TX400 - HP5+ Shootout

[chuckroast]

I have previously not used either of the above extensively in 35mm, though I have used TXT and TXP a fair bit in 120 and 4x5 ... which are probably different films entirely.

I wanted to compare the two for grain, sharpness, tonality, and so forth, with the possible extension of the exercise to Foma 400 and Kodak TMY.

Several things jumped out immediately, but these might be viewing errors, personal bias, or other process failure on my part. So... I thought I share here to see if others had any experience with the subject.

Both films were identically exposed at box speed of 400, and EMA processed in Pyriocat-HDC 1.5:1:200 for 30 min. Initial and interval agitations were identical.

Initial (very) preliminary observations subject to revision, correction, and/or retraction:

• Both films hold long SBRs very well
• The HP5+ seems inherently contrastier
• The HP5+ thus likes to shove highlights up more aggressively, though they were not blocked and could be printed comfortably. I will say that the subject for this was under very bright light, so the SBR may have been longer than that of the 400TX scenes.
• The TX400 seems noticeably sharper
• The HP5+ has very slightly larger grain, though not enough difference to show up in a big way in a print

I specifically used dilute EMA for this because the SBRs in question were pretty long.


Other experience?

 

[Sirius Glass]

It might be a bit hard to shoot Tri-X 400 in 4"x5". Ilford HP5+ might work out better.

 

[koraks]

The HP5+ seems inherently contrastier

But you developed both the same way. The 'inherently contrastier' may therefore be down to things like the degree of hardening of the gelatin emulsion, which doesn't have much to do with image structure as such.

, so the SBR may have been longer than that of the 400TX scenes.

So you're comparing different scenes? In that case, that's a big methodological issue.

The HP5+ has very slightly larger grain, though not enough difference to show up in a big way in a print

If you develop it for the same CI, this difference may erode away.

 

[chuckroast]

I'll stipulate that the different SBRs, while not wildly so, may account for some of the apparent higher CI with HP5+.

But it does not explain why it consistently shows up as less sharp on a print using the same film development methodology, same enlarging lens and head height, and exact same paper and printing technique.

 

[Milpool]

What you’re doing is comparing how the two films respond specifically to this type of processing. However in order to do that the films must still be exposed the same way and developed to the same gradient. That will help in making a meaningful comparison (visual in this case) of image structure characteristics (sharpness, graininess) - again, specifically under these processing conditions.

The visual assessment of things like sharpness and graininess are influenced by a number of things. For example, since this type of development could potentially favor the formation of more pronounced edge effects in one emulsion vs another. That’s just one hypothetical example.

 

[AZD]

I suspect what you’ll find is that both Tri-X and HP5+ are very flexible, and therefore it is kind of hard to nail down the exact differences over a range of shooting conditions and processing. I’m sure someone with the time and tenacity could, but not me… Ultimately the “best” one will be the one that suits preference based on your procedures. A wishy-washy response, I know.

I have used many hundreds of feet of HP5 and have found it to be very sharp, kinda mushy, high contrast, low contrast, harsh, wonderfully pictorial… you get the idea. I have used Tri-X less in recent years due to bulk roll pricing but have always liked it.

It’s interesting seeing one roll of HP5 with noticeable edge effects, and another with soft grain. I suppose that’s its flexibility at play.

Less technical, I think HP5 often has a certain moodiness to it that I haven’t seen in Tri-X. Most of my pictures and snapshots from the Pacific Northwest are on HP5 and to me they have a certain look that suits the place. Could be imagining things. That said, my favorite pic from the PNW is on Tri-X, so no rule goes unbroken.

 

[koraks]

But it does not explain why it consistently shows up as less sharp on a print using the same film development methodology, same enlarging lens and head height, and exact same paper and printing technique.

No, it doesn't, although 'sharpness' is always a bit of a fickle concept. I suspect it may have something to do with the grain structure. IDK; I've shot quite a bit of HP5+ and I've never found the prints lacking in 'bite', but maybe they would have been even nicer on Tri-X - who knows!

 

[chuckroast]

No, it doesn't, although 'sharpness' is always a bit of a fickle concept. I suspect it may have something to do with the grain structure. IDK; I've shot quite a bit of HP5+ and I've never found the prints lacking in 'bite', but maybe they would have been even nicer on Tri-X - who knows!

In fairness, I have shot waaaaaay more Tri-X in its various incarnations than I have HP5+. This could well boil down to incorrect exposure placement and or development technique. As you point out, both of these can materially affect the perceived sharpness and tonality of outcomes.

Interestingly, I get consistently better tonality and sharpness with Fomapan 200 developed and printed in the manner described. Yes, the film is slower so I'd expect some of this, but rumor has it that F200 is a hybrid of cubic and flat grain in a single emulsion.

