Tri-X vs HP5 Speed

Most photographers derate Tri-X pan from ISO 400 to ISO 200/250 to improve shadow separation when souped in a general purpose developer. What is a good ISO to set to achieve similar shadow separation with HP5?

I routinely use an exposure index of 200 or lower when using HP5. I might add that this is when using Rodinal, Pyrocat or D76 1+1.

"Most photographers derate Tri-X pan from ISO 400 to ISO 200/250 to improve shadow separation when souped in a general purpose developer. What is a good ISO to set to achieve similar shadow separation with HP5?"

Forget it, as you will get 500 different answers from 100 different shooters. To figure out which one will work for you, you'd need to take the shotgun approach until one of the suggestions worked. You need to do your own consistent tests, plain and simple.

Blindly downrating your film will simply add tone and detail to the shadows, not increase tonal separation there. In fact, if you do this, they will get flatter without special processing.

My students are required to run tests each semester. HP5+ in D-76 1+1 almost always turns out to have an EI of 400. In Pyrocat HD 1+1+100 yields an EI of 320.

Geez, I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion. I've been shooting Tri-X for a long time and I rate it at box speed unless there is a reason for me to do otherwise. Backlit subject get an extra 1 or two stops if I don't want a shilouette. Harsh light, maybe and extra 1/2 stop or so with a slight decrease in development, but that's only if the entire roll was shot in the same light.

The reason one finds so many different sppeds being used is that there are so many different ways of using a meter. I prefer a meter with a narrow field. I like to measure the significant shadow and set the meter at 4 times the box speed. This approach has worked for me with any film since ISO became the standard. When it was ASA, I used 10 times the box speed. The results were the same.

Patrick has a vailid point about using the meter, but I might not go to the extreme of 10x the box speed. You see, another opinion.

Another reason for all of the opinions is the fact that there are so many developers which give so many different results. However, for any condition, most photographers tend to overexpose rather than underexpose.

PE

richard..... as some already said, make your own experimentations. cause:
- every one measures the light the way they love/prefer .... light measuring is not only science, it is also a practical need with the method u use, the instrument u use, and the situations u confront with...
- every one has (or should have) a personal preference about the tonality they like ... it is simply an aesthetic issue... hp5 - i rate it normally at 800. even with small format camera where the tonality is not as rich as bigger films... with medium and bigs - it is just eassy cause the tonal range is much more flexible... but then , im not really obssesive about all and every bit of "information" in low tones, i prefer a more "eccentric look"... rating a film = exposure/developing, is not only about shadow details alone.. it is also about the overall look u give to the film and the flexibility u want to keep especially on roll films, and especially on small format where u have lots of exposures that most likely will be made in various lighting conditions.

about hp5 tri-x differances ... im not a specialist with tri-x like with hp5 but i wouldnot be bothered about the minor differances u may have in "shadow-recording-ability". in id11/d76/xtol/rodinal, for practical photography, they are not much different. the little differances are mainly of "scientific" interest. i think the overall performance differances, and the differances in "look" u get from those films are more interesting, and of course more a matter of taste here, cause both films are excellent ...

If details in the shadows is what you're looking for, why not use a two-bath development like the D23 (Ansel Adams formula) or the Stoeckler formula.
Stoeckler Formula: Bath A (5g metol, 100g sodium sulphite, 1 litre water); Bath B (10g borax, 1 litre water)
D23: Bath A (7.5g metol, 100g sodium sulphite, 1 litre water); Bath B (10g sodium metaborate, 1 litre water).
They differ in times depending on film and amount of contrast desired, but you can get a lot more detail out of shadows this way. It's worth an experiment anyway.

Are you sure? That would be like moving your shadows from Zone 3 to Zone 4, a la Bruce Barnbaum. Makes for a slightly denser neg, but with more shadow separation, since you're getting off the toe of the film curve.
Of course you'd need to hold back development too... For straight black & white printing (e.i. not lith printing) I prefer to rate Tri-X at EI 200 to achieve what I mentioned above. Then I'll give it all the shadow density I want at the printing stage.
- Thomas

2F/2F said:

"Blindly downrating your film will simply add tone and detail to the shadows, not increase tonal separation there. In fact, if you do this, they will get flatter without special processing.

