Tri X of HP5'for streets?

[bruniroquai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Which one gives better tonal range? Which one is better for portraits? Which one is better for streets? What's the best ASA for each one?

 

I'm using Tri X at 200 in D76 1+1 and happy but find overexposed or... To much white!

 

HP5 is beautiful in the greyscale but find not strong in its contrast...

 

Thanks!

[Herr Barnack]

I shoot Tri-X @ISO 400 and develop in D-76 1:1. I have been pleased with the results so far.

 

If ISO 200 is overexposed, try shooting @ISO 320 and developing @400...

[john_s]

............I'm using Tri X at 200 in D76 1+1 and happy but find overexposed or... To much white!

 

HP5 is beautiful in the greyscale but find not strong in its contrast...

 

Thanks!

 

You really can't make a valid comparison of two films until you can develop them to the same contrast (or very close). I like them at ei=200 for portraits because it opens up the shadows in eye sockets, but others like a contrastier or more dramatic look. I'm afraid there isn't one "right answer."

[semi-ambivalent]

I'm afraid there isn't one "right answer."

 

And I for one am damn glad for that!

 

s-a

[Keith (M)]

My preference for 'street' and general medium speed use is Tri-X @ ISO 200, developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 9 mins. Works for me

 

A few examples (mixture of subjects), all Leica.

[bruniroquai]

Thank You all!

 

What about the HC110.

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In lower light situations I feel that HP5 has less nice grain in several main stream developers, HC110, Ilfotec, D76, Xtol. Tri-X remains THE street-photography film for me. ASA depends on developer mostly. 200ASA is more for Microphen for instance.

D76 1+1 is more for 400 or perhaps 320, depends on the batch too. Pre-soak with plain water can alleviate your problem too, because the first minute development goes very fast, which leads to burnout highlights. If the film is already wet, it has more time to get used to the developer so to speak.

[otto.f]

HC110 is excellent for Tri-X and the first choice IMO, dilution B. In my worklow it was 320ASA. See also:

B&W Film Developing Times | The Massive Dev Chart

 

Rodinal is very interesting too, but special: grain and micro-contrast. It has the great advantage that it hardly has an expiration date.

[bruniroquai]

One of my favourite combination, R09 amd Tri X.

 

I guess TriX is better for street and HP5 for portraiture due to the grey tonal range,

[250swb]

I think the choice should be made depending on what you are going to do with the film after you processed it.

 

For instance if you are working in a darkroom you ideally want the negative to be as close as possible to the image you have in your mind, and refine that with the paper grade. So a contrasty print needs a contrasty negative that will print on your favourite paper.

 

But if you are scanning the negative the DR of the scanner is usually less than the available contrast range of the negative, the negative has a wider gamut. So you need to compress those tones in the negative so the scanner can record as much information as possible within its comfort zone. In post processing you then have the greater choice of expanding the scan to your original idea of a high contrast picture, or alternatively you can work with a wide medium tonal range, each comes from the same starting point. But if you scan a high contrast negative you may be losing information because of the DR issue, and you also can't reduce the inherent contrast of the negative if it is too contrasty. So a low'ish contrast negative scanned at low contrast gives you a better chance of making a well controlled high contrast print. It is the opposite to working in a wet darkroom because post processing software allows for much greater control of the tonal range.

 

So if scanning I would choose the film with the greater mid tone range (HP5), and develop it in a sharp, but not too contrasty developer. Forget about looking at the negative and thinking 'wow! look at the contrast', and instead look at your muddy medium contrast dull boring negative and say 'wow! look at all the information I have to play with'.

 

Steve

[otto.f]

if you are working in a darkroom you ideally want the negative to be as close as possible to the image you have in your mind, and refine that with the paper grade. So a contrasty print needs a contrasty negative that will print on your favourite paper.

 

 

That is not such a good advice. For the dark room the best choice is to have a rather grey negative. A contrasty negative is never the best starting point. No matter how low the grade of the used paper (soft), a contrasty negative will always yield less esthetic results than a greyish negative with a harder paper. If the blacks in the negative are too black there is no way to recover some highlights in the print, whereas you can always burn the highlights in negative to deep shadows in the print.

[bruniroquai]

Thank guys!

 

I'm scanning an HP5 of the last week in my couple's town.

 

WOOOOW, amazing greyscale... I think I will switch to the english company..

[250swb]

That is not such a good advice. For the dark room the best choice is to have a rather grey negative. A contrasty negative is never the best starting point. No matter how low the grade of the used paper (soft), a contrasty negative will always yield less esthetic results than a greyish negative with a harder paper. If the blacks in the negative are too black there is no way to recover some highlights in the print, whereas you can always burn the highlights in negative to deep shadows in the print.

 

So Ansel Adams was wrong then? All that effort to create a great negative and it turns out you can do it all with changing paper grades, damn, I bet he is turning in his grave in frustration.

 

Steve

[otto.f]

No he was not but we are talking in words here and not in terms of gamma-values. Relatively speaking a "contrasty negative" as a general advice is risky.

