TX400 - HP5+ Shootout

@Steven Lee ,
"Film stock" has been used just about forever in the motion picture film world.
And as a youth, I had a fair bit of contact with the people in marketing at Kodak Canada who serviced the motion picture film and film lab markets - heck my Dad's many job titles included being the contact person for motion picture markets at the Kodak Canada site where he was the customer service manager for almost a quarter century!
So when flipping back and forth between still film and motion picture film, as in my last post, a little leakage between the two isn't particularly unusual for me!

Steven Lee said:

What do you all mean when you say "film X has higher contrast"?

Is there a definition of "contrast" I'm not familiar with? AFAIK films don't have contrast. Contrast is a development target, not a property of film. I can take film A and develop it at 50C for an hour for insane contrast. I can also take film B and develop it at -10C for 5 seconds and give you super low contrast. And it's not just me being stupid. The classic Kodak chemistry datasheets state that the development times for varioius films are given for the same contrast index.

Back to TX400 and HP5. I have, due to development errors, gotten all kinds of contrast levels with both.

So, again, where does the "high contrast and low contrast films" talk come from?

Click to expand...

TX400 and HP5+ aside, there are films that have extreme contrast baked in to their emulsions, such as CMS20 II. You cannot get "pictorial" results from that film using standard developers because its contrast is so extreme.
Surely you aren't suggesting that this hard contrast is "not a property of film"? Seems to me that if you have to take extreme measures to squeeze "pictorial" results from a film, then there are unique contrast properties built into that film.
(Notice that I don't use the word "stock" LOL I see way too many YouTubers applying that word, when "film" is sufficient.)

Steven Lee said:

What do you all mean when you say "film X has higher contrast"?

Is there a definition of "contrast" I'm not familiar with? AFAIK films don't have contrast. Contrast is a development target, not a property of film. I can take film A and develop it at 50C for an hour for insane contrast. I can also take film B and develop it at -10C for 5 seconds and give you super low contrast. And it's not just me being stupid. The classic Kodak chemistry datasheets state that the development times for varioius films are given for the same contrast index.

Back to TX400 and HP5. I have, due to development errors, gotten all kinds of contrast levels with both.

So, again, where does the "high contrast and low contrast films" talk come from?

Click to expand...

For a given EI, developer, time, & agitation, different films will yield different CIs. Some films will trend lower and some higher, but the point is that for that EI/dev/time/agitation combination films will demonstrate a diffent H/D curve.

That's why we say some films are contrastier than others. It's not that you cannot adjust this, is just that in a controlled comparison they will show different slopes in the H/D curve.

The other thing relevant here is how long the toe of the curve is. If you have long toe film, it's going to take more exposure to get the film to respond to light and vice versa.

So yeah, film are more- or less contrastier by nature.

(There are some films that take this to the extreme - microfilm, X-ray film, copy film, for example all trend toward high contrast.)

Steven Lee said:

What do you all mean when you say "film X has higher contrast"?

Is there a definition of "contrast" I'm not familiar with? AFAIK films don't have contrast. Contrast is a development target, not a property of film. I can take film A and develop it at 50C for an hour for insane contrast. I can also take film B and develop it at -10C for 5 seconds and give you super low contrast. And it's not just me being stupid. The classic Kodak chemistry datasheets state that the development times for varioius films are given for the same contrast index.

Back to TX400 and HP5. I have, due to development errors, gotten all kinds of contrast levels with both.

So, again, where does the "high contrast and low contrast films" talk come from?

Click to expand...

Youtube/social media I would guess. People who have never developed their own film and judge a film by the contrast they see in the scans they get back from their lab.

It's not entirely their fault, mind you. Imagine someone picking up a roll of Rollei Retro 400S without knowing it's Aviphot 200 and without knowing it has an EI of about 100 +/- a third of a stop for normal photography.

They'll set the camera ISO dial at 400, shoot it and send it out to a lab, get it developed in perhaps Xtol replenished if lucky. When the scans are back, they'll decide it's a noticeably high contrast film which yields 'deep blacks'.

I'm with you, 'contrast' is a function of (film,developer) and not (film).

Even Ferrania P30 can easily be made a low contrast film given right amount of exposure and appropriate development.

chuckroast said:

For a given EI, developer, time, & agitation, different films will yield different CIs.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Which means that contrast is a multivariate variable, and definitely not a function of film only.

Keeping the EI fixed (to achieve the level of shadow detail you're interested in) and fixing the developer, you'll find that CI is mostly a variable of film and development choices, like @Steven Lee was correctly suggesting.

albireo said:

Exactly. Which means that contrast is a multivariate variable, and definitely not a function of film.