The only problem with F200, at least in 35mm bulk, is the occasional surface defect I have found. The film in 120 was awful that way and I never had a problem with it in 4x5.

Given F200's nod to t-grain, I am sort of temped to try TMY to see how it fares against the two prior trials.

 

[GregY]

In fairness, I have shot waaaaaay more Tri-X in its various incarnations than I have HP5+. This could well boil down to incorrect exposure placement and or development technique. As you point out, both of these can materially affect the perceived sharpness and tonality of outcomes.

Interestingly, I get consistently better tonality and sharpness with Fomapan 200 developed and printed in the manner described. Yes, the film is slower so I'd expect some of this, but rumor has it that F200 is a hybrid of cubic and flat grain in a single emulsion.

The only problem with F200, at least in 35mm bulk, is the occasional surface defect I have found. The film in 120 was awful that way and I never had a problem with it in 4x5.

Given F200's nod to t-grain, I am sort of temped to try TMY to see how it fares against the two prior trials.

CR, I've used lots of HP5 over the years and consistently get results i like better with Tri-X. Why not give Delta 400 a try? I can (their differences not withstanding) use Tri-X & TMY-2 interchangeably. I get fine results with either. I know of others who are also big fans of FP4+, and like the Delta films, but don't care for HP5. Of course there are many fans of HP5. I think at a certain point there is simple preference involved one way or the other, especially when nuance rather than generality is involved.

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot Tmax 400, I did just shot a roll of HP+ still waiting to be developed in d76, I did shoot a lot of Trix X in the 70s and 80s, but much of latest version. Still looking at the data sheets, which is only a guess as ILfrod and Kodak post different sets of data, seems that in HC 110 or HC tech HP5 has more contrast then Trix400. Maybe the reason the Trix is favored by those who zone.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I have previously not used either of the above extensively in 35mm, though I have used TXT and TXP a fair bit in 120 and 4x5 ... which are probably different films entirely.

I wanted to compare the two for grain, sharpness, tonality, and so forth, with the possible extension of the exercise to Foma 400 and Kodak TMY.

Several things jumped out immediately, but these might be viewing errors, personal bias, or other process failure on my part. So... I thought I share here to see if others had any experience with the subject.

Both films were identically exposed at box speed of 400, and EMA processed in Pyriocat-HDC 1.5:1:200 for 30 min. Initial and interval agitations were identical.

Initial (very) preliminary observations subject to revision, correction, and/or retraction:

• Both films hold long SBRs very well
• The HP5+ seems inherently contrastier
• The HP5+ thus likes to shove highlights up more aggressively, though they were not blocked and could be printed comfortably. I will say that the subject for this was under very bright light, so the SBR may have been longer than that of the 400TX scenes.
• The TX400 seems noticeably sharper
• The HP5+ has very slightly larger grain, though not enough difference to show up in a big way in a print

I specifically used dilute EMA for this because the SBRs in question were pretty long.


Other experience?

Not the way to do it. Each film should be developed to the same gradient. Then you will se that they are almost identical.

 

[albireo]

Not the way to do it. Each film should be developed to the same gradient. Then you will se that they are almost identical.

Still not sure about this. HP5+ and TriX appear to have minor, but visible, differences in their spectral response based on the recent test by the Naked Photographer.

Left panel, HP5+, right panel TriX. Colour checker left, column 2, final row: the yellow appears to render brighter with HP5+ than TriX, even attempting a correction for absolute brightness differences.

 

[koraks]

Spectral sensitivity is always a tricky one. Here's that of HP5+ as stated in its datasheet on top of Tri-X's spectral sensitivity from Kodak's datasheet:

I doubt the drop-off of the Ilford product on the blue side is very meaningful since Ilford AFAIK has a different measurement approach than Kodak does. In a previous thread here on Photrio, any attempt to translate one into the other failed on fundamental theoretical and methodological grounds. However, there's an unmistakable and remarkable similarity to the curve shape if you look at the peaks and valleys of both. They coincide almost perfectly.

the yellow renders much brighter with HP5+ than TriX.

The entire HP5+ frame seems to render lighter than the TriX frame...

 

[albireo]

Spectral sensitivity is always a tricky one. Here's that of HP5+ as stated in its datasheet on top of Tri-X's spectral sensitivity from Kodak's datasheet:
View attachment 399011
I doubt the drop-off of the Ilford product on the blue side is very meaningful since Ilford AFAIK has a different measurement approach than Kodak does. In a previous thread here on Photrio, any attempt to translate one into the other failed on fundamental theoretical and methodological grounds. However, there's an unmistakable and remarkable similarity to the curve shape if you look at the peaks and valleys of both. They coincide almost perfectly.

I wouldn't draw any strong conclusions out of two superimposed curves personally. There is something really odd going on around the blue frequencies.

