TX400 - HP5+ Shootout

[DREW WILEY]

For HP5 use PMK standard dilution 1:2:100m, 1 A, 2B, 100 H20. PMK gives it that "watercolor grain" effect, with gentle grain but excellent edge effect. I've never tried it in 35mm; but since Delta 3200 looks so nice itself via PMK,
so should HP5 roll film. Pyrocat has a different grain effect.

I'm feeling the transition when it comes to backpacking. I've put the 8x10 in the pack for my next day hike. But my long haul backpacking days are apparently over with. My last two-week appox 100 mi. mtn trek was when I was 70. Now I'm almost 76. My Fuji 6X9 RF "Texas Leica" has come in handy for my older years, as well as my little Ebony 4x5 folder. But trying to squeeze as much as I can out of roll film has led me to standardize on TMX100 for that kind of usage, whether with the Fuji RF or a 6x9 back with the 4x5.

Today I was making some black and white 8x10 printing internegs on TMX from old 8X10 chromes, giving some of those a second life.

 

[chuckroast]

For HP5 use PMK standard dilution 1:2:100m, 1 A, 2B, 100 H20. PMK gives it that "watercolor grain" effect, with gentle grain but excellent edge effect. I've never tried it in 35mm; but since Delta 3200 looks so nice itself via PMK,
so should HP5 roll film. Pyrocat has a different grain effect.

I'm feeling the transition when it comes to backpacking. I've put the 8x10 in the pack for my next day hike. But my long haul backpacking days are apparently over with. My last two-week appox 100 mi. mtn trek was when I was 70. Now I'm almost 76. My Fuji 6X9 RF "Texas Leica" has come in handy for my older years, as well as my little Ebony 4x5 folder. But trying to squeeze as much as I can out of roll film has led me to standardize on TMX100 for that kind of usage, whether with the Fuji RF or a 6x9 back with the 4x5.

Today I was making some black and white 8x10 printing internegs on TMX from old 8X10 chromes, giving some of those a second life.

Yeah, I meant 1:2:100, d'oh.

I'm a bit behind you in my orbit but not that far. I continue to work very actively, though in an urban setting most of the time. I stubbornly still carry a 4x5 now and then (my Hassy bag actually weighs more, but that's another story). I still look longingly at an 8x10 now and again, but I have no reasonable way to upgrade my ancient Omega D2 to handle negs that size with a VC light source.

 

[BHuij]

I stubbornly still carry a 4x5 now and then (my Hassy bag actually weighs more, but that's another story).

I had to laugh when I compared my bag with my Intrepid 4x5 + 4 lenses + film holders/focusing loupe/spot meter/filters/darkcloth etc. etc. to my bag with a similarly flexible setup centered around my dad's RB67. The RB67 weighs probably twice as much. Very cool camera, but hard to justify carrying that on a hike over the Intrepid when the Intrepid wins so handily on both resolution and weight.

 

[braxus]

I did a Tri-X and HP5+ comparison a year ago on a video, but I shot the HP5+ at 800 ISO. I dont care as much for HP5+, compared to Tri-X. Tri-X is one of my favorite B&W films. I also like Plus X over FP4. I just find the HP5 images to bland for my taste, as I like the tones off of Tri-X better. I especially like Tri-X's deeper blacks, which is the opposite of Andy. The grain on HP5 seems too mushy for my taste. I think Tri-X is sharper as well. When I do shoot HP5+ is when I need to push a roll to 800 ISO. I like its look a little better that way. My Avatar shown here was shot on 2003-04 Tri-X (before it was reformulated). The tones on HP5+ shot at 800 do tend to go darker then what I get off Tri-X shot at 400 (obviously).

My video is here if anyone wants to check it out:

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

my guess and interpewtation is: contrast when comparing films exposed at box speed and developed normally.some are softer than others, despite the processing regimes still available to alter contrast. This way, some films lend themselves to photographing high- or low-contrast scenes. You wouldn't want to take a high-contrast film to the beach or use a low contrast film for ambient indoor shooting.Nonwithstanding that both films can be fine-tined to give their best in either situation.

 

[koraks]

developed normally

But what does that mean, developed 'normally'? If any objective definition exists that can be generalized, it would boil down to something like development that always produces a certain gamma (e.g. 0.62 or so). And that would mean that overall contrast would be pretty much the same, by definition.