Click to expand...

I suggest shooting a roll of it and seeing how you like the results. It'll only set you back a few bucks, and you'll find out how you like it instead of how we all like it. Photography is subjective, even the scientific aspects are intertwined with the creative.

Richard Jepsen said:

Most photographers derate Tri-X pan from ISO 400 to ISO 200/250 to improve shadow separation when souped in a general purpose developer. What is a good ISO to set to achieve similar shadow separation with HP5?

Click to expand...

If you like the way Tri-X looks why don't you use Tri-X instead of trying to make some other film look like Tri-X.

I use 2 type developers, D-76/Xtol and Rodinal for different looks. I'm satisfied and don't wish to experiment with developers.

Years ago on photonet the experienced posters rated Tri-X at 200 or 250. I resisted lowering the equivalent speed as I was concerned highlights and sharpness would be adversely affected. Finally I lower my ISO until I hit 200 and shadows lifted off the toe while highlights avoided blocking up. The prints looked better. Concerning Rodinal I derate an additional 1/2 stop and use ratios of 1:50 or 1:75.

I'm exploring HP-5 to avoid the increased dye in Tri-X and to experiment. I asked the question to come close on exposures.

Thanks for your thoughts.

"Are you sure?...

...Makes for a slightly denser neg, but with more shadow separation, since you're getting off the toe of the film curve."

Yes, you are right from a nuts and bolts perspective. I guess I was being more theoretical as far as thought process goes. I used the word "blindly" to really get at what I meant: Blindly downrating your film gives you no *specific* control over shadow tones. I was getting at the fact that if your shadows need more separation, it's because you just need more exposure at your tested EI. Using a lower EI based on box speed alone is a quick and imprecise fix that can more often than not, in the average composition, have bad disadvantages. Shadow tones can be specifically placed anywhere on the curve that you want them by using your working EI at all times, not a guessed EI that you apply like a blanket in all situations. Simply downrating your film, using your meter as normal, and processing as normal will give you a flatter neg (assuming there is a normal range of brightnesses in the composition). Remember that there is a shoulder at the top too...and it is generally longer than the toe. Therefore, in a full-ranged scene, if you overexpose, you lose more highlight separation than you gain in shadow separation.

In short, I was arguing against generalization, and for specificity. But, yes, you are absolutely right about moving stuff up off the curve increasing tonal separation *in the least dense areas of the neg.*

I wonder why several on the forum tend to assume that everyone who ask a question about film development don’t know anything about film testing or if they do don’t practise it?

If I’m about to try a new film - developer combination I don’t start my testing from scratch. Apart from using my own experience I also study the manufacturers recommendations, as well as other users, in order to arrive at a starting point.

HP5 has 3 times the Ei of TX. It is also tighter grained.

dw

Richard Jepsen said:

Most photographers derate Tri-X pan from ISO 400 to ISO 200/250 to improve shadow separation when souped in a general purpose developer. What is a good ISO to set to achieve similar shadow separation with HP5?

Click to expand...

dr5chrome said:

HP5 has 3 times the Ei of TX. It is also tighter grained.
dw

Click to expand...

Can you explain under what circumstances HP5 has 3 times the speed of Tri-X.

Ian

Richard Jepsen said:

Finally I lower my ISO until I hit 200 and shadows lifted off the toe while highlights avoided blocking up.

Click to expand...

I do exactly the same with HP5+ and reduce development by 25%.

Uhner said:

If I’m about to try a new film - developer combination I don’t start my testing from scratch. Apart from using my own experience I also study the manufacturers recommendations, as well as other users, in order to arrive at a starting point.

Click to expand...