Adams went through several re-iterations of matching the paper to the negative to the scene. In his time multigraded papers were not that sophisticatedly developed as in the last ten years before the digital age started.

I am also saying this in this context: this thread started with D76 1+1 on 200ASA Tri-X (I assume 6 or 7 minutes). That is already quite a threat to details in zones 8 and 9, as the OP experienced. What I said, details that are lost because of overdevelopment are lost. As Adams showed us, you can always still Selenium tone your negative if it is too weak There is also a method for bringing down a too contrasty negative, but that method is much less controllable.

[250swb]

No he was not but we are talking in words here and not in terms of gamma-values. Relatively speaking a "contrasty negative" as a general advice is risky.

Adams went through several re-iterations of matching the paper to the negative to the scene. In his time multigraded papers were not that sophisticatedly developed as in the last ten years before the digital age started.

I am also saying this in this context: this thread started with D76 1+1 on 200ASA Tri-X (I assume 6 or 7 minutes). That is already quite a threat to details in zones 8 and 9, as the OP experienced. What I said, details that are lost because of overdevelopment are lost. As Adams showed us, you can always still Selenium tone your negative if it is too weak There is also a method for bringing down a too contrasty negative, but that method is much less controllable.

 

I didn't say that anybody should over develop the negative, so please don't try and put words into my mouth. I know some people find it tempting to take a comment and exaggerate it in order to make a point, but please make your own point and don't try to embellish for your own ends what I have said, or indeed what anybody else has said. There is a vast difference between over development and simply wanting a higher contrast negative, and if you can't control that process then please don't assume nobody else can.

 

Steve

[john_s]

In these days, variable contrast papers are the most available. In my experience, they don't behave particularly well if the negative is contrasty necessitating a low contrast filter or setting. I much prefer "just right" contrast needing a moderate VC setting.

 

These comments do not include the special case of very low light use where high contrast is often unavoidable, and tends to be part of the style.

[otto.f]

I didn't say that anybody should over develop the negative, so please don't try and put words into my mouth. I know some people find it tempting to take a comment and exaggerate it in order to make a point, but please make your own point and don't try to embellish for your own ends what I have said, or indeed what anybody else has said. There is a vast difference between over development and simply wanting a higher contrast negative, and if you can't control that process then please don't assume nobody else can.

 

Steve

 

You seem to get upset and when I see your work, I don't understand. At all. I just try to advice someone who seems at the start of dark room processing and was giving a comment on how the word 'contrasty negative' may put someone on a wrong track, that's all. I was talking to someone who had no details in his highlights and who wondered whether it is overexposure, it can be overdevelopment also, or both.

[250swb]

You seem to get upset and when I see your work, I don't understand. At all. I just try to advice someone who seems at the start of dark room processing and was giving a comment on how the word 'contrasty negative' may put someone on a wrong track, that's all. I was talking to someone who had no details in his highlights and who wondered whether it is overexposure, it can be overdevelopment also, or both.

 

It's easy, don't embellish to make your own point, if I meant to say 'over developed negatives' I'd have said it.

 

The discussion had been talking about Tri-X being higher contrast than HP5, because some people like the higher contrast for 'street' work. It isn't a case of 'accidentally' having a high contrast negative and trying to make it normal contrast by using a lower grade of paper, or filter, as Post #16 seems to assume, it is about doing it intentionally, high contrast in, high contrast out.

 

So if you appreciate the subtleties of film you will know that the characteristic curve of the film changes and highlights and shadows roll off in subtly different ways as the contrast increases, or decreases. It is what some people like to think of as the organic nature of film. Look at the work of Ralph Gibson for example, you couldn't achieve that sort of contrast and retain the specific look by starting with a medium contrast negative no matter what filter you use over your printing paper. This is because a printing filter cannot change the characteristic curve of the negative, only the paper. Yes it increases the contrast, but it won't look like Tri-X developed specifically for high contrast. Another example would be to look at the work of William Kline, the high contrast of the image comes from the negative and how it is exposed and processed, not through paper grades. Paper grades refine the image, and they can sometimes rescue an image, but unlike software they can't alter the inherent characteristic curve, so you start with a higher contrast negative if you want a higher contrast print, it is that simple. And no, this time I also didn't say 'over developed' negatives, although if somebody intentionally chooses to over develop in the conventional sense (like Gibson) it can be a valid choice, not something that necessarily needs rescuing with a lower grade of paper as if reading from a beginners guide to photography book.

 

Ralph Gibson

 

real life is elsewhere: ralph gibson

 

Broadway and 103rd St., New York (by William Klein, 1955) | ...y mientras tanto // ...and meanwhile

 

 

Steve

[bruniroquai]

Thank You guys, finally I've purchased 50 rolls of HP5.

 

How You process the film? d76, Hc110, Rodinal...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[otto.f]

If Ilfotec29 is still around I would take that one. It is about what HC110 is for Tri-x. It is very appropriate for varying strengths of development depending on different light situations. Shelf life is also good.