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

[miha]

Hats off to you Sir!

 

[Xmas]

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.

The Fomapan, & Agfa (old) also dry flat on the cloths pin, after four hours hanging. But curl can be dependent on relative humidity so YMMV.

Neopan 400 was nice concur.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

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.

Yes, that is right. Noel's photos are very good. And he shots that many rolls!

And yeap, going a bit back, we discussed another day the alternatives in film and personally I like the Kentmere films as well as the PAN ones. I can't see much difference in them, but there is some.

Well, this was off topic.
Thanks Brian for your tests.

 

[Xmas]

Yes Brian was nice to publish his comparison thanks, and although eg Kentmere400 is a lower technology film to HP5+ it still has a similar signature.

Is is cheaper.

A 15 print three film blind test of 16x20 you should pick out the Kentmere you might struggle with the other two.

I'll be upset if doublex dissappears, as it is finer grain.

 

[brian steinberger]

Film scans to come tonight I promise!! Good conversation going in the mean time...

 

[brian steinberger]

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.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

My Ilford order came in today and I'm anxious to try the HP5. I've used quite a bit of it in large format, but not much in 35mm for quite a number of years. I ordered 100' of HP5, FP4, and Kentmere 100. I've been shooting Kentmere 100 lately and liking it. I haven't done a comparison lately, but it seems remarkably like TX. A bit finer grain, but I think similar tonality. I had tried it when it first came out and wasn't all that enthused since it is grainier than most 100 films, but it is nice to get Ilford quality control in the cheapest readily available 35mm film. Very nice for general messing around. I'm anxious to see some darkroom prints from it, but it is going to be a while before I get a chance to do that.

 

[pbromaghin]

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 couldn't see any difference worth talking about. Heck, they look like the same negative, scanned with different dust.

 

[jon koss]

My gut reaction was that things look rather muddy here too. If the negs are underexposed or underdeveloped, might that not influence our reading of the similarities and differences between the two films? Or do folks feel that these contact sheets are pretty much perfect?

J

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.

 

[Slixtiesix]

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.

 

[Xmas]

Blind wet print test @ 16x20... might be different.

eg as scanning may be masking differences.

When a supplier changes sometimes it is for factory act safety cause of toxicity like lead glasses were banned... they normally say it is a typeII lens... etc.

I don't use HP5+ for grainy instead Fomapan400 gives nice grain.

Double x is finer than HP5+ and faster than FP4+... 250 ISO is close to 400.

 

[brian steinberger]

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.

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.

 

[brian steinberger]

Blind wet print test @ 16x20... might be different.

eg as scanning may be masking differences.

I agree.

 

[Xmas]

Please don't waste a big sheet on tests a pair of post cards on a small section with enlarger on max...

Keep it a secret and ask unbelievers to guess.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

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.

Great!


I think there is some contrast enhancement in the scan, which could obscure some of the subtler differences.

Otherwise, I still see a fraction more contrast in the left scan.

Gran is impossible to call, especially as the films were't developed exactly the same.

Again, a well-performed test.

 

[JackRosa]

Pick One

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.

Brian: if you had to pick one and only one, which of the two films would you pick? HP5? Tri-X?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Brian, how about exposing at box speed so that the test is actually meaningful? Not using box speed is muddying the waters with muddy scans.

 

[Xmas]

Gran is impossible to call, especially as the films were't developed exactly the same.

Well they will need the different development for the same gamma?

And it is a difficult call for me to separate

- doublex from HP5+ on grain.
- Kentmere400 from HP5+ on grain

 

[markbarendt]

Brian: if you had to pick one and only one, which of the two films would you pick? HP5? Tri-X?

IDK about Brian but if I had to pick one. Yes.

 

[brian steinberger]

Brian: if you had to pick one and only one, which of the two films would you pick? HP5? Tri-X?

HP5

 

[JackRosa]

HP5 is the winner

HP5

Thank you Brian. I lean toward HP5 myself (both developed in Rodinal).

 

[Jaf-Photo]

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.

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.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

You think Ilford does not lnow how to make film?

 

[ME Super]

Funny you should say that, Brian. I tried Tri-X about 20 years ago when all I shot was color. Was never satisfied with the Tri-X shots. A couple years ago, I tried HP5+ and love it for B&W.

 

[F5B&W]

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.

Don't be. I found your test useful. I have debated moving from TriX to HP5, and recently bought my first 100 ft. of HP5. Your test reinforces the need for me to learn how to use the tool of HP5 with a scanner. Thanks!