• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Tri-x vs Hp5: The exhumation

hdeyong

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
344
Location
France/Canada
Format
35mm
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

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
2,261
Format
Large Format
This is easy for anyone who has tested both films over the years. The lower one is definitely the faster HP5+.
 

Jaf-Photo

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
495
Format
Medium Format
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.
 
OP
OP

Nikanon

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
433
Location
Chugwater, Wyoming
Format
35mm RF

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.
 
OP
OP

Nikanon

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
433
Location
Chugwater, Wyoming
Format
35mm RF
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.
 
OP
OP

Nikanon

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
433
Location
Chugwater, Wyoming
Format
35mm RF
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

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
256
Location
Hungary
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
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