 

[abruzzi]

But what does that mean, developed 'normally'? If any objective definition exists that can be generalized, it would boil down to something like development that always produces a certain gamma (e.g. 0.62 or so). And that would mean that overall contrast would be pretty much the same, by definition.

I’d expect it means using chemicals, temps, and time specified by the manufacturers on the data sheet.

 

[chuckroast]

I’d expect it means using chemicals, temps, and time specified by the manufacturers on the data sheet.

That is how I read it as well, holding the developer constant.

For example, if I expose and develop Tri-X per Kodak's recommendation in, say, D-76, and compare it to Plus-X per Kodak or FP4+, and HP5+ per Ilford, I can some general sense of what the "natural" CI is for the film.

This isn't to day the CI cannot be changed - it can, within reason - but doing a test like this demonstrates the inherent contrast properties of the film. It also can give you some insight into things like sharpness and graininess (for a given developer and agitation scheme).

My initial post here wasn't quite that controlled because the two films were shot on two different days with similar but not identical scene SBRs. They were, however, processed identically. The results are correspondingly not rigorous but interesting enough that I have tentatively concluded the things I noted in the original post.

I think some of the back-and-forth in this thread is missing an important point: We're not doing lab densitometry here. I was working toward getting the "shape of the data" - a sense of how the two films work ... and I am confident I got just that.

I long ago abandoned densiometrics and H/D curve production for testing, preferring instead to shoot real subjects. My only goal in the field is to produce a negative that captures the scene and holds enough information to give me many choices in the darkroom. With all due respect to the BTZS folk and their various Zone System fellow travelers, my goal has never been 0.1 DU repeatability.

I once watched the great Jazz guitarist, Joe Pass, give a master class to a bunch of aspiring players. He asked one of the young men, "Do you play your scales?" "Every day", the kid replied. Joe smiled and said, "Play tunes, you'll meet more girls."

I have much the same feeling about excessive testing. (Though my view camera has literally never attracted girls, for which I am grateful, as this would be difficult to explain to my spouse...)

 

[GregY]

That is how I read it as well, holding the developer constant.

For example, if I expose and develop Tri-X per Kodak's recommendation in, say, D-76, and compare it to Plus-X per Kodak or FP4+, and HP5+ per Ilford, I can some general sense of what the "natural" CI is for the film.

This isn't to day the CI cannot be changed - it can, within reason - but doing a test like this demonstrates the inherent contrast properties of the film. It also can give you some insight into things like sharpness and graininess (for a given developer and agitation scheme).

My initial post here wasn't quite that controlled because the two films were shot on two different days with similar but not identical scene SBRs. They were, however, processed identically. The results are correspondingly not rigorous but interesting enough that I have tentatively concluded the things I noted in the original post.

I think some of the back-and-forth in this thread is missing an important point: We're not doing lab densitometry here. I was working toward getting the "shape of the data" - a sense of how the two films work ... and I am confident I got just that.

I long ago abandoned densiometrics and H/D curve production for testing, preferring instead to shoot real subjects. My only goal in the field is to produce a negative that captures the scene and holds enough information to give me many choices in the darkroom. With all due respect to the BTZS folk and their various Zone System fellow travelers, my goal has never been 0.1 DU repeatability.

I once watched the great Jazz guitarist, Joe Pass, give a master class to a bunch of aspiring players. He asked one of the young men, "Do you play your scales?" "Every day", the kid replied. Joe smiled and said, "Play tunes, you'll meet more girls."

I have much the same feeling about excessive testing. (Though my view camera has literally never attracted girls, for which I am grateful, as this would be difficult to explain to my spouse...)

Chuck, if you ever visit Western Canada i'll happily provide refreshments & we can listen to some Joe Pass.....

 

[chuckroast]

Chuck, if you ever visit Western Canada i'll happily provide refreshments & we can listen to some Joe Pass.....

As it happens, I am originally from Canuckistan but rarely get back there these days. @Andrew O'Neill has mentioned much the same thing. So ... I have to figure out an excuse to get there so we can perhaps have a mini-Photrio convention, aka "Old Canadians Developing"

 

[koraks]

I’d expect it means using chemicals, temps, and time specified by the manufacturers on the data sheet.