Is there a standard lighting setup when generating these? Could it be that one curve was produced with natural daylight temperature and the other with some sort of artificial studio lighting (tungsten)?

I do see relative differences in that colour checker above on my monitor.

 

[koraks]

There is something really odd going on around the blue frequencies.

Like I said, different measurement methodologies. Ilford bases their step wedge on Tungsten 2850K illumination. There's not a lot of blue and no UV at all in there. Kodak's approach is different.

I do see relative differences in that colour checker above on my monitor.

I find that hard to tell because the human eye is inherently more capable of differentiating in certain parts of the luminosity range. There's a relative difference between the bottom right patch and the one above that on both films, even though the difference seems smaller on the Tri-X frame, but that can very well be due to that frame being darker overall. Then there's non-linearities in his testing setup that may play a role; if we're at this kind of hair-splitting level, those will start to act up and the whole thing becomes a mess.

I don't see sufficient cause here to draw any conclusions whatsoever about how these films relate to each other w.r.t. spectral sensitivity. They may be the same, they may be different. Neither can be proven on the basis of these data.

 

[koraks]

To prevent more redundancy, have a look at this thread which goes much deeper into this issue: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/spectral-sensitivity-and-its-possible-consequences.206815/

 

[albireo]

To prevent more redundancy, have a look at this thread which goes much deeper into this issue: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/spectral-sensitivity-and-its-possible-consequences.206815/

Thanks, I won't cause any redundancy I guess, I think I agree with your assessment above. We'd need someone to draw curves for both using the same methodology.

EDIT - great thread you posted above, btw!

 

[GregY]

I have previously not used either of the above extensively in 35mm, though I have used TXT and TXP a fair bit in 120 and 4x5 ... which are probably different films entirely.

I wanted to compare the two for grain, sharpness, tonality, and so forth, with the possible extension of the exercise to Foma 400 and Kodak TMY.

Several things jumped out immediately, but these might be viewing errors, personal bias, or other process failure on my part. So... I thought I share here to see if others had any experience with the subject.

Both films were identically exposed at box speed of 400, and EMA processed in Pyriocat-HDC 1.5:1:200 for 30 min. Initial and interval agitations were identical.

Initial (very) preliminary observations subject to revision, correction, and/or retraction:

• Both films hold long SBRs very well
• The HP5+ seems inherently contrastier
• The HP5+ thus likes to shove highlights up more aggressively, though they were not blocked and could be printed comfortably. I will say that the subject for this was under very bright light, so the SBR may have been longer than that of the 400TX scenes.
• The TX400 seems noticeably sharper
• The HP5+ has very slightly larger grain, though not enough difference to show up in a big way in a print

I specifically used dilute EMA for this because the SBRs in question were pretty long.


Other experience?

IMO the last thing we need are graphs & curves... but what are your impressions.... do you have a preference? Have you made any prints from the negatives?

 

[djdister]

IMO the last thing we need are graphs... but what are your impressions.... do you have a preference? Have you made any prints from the negatives?

I agree! How about some scan of the negatives...?

 

[retina_restoration]

I've used plenty of both and my impression is that Tri-X is much better at creating tonal separation in the higher values than HP5 is. For this reason alone, I prefer Tri-X.

 

[GregY]

I've used plenty of both and my impression is that Tri-X is much better at creating tonal separation in the higher values than HP5 is. For this reason alone, I prefer Tri-X.

RR You beat me to it. That was certainly my impression ..& why I chose Tri-X over HP5+

 

[loccdor]

That's a lovely mountain shot.

Speaking just on aesthetics and not scientifically, I prefer Tri-X overall. HP5 however lends itself better to creating a melancholy mood. Can be too much for me at times.

 

[chuckroast]

I agree! How about some scan of the negatives...?

The problem is that I develop film for silver printing, which is typically too high a CI for good scans so I don't bother scanning negatives.

 

[koraks]

The problem is that I develop film for silver printing, which is typically too high a CI for good scans so I don't bother scanning negatives.

That's not the case. Film developed or printing typically scans perfectly fine. That's what scanners were made for, after all.

 

[chuckroast]

IMO the last thing we need are graphs & curves... but what are your impressions.... do you have a preference? Have you made any prints from the negatives?

So my - unscientific, uncontrolled, not beta tested, not checked for statistical significance - impression after making some silver prints is:

• HP5+ runs hotter in the highlights with less tonal separation there than Tri-X.
• That would seem to be resolvable by somewhat less aggressive development.
• HP5+ seems inherently somewhat less sharp. I don't just mean the prints are not a sharp - which could be attributable to my hand holding technique. I mean the grain when projected and viewed under an enlarging focus magnifier, isn't quite as acute to my eye as is Tri-X.

HOWEVER, these were taken on two different days that had similar, but not identical SBRs and were taken handheld. So it's awful hard to know what caused what - after all, the sun sets because the street lights turn on ...