Tri-x vs Hp5: The exhumation

[Pat Erson]

Wishing you all the best, Chris...

 

[hdeyong]

I love them both, but HP5 is flatter after processing, which is very convenient. So, if they're both about the same quality, I'll go for convenience, and the constant support of Ilford.

 

[Jim Noel]

This is easy for anyone who has tested both films over the years. The lower one is definitely the faster HP5+.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Of course, Chris, I hope that you will soon feel better. The human body and mind are absolutely amazing constructions and can overcome almost anything.

For the straight scan discussion, I would like to add that some scanning software is actually very intelligent. It doesn't scan a transparent negative as it would scan a print.

The software actually understands how a negative is constructed and applies logarithms that somewhat simulate the printing process.

The inversion process in good scanning software is different to the inversion process in PhotoShop, for instance. That's why you have to do so much processing work if you invert negative scans in non-dedicated software.

But ad Chris pointed out, it's quite tricky to learn how to scan and process to the high standard that his photo displays. So there will of course be a lot of examples of less than perfect scans.

The OP's scans are definitely adequate for proving a point, imo.

 

[Nikanon]

Falling into a trap when trying to judge the difference between materials without simple but well-done tests is an age-old problem. Before scanners the common problem was trying to judge a negative without printing it first, which often led to an overly constrasty print where the photographer was scratching his head why it turned out so, when his negatives "looked beautiful".

Judging sharpness and grain without developing to the same CI has similar problems. Much of the difference in "look" people see between different materials often comes down simply to different amount of shadow detail and contrast.

An analogy is trying to decide which enlaring lens is sharper, without first making sure the enlarger is aligned.

It's best to accept that each and every film can be whatever we want it tonality-wise, a certain "look" will simply come more easily with one's usual technique and a given film, than treating that emulsion in a different way.

Even though I understand and respect the reasons why many choose not to print optically, since I print in the traditional way, my observations will be most valid for that process.

I'm not sure "straight scans" actually exist, even though I'm no expert at scanning and use the machine only to scan my prints, I believe even the straightest such process puts such a large distance between us and the negative that it can be difficult to predict from a scan how it will print. I guess the scanner has it's own curve, just as digital cameras do.

Bracketing exposure and developing for different times, then contact printing under the enlarger at say grade 2 tells everything one needs to know to get in the ballbark and doesn't take more than a couple of hours and cost more than a roll of film and few sheets of paper.

Judging a negative by simply looking at it works for those who have considerable experience with the given materials and don't wish to bring out as easily as possible the most the negative has to offer. Otherwise, it's best to realise, the eye sees the negative in a different way than does that particular scanner or for that matter, silver, platinum or salted paper.

The purpose of this test was to shoot the two films how I normally shoot Tri-x, and see how they act when developed the same. I'm not really trying to find out which is better, more how similar they are. The variables in scanning are eliminated when the only purpose is to view relative differences when scanned side by side at once. I wasn't about to waste a single shot on anything but normal shooting. I think this test says a lot.

 

[Nikanon]

This is easy for anyone who has tested both films over the years. The lower one is definitely the faster HP5+.

Are you referring to my first scan comparison? Or the second one which accounts for lighting differences?

 

[Nikanon]

Hi Guys

Don't understand this

If you cant get Trix or want to consider alternatives why pick one for a comparison.

Because Tri-x is an excellent film and so is HP5, and since I shoot between 50-70 rolls a month their cost is also important. Recently they have floated around the same price so I bought HP5 as a trial run and thought id compare my results when treating it the same. The point for me was to see how HP5 will affect my normal shooting and processing.

 

[Nikanon]

HP5s toe was softer both in D76... more tones in zone0 to 2 vestigal though am amazed you can see it.

I don't shoot with a meter, I think it may come in handy with rapidly changing light and slightly "incorrect" exposure

 

[Aron]

I'm happy you found out something valuable doing this test. It's only that people tend to read too much out of this sort of tests, which is why I got into the matter.

With due respect, this test doesn't say much, apart from the development time for Tri-x and HP5+ being similar for your process. Nailing development times for each emulsion is always good practice (natural, one would say) anyway and while their normal times might be similar, their response to contraction/expansion could be highly different.

I would hardly call controlled testing with a single roll (or few sheets of film) wasting, without it it's easy to mistake the cause for a certain result by someone who is e.g. trying to get a hold of the whole system.

I'm going to stay out of further discussion.

 

[Xmas]

I don't shoot with a meter, I think it may come in handy with rapidly changing light and slightly "incorrect" exposure

It would do but only offers a small increase in latitude for the potential cost of split grade printing or burning.
If you like the softer shadows then you could try Trix with a post borax bath to see if that was equivalent enough.
On sunny days I use single coated lenses for the compression they give cause I use manual cameras too.

http://www.barrythornton.com/

where Barry suggests a post borax bath with any developer