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

[brian steinberger]

I've been mulling over this Tri-x vs. HP5 thing since my favorite beloved film Neopan 400 (RIP) was rudely discontinued. I've always enjoyed HP5's grittiness, sharpness and speed. But my Tri-x SCANS (keyword, SCANS) have always sparkled in a way that HP5 doesn't. So I finally decided to run a simple test since my best work does get wet printed. I put a roll of each in each of my Mamiya 6 bodies and spent a day this past winter shooting the exact same shot taken just seconds apart with each film. Both films were shot at EI 250. Exposure was determined by a Pentax digital spot meter. Both were developed in ID-11 diluted 1:1. Tri-x for 10 minutes, HP5 for 13 minutes. The resulting negatives were contact printed and here are the results. I believe they speak for themselves. I was shocked to say the least.

Hopefully this will help others who are the way I used to be, constantly searching for the magic bullet, believing there were huge differences between films.

 

[ROL]

Shocked? Am I supposed to be sitting in a tub of water with my electric typewriter plugged in while I type this?

 

[FujiLove]

Yeah, just what I thought...that Tri-X is way better ;-)

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

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.

 

[summicron1]

startling. So clearly superior!

Have you made comparison enlargements yet?

 

[alienmeatsack]

I'd be interested in seeing a few of those images at full size side by side to look at grain and such. Minus a slight tint variation between the two they look pretty darn close.

I haven't had the greatest of luck with HP5 myself, but I've not tried it in all the developers. Seems like you have got the two pretty close. Nice!

 

[brian steinberger]

Guys, notice I said SIMPLE test. I did not make the contact sheets contrastier so the highlights/shadows did not get lost. I'm sure I could make some comparison enlargements but none of these pictures are really enlargement worthy really. Just wanted to show that tonality between both films is rather similar. Now sharpness, graininess etc is another story and cannot be seen from this test.

 

[doughowk]

Did some comparison testing this Summer shooting inside churches. Tried HP5 vs Tmax 400 vs Tri-X 400 all developed in Rodinal with times according to Massive Dev Chart; and the Tri-X clearly stood out. Been following Bruce Robbins' The Online Darkroom blog where he has been trying Spur's new developers. So I tried The Tri-X 400 in SPUR Acural-N and was amazed at the improvement over Rodinal. The negs print beautifully on 11X14 Ilford Warmtone with alot of detail; and grain not evident.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Nice comparison. I can tell more from this than seeing corrected prints with the contrast banged up. It looks like you did a good job of matching the two contact prints. I do think there is a touch more shadow detail and contrast in the Tri-x, but I imagine it is 1/3 stop at most and would disappear in printing. The grain/sharpness issues will be a lot more noticeable in 35mm of course.

I've shot mostly TX for decades (plus occasional HP5, and others), but ordered 100' of HP5 last night. I might still have a 100' of the Arista branded Fuji 400 in the freezer. It was nice, but I never like it as well as TX. Probably just a matter of what I'm used to. Seems a touch slower than either of these, and I always found the grain slightly more intrusive than TX, though everybody else says the opposite.

 

[brian steinberger]

Did some comparison testing this Summer shooting inside churches. Tried HP5 vs Tmax 400 vs Tri-X 400 all developed in Rodinal with times according to Massive Dev Chart; and the Tri-X clearly stood out. Been following Bruce Robbins' The Online Darkroom blog where he has been trying Spur's new developers. So I tried The Tri-X 400 in SPUR Acural-N and was amazed at the improvement over Rodinal. The negs print beautifully on 11X14 Ilford Warmtone with alot of detail; and grain not evident.

I enjoy following Bruce's blog as well and his love affair with Acural-N has gotten me interested in trying it! Oh wait, I'm supposed to be simplifying things here!

 

[brian steinberger]

Nice comparison. I can tell more from this than seeing corrected prints with the contrast banged up. It looks like you did a good job of matching the two contact prints. I do think there is a touch more shadow detail and contrast in the Tri-x, but I imagine it is 1/3 stop at most and would disappear in printing. The grain/sharpness issues will be a lot more noticeable in 35mm of course.

I agree, when viewing scans from negatives you can't tell anything since a scanner is basically linear in reading the negative.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Garbage in / Garbage out, unless all you intend to ever do is contact print generic tests and post them on the web.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Garbage in / Garbage out, unless all you intend to ever do is contact print generic tests and post them on the web.

Wow. What's that about.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

On my iPhone, I preferred HP5+. On my laptop's calibrated monitor, I preferred TX400. If you're targeting your images for the iPhone, shoot HP5+. If your targeting your images for calibrated LCD screens, shoot TX400.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Wasn't this about a simple test to show just how close these two films really are? He did say "simple" didn't he? I suppose you can make either one of them do something completely different, but on my monitor they look very close. I believe either one would make a fine print. It's like comparing navel oranges to good old Florida oranges. They both look very much the same, but are just a little different. JW

 

[brian steinberger]

I believe either one would make a fine print. It's like comparing navel oranges to good old Florida oranges. They both look very much the same, but are just a little different. JW

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.

 

[Xmas]

Wow. What's that about.

Not an insult a computing phrase - you need to do a controlled experiment to get meaningful results.
Test target step wedge etc.

If you like Trix and you can still buy it it is a waste to do drag racing with HP5+.

If Kodak kill it off then you need to compare the available alternatives Forma, Kentmere, etc. there is Delta 3200, FP4+, and PanF as well

 

[snapguy]

Okay

I, for one, appreciate what you are trying to accomplish but am leery about scanned results.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Not an insult a computing phrase - you need to do a controlled experiment to get meaningful results.
Test target step wedge etc.

If you like Trix and you can still buy it it is a waste to do drag racing with HP5+.

If Kodak kill it off then you need to compare the available alternatives Forma, Kentmere, etc. there is Delta 3200, FP4+, and PanF as well

I got the reference, but don't understand the problem or the need to criticize his sharing this modest amount of information. He did a simple comparison with pretty good control for the use we put film to. I'm surprised people find that bothers them, but apparently some do. I'm used to looking a negatives and contact sheets so maybe that is one difference. I don't mean to fuel the flames, I just appreciate his effort.

 

[Joel_L]

I appreciate it too. I always wonder what film I'm going to use next when my favorite goes away. The differences I can see is the HP5+ seems to show more detail in the shadow areas, I looked most at the brooms and the pic with the washer/dryer. Now whether that is really a difference in films, development being different, or just a limitation of the way you did the test, I don't know. From these results, I'd be happy with either.

Joel

 

[JW PHOTO]

I, for one, appreciate what you are trying to accomplish but am leery about scanned results.

+1 Not a waste to me!

 

[Nuff]

Neopan 400 is my fav film as well, I just bought recently 20 rolls of it from ebay. But when that runs out I will shoot trix processed in HC110 or xtol.
I compared trix and HP5 a while ago in 120 and I liked trix better.

But it is a personal choice, if trix is gone and I hope it isn't, then I guess I will use HP5...

 

[brian steinberger]

I appreciate it too. I always wonder what film I'm going to use next when my favorite goes away. The differences I can see is the HP5+ seems to show more detail in the shadow areas, I looked most at the brooms and the pic with the washer/dryer. Now whether that is really a difference in films, development being different, or just a limitation of the way you did the test, I don't know. From these results, I'd be happy with either.

Joel

Thanks Joel. I agree with those who are weary of scanned results, but I did the best I could to reproduce the contact sheets. I also agree that HP5 shows a tad more shadow detail. From these results I will stick with HP5. It's a great film and I like to support Ilford.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Both look great

 

[Zedwardson]

Enjoy the options while they last.