.

Stills has always been a small % of volume but with a higher margin.

jonasfj · Jul 3, 2015

Are you shocked that they look identical?

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

flavio81 · Jul 3, 2015

Xmas said:
If you shoot each of the current 400 ISOs (and Double-x) and do 16x20 blind tests you should be able to split out the Fomapan 400, the Delta and TMax, maybe the Double-x but the Tx, HP5+, Kentmere, Pan, etc. might be difficult unless you look closely.

If you have a step wedge you will detect some toe differences, but how many of us use step wedges?

Agree fully!!

There is a good, carefully done comparison on "le-pirate-photo" (french forum) between Hp5 and 400TX, they are very similar; the difference is that HP5 is slightly grainer.

fcsergio · Nov 13, 2015

I can't tell the diference...

Xmas · Nov 13, 2015

You need a better quality loupe!

frank · Nov 13, 2015

Tri-X vs HP5: I buy which ever is on sale/least expensive.

Ko.Fe. · Nov 13, 2015

Every time I need 400 the Tri-X is next to double of the HP5+ price. On my most recent order for 400 I took two bulks of ... Kentmere 400.

DREW WILEY · Nov 13, 2015

They don't look the same at all when printed, at least not after the neg is pyro developed. HP5 develops a smooth "watercolor" grain, yet
with good edge acutance, TX looks like the film was blasted with birdshot. I'd never use either of em in anything smaller than 8X10.

Sirius Glass · Nov 13, 2015

frank said:
Tri-X vs HP5: I buy which ever is on sale/least expensive.

Tri-X 400 is not available in 4"x5" so it is HP5+.

TheFlyingCamera · Nov 13, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
They don't look the same at all when printed, at least not after the neg is pyro developed. HP5 develops a smooth "watercolor" grain, yet
with good edge acutance, TX looks like the film was blasted with birdshot. I'd never use either of em in anything smaller than 8X10.

I've shot a LOT of both, although more Tri-X than HP5, in 120 and I don't find either to be at all grainy/gritty/bird-shotty. And you know I do know from smooth grainless prints as I've printed platinum/palladium from 14x17 FP4+. It really doesn't get more grainless than that and still use film. And I'm not talking about negative scans either- I'm talking full on wet-darkroom prints.

DREW WILEY · Nov 13, 2015

Try high contrast printing. More like buckshot.

Roger Cole · Nov 13, 2015

I love Tri-X in 120. I haven't shot HP5+ in a very very long time so maybe I should try it again. In fact I'm sure I will try it again, since I plan to change to it when my stock of 4x5 TMY-2 runs out. If it has the same grain as Tri-X or even slightly worse it will be fine with me.

DREW WILEY · Nov 13, 2015

BY FAR the finest grain 400-speed film is TMY, and I can't stand the look of that in a 16X20 enlarged from 6x7. But I can tolerate a distinctly
textured subject taken with Delta 3200 120. In other words, if I want grain, I want grain; if I don't, I certainly don't. In between bugs me.

TheFlyingCamera · Nov 13, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
Try high contrast printing. More like buckshot.

No thank you- I've got my Oriental VC-CLS cold light diffusion head on my enlarger for a good reason, and I'm very happy with that. No need to do things that I KNOW will emphasize whatever grain there is. And I don't typically shoot super-contrasty subjects on purpose.

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 13, 2015

I once did a very simple test, where I set up a Pentax 35mm camera with a standard 55mm lens, with a shade. I used a tripod and cable release, put Tri-X in the camera and shot a scene of a railroad yard with train cars and grain silos in a medium contrast setting. Just to make sure I wasn't using anything exotic I used something like D76 or Ilfotec DD-X to process the film, and then I made 16x20 prints just to see how good I thought it looked. I liked it so much that I decided to make a whole series like that, and I used TMax 400, Tri-X 400, and some HP5+ to make all the exposures. It turned into a nice series of photographs, the final prints were printed to 8x18" size, and the people that saw the prints didn't exactly comment on 'grain structure'. Attached is one of the photographs of the series called 'Never Sleeps'.

I wonder what meaningful differences other people see between the two films, something that truly matters to the outcome of their prints.

Sirius Glass · Nov 13, 2015

I would like to see the series.

images39 · Nov 14, 2015

I'll offer up my limited comparison of Tri-X and HP5. I shot several rolls of each in 35mm, rated at 400, and developed them in D-76 per the Kodak/Ilford recommendations. Very consistently, I found that HP5 had more pronounced grain. I realize that there are things one can do with any film to reduce apparent grain, but rated at 400 and developed in D-76 at the recommended times, HP5 was always grainier for me. That could be a plus or a negative, depending on your preferences. They both had nice tonality, but I gravitated toward 35mm Tri-X.

All that being said, I haven't tried HP5 in medium format, so have not done the same comparison with the larger negs. I've heard other photographers say that HP5 shines in medium format. I need to try that out...

Dale

miha · Nov 14, 2015

Roger Cole said:
I love Tri-X in 120. I haven't shot HP5+ in a very very long time so maybe I should try it again. In fact I'm sure I will try it again, since I plan to change to it when my stock of 4x5 TMY-2 runs out. If it has the same grain as Tri-X or even slightly worse it will be fine with me.

You shouldn't worry; HP5 in 120 (6x7 - reducing back on a 4x5 monorail) developed in Perceptol shows zero grain printed 12x16 via my condeser Durst.

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

John Bragg

Xmas

Xmas

quisnox

Peter Schrager

Sirius Glass

RalphLambrecht

Xmas

jonasfj

flavio81

fcsergio

Xmas

frank

Ko.Fe.

DREW WILEY

Sirius Glass

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

DREW WILEY

Roger Cole

DREW WILEY

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Thomas Bertilsson

Attachments

Sirius Glass

images39

miha

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

Membership Council

Membership Council

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency