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

[markbarendt]

I would like to see the series.

I would too.

I think the example Thomas' has shown us is a good example of a photographer using the natural texture of the medium to advantage.

 

[ColColt]

Reminds me of two high school girl friends. Both were good lookers, great personalities but different. If I had my choice, and I don't anymore, for 35mm it would be hands down Agfapan 400. Loved the grain structure and my favorite 400 speed film. I'd love to see it resurrected as it was back in the 80's.

Couple of examples...

Dad022 by David Fincher, on Flickr
scan0003a by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I used Tri-x 4x5 back in the 90's. I recognized that it could produce brilliant high lights and darker shadows. HP5 has the opposite response. I prefer shadows that are more open and luminous, and that is why I chose HP5 and have used it for many years. Reciprocity is a lot more manageable, too. To each his own!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I used Tri-x 4x5 back in the 90's. I recognized that it could produce brilliant high lights and darker shadows. HP5 has the opposite response. I prefer shadows that are more open and luminous, and that is why I chose HP5 and have used it for many years. Reciprocity is a lot more manageable, too. To each his own!

Yes, the Tri-X 320 TXP in sheets is a film with very different tonal response than the roll film, Tri-X 400 (and HP5).

I like HP5 too, and use it for everything now, with the odd roll of FP4+ thrown in for good measure or when I need longer exposure times.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I used Tri-x 4x5 back in the 90's. I recognized that it could produce brilliant high lights and darker shadows. HP5 has the opposite response. I prefer shadows that are more open and luminous, and that is why I chose HP5 and have used it for many years. Reciprocity is a lot more manageable, too. To each his own!

Kodak Tri-X 400 is no longer available in 4"x5" so by default I use Ilford HP5+ for those cameras.

 

[JAMES GLYNN]

I appreciate the posting. They look similar. I'm pretty new to this and mourn the loss of film choices. I'm glad someone posted a comparison so someone new to this like me can get some basic info on one film vs another. Thanks.

 

[benjiboy]

Both these films are much better films than most people are photographers.

 

[Jim Noel]

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.

I'm with Chris.These tell us very little if anything. We don't even know if you make "Proper Proofs",or proof to a set time, or by how things look when developed or what.

 

[K-G]

Both these films are much better films than most people are photographers.

+1

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Oscar Carlsson]

I appreciate the posting. They look similar. I'm pretty new to this and mourn the loss of film choices. I'm glad someone posted a comparison so someone new to this like me can get some basic info on one film vs another. Thanks.

Don't morn the lost films, enjoy the current ones instead. As others have said, most films are 'better' (whatever that means) than most photographers, and I especially like the contact sheets in the first post of this thread as they highlight what level of nitpicking all of this is.

 

[gone]

An interesting test. The shots look quite different to me, but that might be down to exposure differences between the 2 lenses. If Brian used the same lens by swapping it back and forth, then that's not it, but they do look metered or exposed a little differently. While I've gotten great shots from HP5. it tends to be grainier in 35mm. One thing not mentioned is developer choices and optimization.

I suspect that once you fine tune each film by shooting a few rolls of each and trying different developers, and developing at different times, you'll see considerable differences (not necessarily between the 2 films, but between the different test rolls and developer combinations). They're both great films, I just happen to prefer Tri-X. Not that it's better or worse, it's just what I like. Exposure and developer/developing differences can make so much difference that it's hard to make a side by side comparison using just one developer at one developing scheme.

You can get a similar grain that ColColt got by using Tri-X in Rodinal at 1:25 if you agitate it a bit. Not exactly the same, but similar. I did this on my first try before I learned to minimize agitations w/ this combination, but now that I go back and look at things I actually prefer the grainier prints to to the "new and improved", less grainier prints. Rodinal grain is just delicious.

 

[Erik D. Herrmann Sr.]

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.

Thanks for posting this Brian. I'm new to the forum and just getting back into analog. I recently shot 3 rolls of HP5 with good results and was considering giving Tri-x a shot (pun intended). After seeing your post, my next purchase will be Tri-x so that I can see the difference for myself. A short bio is in order I guess. I learned photography from my father in the 70's, shooting both color and b&w and spending time In the darkroom. After a 20-odd year hiatus, I got back into photography with digital but I've always missed shooting film. I'm currently sending my film out for developing and will start doing my own when I get back into my house which was flooded In August.

 

[albada]

Erik, welcome to apug!

Thanks for posting this Brian. I'm new to the forum and just getting back into analog. I recently shot 3 rolls of HP5 with good results and was considering giving Tri-x a shot (pun intended). After seeing your post, my next purchase will be Tri-x so that I can see the difference for myself. A short bio is in order I guess. I learned photography from my father in the 70's, shooting both color and b&w and spending time In the darkroom. After a 20-odd year hiatus, I got back into photography with digital but I've always missed shooting film. I'm currently sending my film out for developing and will start doing my own when I get back into my house which was flooded In August.