Click to expand...

The structure and composition of the emulsion plays an important role. If it did not, you'd be able to get any H/D curve out of any film and you demonstrably cannot do this.

CI (contrast) is a function of multiple variables and film is one of them. Sure, you can adjust things by processing differently, but I don't care how much you vary EI, developer, dilution, agitation, duration etc. you cannot make Tri-X work like Plus-X, for example.

So to claim that contrast is unrelated to film type is to pretty much miss how this works.

chuckroast said:

The structure of the emulsion plays an important role. If it did not, you'd be able to get any H/D curve out of any film and you demonstrably cannot do this.

CI (contrast) is a function of multiple variables and film is one of them. I don't care how much you vary EI, developer, dilution, agitation, duration etc. you cannot make Tri-X work like Plus-X, for example.

So to claim that contrast is unrelated to film type is to pretty much miss how this works.

Click to expand...

Textbook example of strawman fallacy/argument I'm afraid.

Nobody here is saying that 'contrast is unrelated to film type'.

albireo said:

Ahahah textbook example of strawman fallacy/argument.

Nobody here is saying that 'contrast is unrelated to film type'.

Click to expand...

Please explain what you mean by:

albireo said:

and definitely not a function of film.

Click to expand...

Guys...go easy on each other. We have only one @chuckroast and one @albireo on here. We'd like to keep both around, if possible.

chuckroast said:

Please explain what you mean by:

Click to expand...

You misquoted my sentence. You extracted the bit of the sentence you wanted to extract. I had written

and definitely not a function of film only.

Click to expand...

koraks said:

Guys...go easy on each other. We have only one @chuckroast and one @albireo on here. We'd like to keep both around, if possible.

Click to expand...

Sorry. If I seemed peeved, I am not. I was just trying to understand the claim.

All good here - no raised blood pressure (by Photrio anyway

koraks said:

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

Click to expand...

I've actually been curious about this for a while. I have heard the oft-repeated conventional wisdom that a negative developed "optimally" for scanning should be flatter than a negative developed "optimally" for darkroom printing (I assume that means developed such that it prints as intended at or around grade 2, without significant blocking of the highlights, or lost shadow detail).

My experience has been the opposite. I have negatives that I can't get a good print from in the darkroom, even at Grade 00. One in particular that every single time I print it, I have to resort to preflashing and then very carefully tuned exposure times at grade 1.5 or thereabouts. But both of my scanners (Nikon CoolScan LS 4000 for 35mm, Epson Perfection 4870 for 120/4x5) seem to have no trouble getting all the tonal range out of a negative in a single pass, even one I developed too long. I always have to add contrast back in to get it to look anything like a finished product.

By the same token - I often hear newer or uneducated photographers repeat the idea that HP5+ is a "low contrast" film (accurate enough I suppose), and that it needs to be pushed a couple of stops to get good results. Shooting HP5+ at 1600 is almost a meme at this point in the YouTube and Reddit film communities which skew much younger (and less experienced) than Photrio. My hypothesis here is that they're sending their film to a lab for development (likely in D76), and the lab is scanning really flat. The photographers unfortunately have no concept of needing to post process their film photos; indeed many of them adopt a "purist" stance that is opposed to digital editing. So when they get scans back from an "exposed at box speed, given (N) development" roll, and see a lot of gray, they assume the film is to blame. Whereas if they underexpose 2 stops and tell the lab to overdevelop, even the "flat scan" Noritsu/Frontier preset can't recover all the highlights or fill in the missing shadow detail, so the "flat" scan comes back looking closer to how most people would make a final print, with no conscious post processing required.

So where did this idea that "negatives intended for a scanning workflow should be developed flatter than negatives intended for darkroom printing" notion originate? It seems to contradict both my own n=1 experience, and the erroneous-but-understandable newbie claim that HP5+ is too low contrast to shoot and develop normally, and it really need a 2 stop push to look good.

For the OP: By the time I hit up against the "should I use TriX or HP5+" question, I had already fallen in love with Delta 100 and FP4+. I did do a bit of unscientific side-by-side comparison, and found that while both films looked excellent, there wasn't anything about TriX that made it stand out enough to justify the higher price tag. And now, 3 or 4 bulk rolls of HP5+ later, I'm still a big fan of HP5+, and I still don't see work with TriX anywhere that makes me think I should consider switching. One man's $0.02.

