Tri-X vs HP5 Speed

[AlanC]

Richard,

Yes, I too have noticed the difference in dev.times recommended for TriX and HP5+ By co-incidence I have just developed a 120 roll of TriX and a roll of HP5+ together in the same tank. Not printed them yet but similar subjects look very close in highlight contrast and shadow detail...

Alan

 

[gainer]

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

Of course, I meant I used 10X back in the days when the ASA standard had a much larger "safety factor". I use the factor of 4 nowadays because the average scene is generally 2 stops brighter than the shadow, but not always, and it's safer to expose to put the shadow where it should be than to ass-u-me that the midtone is not 3 or 4 stops above the shadow. Most of my important photos were of symphony orchestra members and guest artists on stage at dress rehearsal. Highlights depended on where I aimed but important shadows were the same everywhere. Headroom on film is much greater than toe room, and averaging meters are easily fooled.

 

[lawrenceimpey]

Allen
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.

That's pretty much my experience -- HP5 is sharper and significantly grainier. 'Punchier' describes it. Also, I find that for most subjects I can rate Tri-X at 800 in stock D76 and still get sufficient shadow detail, whereas HP5 is more limited speed-wise.

 

[Ian Grant]

That's pretty much my experience -- HP5 is sharper and significantly grainier. 'Punchier' describes it. Also, I find that for most subjects I can rate Tri-X at 800 in stock D76 and still get sufficient shadow detail, whereas HP5 is more limited speed-wise.

Which is completely contrary to

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

I have to admit its many years since I last used Tri-X and it's changed significantly since but I found HP5 far superior for push processing and only stopped using it when XP-1 was released.

Recently I started using HP5 again and it's a great film, excellent tonality & sharpness, I didn't notice the grain but then I'm using for 6x17 & 5x4 images.

Ian

 

[Robert Budding]

I just ran a test of HP5+ in 1:2 XTOL at 68 deg F. It appears that I can shoot at EI 400 and end up with Zone I at about 0.1 above b+f. My normal development time, in a small tank, is 12 min. It's just one test, though. Now I need to take some actual photos and see how I like the results.

I'll post the curve later.

 

[sun of sand]

Does HP5 push better than Tri-X? I'll do my own search for sure but


UFG gves times for Tri-X at 800 and gives times for HP5 at like 1200

I have an FR developer X-500 that is for available light and says can use Tri-X at 1500-2000 under average lighting.

You can use a film at whatever speeds you desire but will Tri-X look a photo scientists "good" at 2000 using any magical elixer?

 

[RobC]

So which Tri-X have you all been talking about, 400 or 320 because they are very different and none of you has stated which you are talking about so any advice given is meaningless without the film ISO.

Tri-X 320 is designed to have low shadow separation. It is all toe which means that contrast increases with exposure. Since 320 is designed to do that, then why would you want to kill the effect by over exposing it and pushing everything up onto the straight part of the curve.

Tri-X 400 is more similar to HP5 and whether you need to give extra exposure for shadow separation is largely dependant on the contrast index you require.

 

[eclarke]

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.

Yep,
The whole thing is a system and it is personal. First thing is exposure philosophy, second is developer and really even your water and third is your paper and it's developer and how you want your prints to look...Evan Clarke