 

[Greg Heath]

Why did you shoot them at 250? my Tri-x at 400 is much darker darks... HP5 at 400 is a better 400 speed for what I prefer...it has smoother tones. Tri-x for me is always an edgy film. I don't use Ilford developer, rather xtol, so the grain is not so pronounced like with Rodinol. I haven't used Ilford developer that much. Both images of the film look pretty much exact to me. Which I was kind of surprised...

 

[drpsilver]

23 Nov 2016

Thank you Brian for posting the results of your simple experiment. I like both of these films when developed in D76 (stock). What I found interesting is how the spectral response of each film effects the contrast of the image produced.

Thanks for your efforts.

Regards,
Darwin

 

[pentaxuser]

+1 for Brian's contribution. They do look very similar. I won't say they look the same in case I am told to get a better loupe as one poster was. It might be coincidence of course but after he was told to get a better loupe it was his last post on APUG and he had been around for a while.

He was only a member but you never know, he might have become a subscriber.

pentaxuser

 

[M Carter]

The OP mentioned prints that were more "sparkling" in the very first post. (OK, not a technical term but I assume it means something about the quality and tonal range of the highlights?) Anyway.

I've found developer dilution has a big effect on those sorts of qualities (at least with Rodinal and HC-110). I've gotten where I much prefer the look of Rodinal at 1:25 or 1:30 vs. 1:50 and higher. As you lose the compensating effect, your lower mids will get heavier, and I tend to take this into account with exposure and (in the studio) lighting.

This does keep me in 6 minute developing time ranges, which people say is "tough for consistency", but even with 4-5 minute times - there's nothing in my process that's inconsistent, I manage temp and time, right down to how much fill and drain time is involved - and I get consistent results at shorter times.

My tests show you indeed get a bit more grain (I setup a still life and run all kinds of tests, and made very big enlargements of the same central area to check grain) but nothing remarkable.

 

[Harry Stevens]

The original TR-X from the Kodaks Englands Nottingham factory (sadly closed) was the greatest B&W 400 speed film ever made bar none in my lens you can also add Kodachrome to that list for colour slide film......As for HP5 well it always looks a bit "muddy" looking to me .........But people do really like it, I really like the FP4 though and tolerate HP 5 at 200 asa.

All just my personal opinion of course .

Just purchased 20 rolls of 400 Delta 120 film which I like...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I still come back to the argument that I really don't think the choice between any of the current 400 ISO films is going to make or break anyone's photographs. I think it's much more important to pick one and run with it. To know the film and how it reacts at extremes, during long exposures, and so forth, allows us to push the envelope with our materials, and know what to expect.
If a photographer starts out today, and uses just Ilford HP5+, shoots every day for a year, and prints a lot, their pictures will not be better or worse than if they used Tri-X or Fomapan 400. The main differences will lie in how the photographer understands their materials, and how they use them.

For myself, I've been through phases of using TMax 400, Tri-X, HP5+, and Foma 400, and I wish I would have just had one emulsion during all that time, which would have made it a lot less complicated to print those negatives today.

 

[brian steinberger]

Hey guys, I appreciate the comments this thread is still generating. Quite an old thread now. From doing this test I decided to go with HP5 as my film, simply because it is sharper (in 120 with my developer ID-11 1:1). Some may say it's grainier and it is, but it is also sharper and that comes through in my prints.

Glad others are finding this thread helpful.

 

[sepiareverb]

... I think it's much more important to pick one and run with it....

....For myself, I've been through phases of using TMax 400, Tri-X, HP5+, and Foma 400, and I wish I would have just had one emulsion during all that time, which would have made it a lot less complicated to print those negatives today.

Totally agree. I've been doing some careful testing myself lately of the wide range of films I have been using over the last few years to pick a slow one, a medium one and a fast one to try and simplify everything (as much as I can)...

 

[klownshed]

Of all the variables involved in taking a photo, developing and printing it, the difference between Tri-X and HP5+ are amongst the least significant. For me.

 

[Agulliver]

I've used both HP5+ and Tri-X (and their older 80s versions) and while I prefer HP5+ it's hardly the case that I'd be upset if someone bought me a roll of tri-x for Christmas. I've shot lovely photos with both. I just happen to slightly prefer the way HP5+ works, particularly on pushing it.

I've used Delta 400 and TMAX 400 too, as well as Foma 400. The modern T-grain films are quite pleasing but have less of a personality to them.

At least someone has tried to compare HP5+ and tri-x. Not the definitive comparison but useful nonetheless.

 

[sepiareverb]

I've been quite impressed with the malleability of HP5, I have had great success with it in extremely low light situations but with bare lightbulbs in the frame and getting very usable negs by shooting at ISO 50 and running in Perceptol 1:1. And I regularly shoot it at 800 here in the far north during the winter, and in the woods during the summer. With 8x10 I have been shooting at 200 as my new enlarger head is a bit contrastier than my old one was, and I've been fine tuning to that head.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well I would like to get Kodak Tri-X 400 in 4"x5", but I cannot. So I use Ilford HP5+ for 4"x5" and do not fret about it. I am happy to use HP5+ is available and that I can use it.