"What do you all mean when you say "film X has higher contrast"?
Is there a definition of "contrast" I'm not familiar with? AFAIK films don't have contrast. Contrast is a development target, not a property of film." Steven Lee

I'd say this is the comment that got things started. Films do have inherent characteristics....
I appreciate Chuck's original post with the intent of differentiating between two different films.
Lately, I've been comparing the Iford's Delta films with Kodak's Tmax 100/400 offerings and trying to fine tune how I can get the best results in 35mm/120.

GregY said:

"What do you all mean when you say "film X has higher contrast"?
Is there a definition of "contrast" I'm not familiar with? AFAIK films don't have contrast. Contrast is a development target, not a property of film." Steven Lee

I'd say this is the comment that got things started. Films do have inherent characteristics....
I appreciate Chuck's original post with the intent of differentiating between two different films.
Lately, I've been comparing the Iford's Delta films with Kodak's Tmax 100/400 offerings and trying to fine tune how I can get the best results in 35mm/120.

Click to expand...

What I was trying to figure out - and we've gone somewhat far astray - was how similarly the films performed, or not - under similar lighting and development disciplines, recognizing that you can tune the latter a fair bit but never overcome the core behaviour of the film.

My tentative conclusion is that HP5+ gets contastier more quickly, all things being equal, that it lacks the midtone/highlight snap of Tri-X, and has somewhat less pleasant grain (but not a huge difference).

While my fiddling wasn't rigorously controlled, it was close enough for me to conclude that I am not going to pursue HP5+ seriously at this time. At some point, I will run out of my 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 stash of Tri-X sheet film and will have to tear into my significant stash of HP5+ in that format. Then, I likely will be forced to get more rigorous about it all.

chuckroast said:

What I was trying to figure out - and we've gone somewhat far astray - was how similarly the films performed, or not - under similar lighting and development disciplines, recognizing that you can tune the latter a fair bit but never overcome the core behaviour of the film.

My tentative conclusion is that HP5+ gets contastier more quickly, all things being equal, that it lacks the midtone/highlight snap of Tri-X, and that has somewhat less pleasant grain (but not a huge difference).

While my fiddling wasn't rigorously controlled, it was close enough for me to conclude that I am not going to pursue HP5+ seriously at this time. At some point, I will run out of my 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 stash of Tri-X sheet film and will have to tear into my significant stash of HP5+ in that format. Then, I likely will be forced to get more rigorous about it all.

Click to expand...

It is much easier to get motivated about squeezing better results from a film when you have a stockpile of it to use, isn't it

I've probably shot more HP5+ than any single other film in the last 15 years, by quite a wide margin. I really, really like this film. But I've also seen how different the results can be based on various exposure and development approaches. HP5+ exposed at EI 250 and developed in dilute HC-110 with constant rotary agitation looks very different from HP5+ exposed at box speed and developed in XTOL stock with standard 5 seconds/minute inversion agitation, which in turn looks pretty distinct from HP5+ exposed at EI 320 and developed in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 with minimal agitation.

I hope you keep enjoying your TriX, and when the time comes to get cozy with HP5+, you find it no less satisfying

There is very little I can agree with so far on this thread, especially Chuck's premature conclusions. And I have decades of experience with TMY and HP5, especially in 8x10 format (both the original recipe of each plus current version). These are VERY different films, and also quite distinct from Tri-X.

One can easily manipulate all of them with respect to midtone and highlight tonality, as well as overall contrast. TMY gives significantly better shadow detail due to its longer straight line; it also has much finer grain.

BHuij said:

It is much easier to get motivated about squeezing better results from a film when you have a stockpile of it to use, isn't it

Click to expand...

No kidding. Sooner or later though ...

BHuij said:

I've probably shot more HP5+ than any single other film in the last 15 years, by quite a wide margin. I really, really like this film. But I've also seen how different the results can be based on various exposure and development approaches. HP5+ exposed at EI 250 and developed in dilute HC-110 with constant rotary agitation looks very different from HP5+ exposed at box speed and developed in XTOL stock with standard 5 seconds/minute inversion agitation, which in turn looks pretty distinct from HP5+ exposed at EI 320 and developed in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 with minimal agitation.

Click to expand...

Do say more about these different uses please. What have you observed to be different among them? What formats are you using?

BHuij said:

I hope you keep enjoying your TriX, and when the time comes to get cozy with HP5+, you find it no less satisfying

Click to expand...

I mostly shoot Fomapan 200 and the occasional Tri-X in 35mm, Tri-X mostly in 120 and sheet films. But in anticipation of the demise of 6x9 sheet film, I stocked up pretty deeply with FP4+ and HP5+ in that format. I only wish Fomapan 200 were available in this format.