That's another possible benchmark. There's a couple more definitions that could amount to 'normal' development. Fact is that 'normal' development is just, and as a result, in itself, it's a variable factor.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I did a Tri-X and HP5+ comparison a year ago on a video, but I shot the HP5+ at 800 ISO. I dont care as much for HP5+, compared to Tri-X. Tri-X is one of my favorite B&W films. I also like Plus X over FP4. I just find the HP5 images to bland for my taste, as I like the tones off of Tri-X better. I especially like Tri-X's deeper blacks, which is the opposite of Andy. The grain on HP5 seems too mushy for my taste. I think Tri-X is sharper as well. When I do shoot HP5+ is when I need to push a roll to 800 ISO. I like its look a little better that way. My Avatar shown here was shot on 2003-04 Tri-X (before it was reformulated). The tones on HP5+ shot at 800 do tend to go darker then what I get off Tri-X shot at 400 (obviously).

My video is here if anyone wants to check it out:

We violently agree and prefer Tri-X 400 over HP5+. On the other hand Tri-X 400 is not available in 4"X5" and HP5+ becomes the default for 4"x5".

 

[chuckroast]

We violently agree and prefer Tri-X 400 over HP5+. On the other hand Tri-X 400 is not available in 4"X5" and HP5+ becomes the default for 4"x5".

Yabut TXP (TX 320) is available in 4x5 and is a lovely film in its own right.

 

[GregY]

Yabut TXP (TX 320) is available in 4x5 and is a lovely film in its own right.

Yes it is!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

As it happens, I am originally from Canuckistan but rarely get back there these days. @Andrew O'Neill has mentioned much the same thing. So ... I have to figure out an excuse to get there so we can perhaps have a mini-Photrio convention, aka "Old Canadians Developing"

I'm game!

 

[John Wiegerink]

As it happens, I am originally from Canuckistan but rarely get back there these days. @Andrew O'Neill has mentioned much the same thing. So ... I have to figure out an excuse to get there so we can perhaps have a mini-Photrio convention, aka "Old Canadians Developing"

Sounds like fun. You'll have to bring Andy some good "Made in the USA" donuts when you do. Of course there will be a 25% tariff on them.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

 

[GregY]

Sounds like fun. You'll have to bring Andy some good "Made in the USA" donuts when you do. Of course there will be a 25% tariff on them.

Krispy Kreme has made inroads into Canada for the triple bypass crowd....

 

[chuckroast]

Krispy Kreme has made inroads into Canada for the triple bypass crowd....

I have a Hortons problem when I am there

 

[GregY]

I have a Hortons problem when I am there

& their road trip coffee is palatable...

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have a Hortons problem when I am there

I think I was about 11 or 12 before I had my first Horton donut. it was around 1962, I think< when my father took us on a trip he use to make every year with a bunch or beer buddy's. They called it a trip around the horn. Went from west Michigan, through the tunnel at Detroit and into Canuckland. Went north all the way around Lake Superior and then back through Min., Wis across the U.P., down the Mighty Mac bridge and back home. I'd like to make that trip one more time before I take the BIG TRIP, which is the last one we all take, like it or not.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I once watched the great Jazz guitarist, Joe Pass, give a master class to a bunch of aspiring players. He asked one of the young men, "Do you play your scales?" "Every day", the kid replied. Joe smiled and said, "Play tunes, you'll meet more girls."...

As big a jazz fan as I am and as much as I enjoy Joe Pass' playing, it might not be such a good idea to accept his advice unquestioningly. Note that he was a heroin addict who died at age 65 from liver cancer.

 

[GregY]

As big a jazz fan as I am and as much as I enjoy Joe Pass' playing, it might not be such a good idea to accept his advice unquestioningly. Note that he was a heroin addict who died at age 65 from liver cancer.

Sal, while that may be true of advice regarding party intoxicants, there were many musicians with addiction issues whose musical suggestions i would receive without question....
unquestioningly? probably more readily than random forum pronouncements on tri-x/hp5/foma , pre soak...or Avedon

 

[chuckroast]

As big a jazz fan as I am and as much as I enjoy Joe Pass' playing, it might not be such a good idea to accept his advice unquestioningly. Note that he was a heroin addict who died at age 65 from liver cancer.

Well, yes, but he'd been clean since the 1970s and I saw him play live several times 20 years later.