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

[Zedwardson]

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

Developers that are not Rodinal, Hersey!

 

[NB23]

They are not the same. But if TRIX is widely know to be "the best", then HP5 is surely the best, also.

 

[NB23]

HP5@800, HC110:B.

Legendary.

 

[ROL]

They are not the same. But if TRIX is widely know to be "the best", then HP5 is surely the best, also.

Silly wabbit, TRIX are for kids!

 

[wblynch]

...Especially after I learned to give HP5+ a bit more developing time than I expected to.

That's what I was thinking too. I'd bet another 30 seconds or a minute in the developer would have that HP5+ looking even more like the Tri-X in the posted contacts.

 

[Sirius Glass]

They are not the same. But if TRIX is widely know to be "the best", then HP5 is surely the best, also.

Grammatically you can not have two "best"s. How about "best" and "in the same league and damn good?

 

[NB23]

I thought I was clear that both films are equal

If one is best, then certainly the other one deserves to be the best as well...

 

[michr]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see two conventional films processed in conventional developers and for the proper amount of time come out looking almost the same, but I am. Much has been said about the differences of film and developers, but perhaps this only covers the edge cases. It would stand to reason that film manufacturers would produce film for consumer purposes that converges on the qualities exhibited here. If nothing else, you've demonstrated that you have your times and temps dialed in such that from two different films you can get a very good match.

The results of this test fit my prejudices, which is that there's no use chasing the best when most everything is 90% good.

 

[brian steinberger]

The results of this test fit my prejudices, which is that there's no use chasing the best when most everything is 90% good.

Well said.

 

[cliveh]

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.

+1

 

[blockend]

I don't like Tri-X in Rodinal either, much nicer in ID11/D76. OTOH slower films mostly look gorgeous in Rodinal.

 

[brian steinberger]

I don't like Tri-X in Rodinal either, much nicer in ID11/D76. OTOH slower films mostly look gorgeous in Rodinal.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Regular Rod]

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.

Just going back to the original post, taking note of how the tests were done and viewing the results I reckon that a mistake was made right at the start. The ISO of 250 may be what suits the Tri-X but looking at the photographs (in particular those of the brooms and their shadows) surely those with the HP5 Plus are over-exposed? Maybe if the tests had been made with what has proved by your test to be the best ISO and development regime for the Tri-X and the best ISO and development regime for the HP5 Plus you would have ended up with a more representative set of results?

RR

 

[Xmas]

Just going back to the original post, taking note of how the tests were done and viewing the results I reckon that a mistake was made right at the start. The ISO of 250 may be what suits the Tri-X but looking at the photographs (in particular those of the brooms and their shadows) surely those with the HP5 Plus are over-exposed? Maybe if the tests had been made with what has proved by your test to be the best ISO and development regime for the Tri-X and the best ISO and development regime for the HP5 Plus you would have ended up with a more representative set of results?

RR

HiRod

No it is a good test for Kodak groupies who are faced with prospect of no option but HP5+ cause Foma and Adox 'rubbish' and Fuji only a memory.

When you think the only option is a x100 or HP5+ it is reassuring that the HP5+ not detectably different in blind tests on 16x20 from 135 Trix off a tripod.

A better test would be the other 400 ISO films against HP5+ with test chart, H&D, and enlarged grain field. But that would be lost on the 'arts' part of the team.

But your point is valid for shadows HP5+ has a softer toe than most other films and you can recover more shadow detail normally, but I donno about Trix400.

Noel

 

[Regular Rod]

HiRod

No it is a good test for Kodak groupies who are faced with prospect of no option but HP5+ cause Foma and Adox 'rubbish' and Fuji only a memory.

When you think the only option is a x100 or HP5+ it is reassuring that the HP5+ not detectably different in blind tests on 16x20 from 135 Trix off a tripod.

A better test would be the other 400 ISO films against HP5+ with test chart, H&D, and enlarged grain field. But that would be lost on the 'arts' part of the team.

But your point is valid for shadows HP5+ has a softer toe than most other films and you can recover more shadow detail normally, but I donno about Trix400.

Noel

Oh I hadn't considered that, although the thread admittedly did become very "American" with the usual blindness towards anything not from a yellow box. I read the OP as feeling that both films made such similar results it was a shock to him. I simply reckon that the HP5 Plus that I know and love could do much better if allowed to...

RR

 

[Xmas]

HiRod

We don't want all of them to get X100s and dissappear to DPUG - there would be no one left to tease?

A blind test of

Kentmere400
Hp5+
Fomapan400
Retro400

Won't be needed this year.

Zorro

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Pot, kettle, black

You're basically saying that Kodak "groupies" are silly but Ilford fanboys are cool.

How?

 

[brian steinberger]

Oh I hadn't considered that, although the thread admittedly did become very "American" with the usual blindness towards anything not from a yellow box. I read the OP as feeling that both films made such similar results it was a shock to him. I simply reckon that the HP5 Plus that I know and love could do much better if allowed to...

RR

Hi Regular Rod. My thread was to simply show how similar Tri-x and HP5 can be in "normal scenes" near box speed. It was not to show one is better or even become "American." To be honest I will continue to use HP5 all I always have, which is more than I use Tri-x. I'm sure HP5 could do better, but I'm Tri-x could as well. That's for someone else to test if they wish (pushing, pulling, stand development, etc. )

 

[wblynch]

HiRod

No it is a good test for Kodak groupies who are faced with prospect of no option but HP5+ cause Foma and Adox 'rubbish' and Fuji only a memory.

Well, personally I am happier with my results from Foma 400 than Tri-X. My Tri-X always comes out muddy looking. It won't mean anything to me if Tri-X were to disappear.

But Plus-X ? Oh my! I love that film to death.

I guess I loved it too much

 

[Xmas]

Pot, kettle, black

You're basically saying that Kodak "groupies" are silly but Ilford fanboys are cool.

How?

No something completely different as I use

(40%) Kodak doublex (cine) and
(40%) HP5+ cine

so cannot help with a comparison of Trix

and (10%) Fomapan 400

I can recommend the doublex at 250 for fine grain and low contrast.
I can recommend the HP5+ at 400 for toe contrast.

I understand that some people only ever use Trix and I have chums who only used Plusx.

I burn Fomapan400 skys regular on high contrast sceanes.

But it is ok on dull days at 320EI.

I won't necessarily have this choice in future, eg I'm on my last 100 foot can of LegacyPro 400 and last can of APX400S.

The future looks limited choice.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Hi Noel

There are still a few other ISO 400 films left such as Ilford Pan 400, Rollei RPX 400, Retro 400 and Agfaphoto APX400. Pan 400 and RPX 400 are available in bulk.

 

[Xmas]

Im aware there are others eg I use Kentmere400 bulk.

The problem is merely Eastman Kodak have been bankrupt and have a cine contract with the large studios until '15 imposed by their exit from bankruptcy. When it expires who knows what happens...

A lot if other options are dependent upon Harman?

Orwo still offer prompt delivery of 400ISO cine.

And I have 1000 feet of FSU cine in fridge.

If I could use a X100 I'd not have a problem.

 

[miha]

Xmas, out of curiosity, how many rolls (36 equiv.) do you burn in a week/month, do you print most of them?

 

[DWThomas]

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.

 

[Xmas]

Xmas, out of curiosity, how many rolls (36 equiv.) do you burn in a week/moth, do you print most of them?

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.