I have found good results buying old unopened Tri-X in 2x3 and semistand/EMA processing it in Pyrocat-HD[C] so that's been part of my sourcing for the format. I also managed to acquire and freeze a really nice stash of Efke PL100M in 2x3 - which is far and away one of my favorite films in the format.

I had great hopes that the original Lucky films would get a real quality control upgrade and then get released in 2x3 and 4x5. The little I shot in 120 was shockingly good. But it was not to be ... and Shanghai GP3 does not seem to be the same emulsion.

BHuij said:

I've actually been curious about this for a while. I have heard the oft-repeated conventional wisdom that a negative developed "optimally" for scanning should be flatter than a negative developed "optimally" for darkroom printing (I assume that means developed such that it prints as intended at or around grade 2, without significant blocking of the highlights, or lost shadow detail).

My experience has been the opposite.

Click to expand...

Oh, I think this is because high-quality film scanners have surpassed typical negatives. The Nikon CoolScan LS 4000 can achieve a Dmax of up to 4.2 with extended scanning, which translates to a dynamic range of about 14 EV. This significantly exceeds the typical 12 EV of negatives, meets with your observation.

I believe this story might originate from earlier times when people used flatbed scanners with attachments to scan film. These scanners were originally designed for low-contrast paper, with a density range of only about 5 to 6 EV (or roughly 1.5 in D value). Therefore, capturing flat photos for them is understandable.

ps. A similar situation occurs with cinema film; they don't realize that scanned images aren't the final result. The true final product comes after color correction, transferring to positive film, and projecting on a screen. Naturally, they might complain about color casts and contrast issues......

DREW WILEY said:

There is very little I can agree with so far on this thread, especially Chuck's premature conclusions. And I have decades of experience with TMY and HP5, especially in 8x10 format (both the original recipe of each plus current version). These are VERY different films, and also quite distinct from Tri-X.

One can easily manipulate all of them with respect to midtone and highlight tonality, as well as overall contrast. TMY gives significantly better shadow detail due to its longer straight line; it also has much finer grain.

Click to expand...

In order to agree / disagree you would need to have used this specific type of processing. It is extreme enough that it could lead to the films behaving differently than they otherwise would under many other circumstances, which makes a comparison of the general characteristics of these films n/a under these conditions.

What’s being compared here are the responses of the films specifically to this type of processing (although that really still requires they be identically exposed and developed to the same gradient).

That's like trying to force an ostrich to be a rhinoceros or giraffe. Never mind. I should have never chimed in. This thread is all over the map, almost aimlessly.

DREW WILEY said:

That's like trying to force an ostrich to be a rhinoceros or giraffe. Never mind. I should have never chimed in. This thread is all over the map, almost aimlessly.

Click to expand...

Because I was trying to get the "shape of the date" not do 7 digits of precision analysis. This leaves room for conversational chitchat or whatever.

My conclusions stand. The two films are different enough that they require different development discipline. Within the same development discipline, HP5+ shows slightly higher grain v. 400TX, at least for 35mm.

I have done no comparion of TXP vs HP5+ in sheet film sizes. This would be a whole new kettle of worms since the 320 Tri-X ain't the same animal as 400TX nor would grain be much of a concern.

Well, OK. I don't shoot HP5 in anything but 8x10 because the graininess does start getting obnoxious to me if enlarged more than 3X. But souped in PMK pyro and conservatively enlarged, it's a stunning film.

Of course one tailors the dev regimen to the specific film. That's what it's all about. Same with speed ratings.

DREW WILEY said:

Well, OK. I don't shoot HP5 in anything but 8x10 because the graininess does start getting obnoxious to me if enlarged more than 3X. But souped in PMK pyro and conservatively enlarged, it's a stunning film.

Of course one tailors the dev regimen to the specific film. That's what it's all about. Same with speed ratings.

Click to expand...

I do plan to try it in 120 with both PMK and Pyrocat. I love the way PMK treats cloud edge transitions. Are you diluting differently than 1:1:100?

chuckroast said:

Do say more about these different uses please. What have you observed to be different among them? What formats are you using?

Click to expand...

I shoot HP5+ in 35mm, 120, and 4x5.

The differences are easiest for me to see in 35mm, since it tends to get enlarged the most. Discussions of grain and sharpness are less relevant for medium and large format, at least for the amount of enlargement I do (I rarely print anything at all larger than 16x20, 11x14 is more common, and both of those are tiny sections of my pie chart compared to 4x6, 5x7, and 8x10 printing). Everything is plenty sharp and high resolution with low grain by the time I get into 6x6 negs. If you print huge that may not be true for you.