After reading various articles on finding your own EI for a film, I came to the conclusion that in almost all cases, the new EI came to around half the manufacturers rated ISO. That was good enough for me and I decided I didnt need to do my own tests other than going out and using it at that EI and seeing if I liked the results.... Which I did!



Steve.

Uhner said:

I wonder why several on the forum tend to assume that everyone who ask a question about film development don’t know anything about film testing or if they do don’t practise it?

Click to expand...

Because if they did, they wouldn't have to ask the question.

Uhner said:

If I’m about to try a new film - developer combination I don’t start my testing from scratch. Apart from using my own experience I also study the manufacturers recommendations, as well as other users, in order to arrive at a starting point.

Click to expand...

That's fine, but a starting point is just that, no more. Anyone can read the manufacturer's recommendations and then do their own tests without having to ask questions in a forum. If there are no published guidelines for a specific film/developer combination, then fine, ask questions. But as can be seen from this and many other similar threads, there are as many answers as there are photographers. Does this plethora of responses really help anyone?

I always like to quote Fred Picker's rubber stamp: TRY IT!

I shoot HP5+ EI 200 and, for normal development, use 1:2 D-76 for 12 min @ 68 deg.

eddym said:

as can be seen from this and many other similar threads, there are as many answers as there are photographers. Does this plethora of responses really help anyone?

I always like to quote Fred Picker's rubber stamp: TRY IT!

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Diverging answers must be prevented. Try it is a very good motto and if used as an answer often enough we ought to be able to avoid perhaps as much as 50 percent of all questions and subsequent “discussions” regarding material and technique. If we can get everyone to search for answers in old posts, use other search engines and actually read some books on photography we can probably avoid another 40 percent.

Some people seem confused about why you down-rate film.
My tested speed with HP5+ is 400. In "normal" lighting, for eg. on a bright day with no sun, I rate the film at 400 and give "normal" development, i.e. enough development to get the highlights dense enough to print on a "normal" grade; 2 or 3.
To get the same highlight density on a sunny day, when the subject's highlights are brighter, I have to give less development. In this situation I down-rate HP5+ to 200. Not, as some people have suggested, to get shadow detail. I get this at 400. It's to get good mid-tones. Curtailing development doesn't just bring down highlight densities. It brings the mid-tones down a bit as well. The extra exposure compensates for this by pushing the mid-tones up to more or less where they should be.
Ansel Adams explained all this a long time ago.

To answer Richard's original query, I would say treat HP5+ the same as TriX. I've found them both to have the same speed.

Alan Clark

Allen

Just the feedback I was looking for! Your comment saves a roll of film. In upper Midwest summer light conditions I found rating Tri-X at 250 and developing in Xtol without adjusting development time works with my developing routine and enlargers. The shadows slide up the curve, midtones are brilliant and my prints look better. With D-76/ID-11 an EI of 200 works because its 1/3 to 1/2 stop slower than Xtol. Oklahoma summer light is very bright so I use an EI of 200 and tweak development. The comments about light, development and metering are all relevant.

Years ago the few times I used HP-5 I got an impression it appeared sharper and facial tones may be 1/3 zone brighter. In small format it had slightly more grain than Tri-X.

It may be redundant to ask questions as I will shoot soon but hey, this is a community of photographers and on the old photo.net I learned a lot by reading the shared knowledge.

Richard,

One other thing about mid-tones and HP5+ developed in ID11,is that printed on Ilford Mgd. 4 or warmtone they really seem to brighten up and bring the print to life. But I've found the same negative printed on Ilford Galerie has duller mid-tones.

So HP5+, ID11, & Ilford Mgd 4 does seem to be a good combination.

Alan Clark

alen, I often get dull low value results using Ilford MG4 and normal filtration (2 or 3 filter). The paper has a longer scale and does not fit many of my negatives. It does record highlights well. My negs like a more contrasty paper such as the old Agfa 111. I vary my enlarger light source to tweak EMAKS graded. It works for me. I noticed published ID-11 developing times that are longer than Kodaks recommendations with D-76. My lame theory is any developing time difference may relate to light conditions in the country of manufacture.