HP5+ at 250, processed with constant agitation in dilute HC-110 (1:50 or 1:63) seems to produce a rather smooth, soft grain, and fairly low acutance. I think it can be a nice look for some subjects. Here's one and here's another (these are scanned 8x10 prints on Ilford MG FB glossy from 35mm negs). The softness is not missed focus or a poor lens, these are both shot on 50mm primes stopped down to an intermediate aperture in the neighborhood of f/4 to f/5.6 or thereabouts.

Tonality in large format isn't anything particularly special, but I don't find much to complain about either. I can get a good black and a good white. I can retain detail in my highlights with ease. And even though I tend to prefer shooting under lower contrast lighting conditions, which often requires extended development and/or higher grade printing, I rarely struggle to get my tonal range where I want it in a print. Of course, in this format the lower acutance and soft grain are essentially undetectable to me. These are also scanned 8x10s, but from 4x5 negs developed the same as above.

At box speed in XTOL (technically I'm using Instant Mytol), I get fine and unobtrusive grain, with good acutance. I unfortunately haven't scanned any prints made from negatives exposed and developed this way. But it's probably my favorite way to do HP5+ in 35mm, especially when I shoot through a yellow #8 filter, which improves the tonality of most nature photos, to my eye. Everything else I've tried gives me more grain than I personally like. The ability to shoot a 400 speed film at box speed in 35mm and still get a very good 8x10 print that appears sharp and not low-resolution is a huge win in my book.

In general, I prefer FP4+ in all formats when I can use it. I think it gives better shadow separation, I love the way it looks in Pyrocat HD(C) or Rodinal (at least in larger-than-35mm formats), and it strikes a really ideal balance for me of grain/resolution/acutance/tonality. I like Delta 100 in 35mm when I want even more resolution than FP4+ but can't bring a larger format (often the case when backpacking). But you didn't ask about those, and when the extra speed is worth the tradeoff, as it often is, HP5+ is my go-to.

BHuij said:

I shoot HP5+ in 35mm, 120, and 4x5.

The differences are easiest for me to see in 35mm, since it tends to get enlarged the most. Discussions of grain and sharpness are less relevant for medium and large format, at least for the amount of enlargement I do (I rarely print anything at all larger than 16x20, 11x14 is more common, and both of those are tiny sections of my pie chart compared to 4x6, 5x7, and 8x10 printing). Everything is plenty sharp and high resolution with low grain by the time I get into 6x6 negs. If you print huge that may not be true for you.

HP5+ at 250, processed with constant agitation in dilute HC-110 (1:50 or 1:63) seems to produce a rather smooth, soft grain, and fairly low acutance. I think it can be a nice look for some subjects. Here's one and here's another (these are scanned 8x10 prints on Ilford MG FB glossy from 35mm negs). The softness is not missed focus or a poor lens, these are both shot on 50mm primes stopped down to an intermediate aperture in the neighborhood of f/4 to f/5.6 or thereabouts.

Tonality in large format isn't anything particularly special, but I don't find much to complain about either. I can get a good black and a good white. I can retain detail in my highlights with ease. And even though I tend to prefer shooting under lower contrast lighting conditions, which often requires extended development and/or higher grade printing, I rarely struggle to get my tonal range where I want it in a print. Of course, in this format the lower acutance and soft grain are essentially undetectable to me. These are also scanned 8x10s, but from 4x5 negs developed the same as above.

At box speed in XTOL (technically I'm using Instant Mytol), I get fine and unobtrusive grain, with good acutance. I unfortunately haven't scanned any prints made from negatives exposed and developed this way. But it's probably my favorite way to do HP5+ in 35mm, especially when I shoot through a yellow #8 filter, which improves the tonality of most nature photos, to my eye. Everything else I've tried gives me more grain than I personally like. The ability to shoot a 400 speed film at box speed in 35mm and still get a very good 8x10 print that appears sharp and not low-resolution is a huge win in my book.

In general, I prefer FP4+ in all formats when I can use it. I think it gives better shadow separation, I love the way it looks in Pyrocat HD(C) or Rodinal (at least in larger-than-35mm formats), and it strikes a really ideal balance for me of grain/resolution/acutance/tonality. I like Delta 100 in 35mm when I want even more resolution than FP4+ but can't bring a larger format (often the case when backpacking). But you didn't ask about those, and when the extra speed is worth the tradeoff, as it often is, HP5+ is my go-to.

Click to expand...

Pretty consistent with what I have found so far, anyway. I will say that when I want full box speed coupled with good acutance and mid-tone contrast is when I reach for EMA or semistand. My first serious try using this with HP5+ was not wildly successful, but this may well be a "me" problem ...