HP5 + vs Tri-X Pan

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looking to finish up testing of FX-39 with ISO 400 speed films, yesterday I exposed two rolls of HP5 + and one roll of Tri-X of an old house, under clear skies and brilliant sunshine. I shot them all at 1/500 sek, running the aperture from f/16 to f/1.4.  Developed them together in the same tank in FX-39 1+14 for 9.25 minutes @ 68F/20C. The negatives look very similar. Looking around on the internets, I see all kinds of 'comparisons' of these two films by people who have no idea what they are doing. Looking at the negatives through a loupe (Edmund Scientific 6x), I cannot tell them apart. I'll develop the other roll of HP5 + tonight in FX-15 1+1, to see how that compares. 

Equipment: Leicaflex SL2 MOT, 50mm Summilux-R E60.

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Ornello

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Ornello]

I just completed a test of HP5 + vs Tri-X. The films are nearly identical in sharpness and grain. HP5 + may be a little finer-grained, but it is almost impossible to tell for certain. The films were processed simultaneously in the same tank, developed in Adox FX-39 II developer diluted 1 + 14 for 9.25 mins @ 68F/20C.

I made 7x enlargements, and both were about the same density. They printed at the same time on the enlarger.

HP5+ may have a touch more contrast (at most 1/4 grade), but other than that I have to say it is basically a draw. 15 seconds more development of Tri-X would probably be enough to match them perfectly

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by Ornello

[Sandokan]

As they say online "Photos or it didn't happen"

 

[Ouroboros]

3 minutes ago, Sandokan said:

As they say online "Photos or it didn't happen"

 

So true….

[fotomas]

Voila

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

and some 100% details:

TRI-X

HP5+

Both films are developed together in an home brew two bath developer, similar to Diafine. As you can see the differences are subtile. From here I would claim that HP5+ has a rather slightly coarser grain but appears a bit sharper. But this I guess can change with different developers a bit.

[stray cat]

Thanks for this. It is of particular interest because of the price of Tri-X now, even in bulk rolls. I think I'll be changing to HP5+ in bulk and these comparisons help a lot.

[Sandokan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 hours ago, fotomas said:

Voila

and some 100% details:

Both films are developed together in an home brew two bath developer, similar to Diafine. As you can see the differences are subtile. From here I would claim that HP5+ has a rather slightly coarser grain but appears a bit sharper. But this I guess can change with different developers a bit.

Thank you for the Diafine comparison which shows a slight difference the way the two films handle red-to-blue, but I was hoping to see the results with FX-39 from the OP and to see how his language of comparison compares to the results and how I interpret them. 

[Ornello]

9 hours ago, Sandokan said:

Thank you for the Diafine comparison which shows a slight difference the way the two films handle red-to-blue, but I was hoping to see the results with FX-39 from the OP and to see how his language of comparison compares to the results and how I interpret them. 

I don't have a scanner capable of doing justice to the prints. Suffice it to say that HP5+ shows slightly greater contrast when the two films were processed together for 9.25 minutes in FX-39 II @68F/20C, diluted 1+14. The difference is subtle, so I think 15 seconds or maybe 30 seconds of difference in development (more for Tri-X or less for HP5+) would make them identical. The graininess of the two films is basically identical, as is sharpness (so far as can be seen in a 7X enlargement).

Edited April 4, 2022 by Ornello

[Ornello]

On 4/3/2022 at 5:01 AM, fotomas said:

Voila

 

 

and some 100% details:

TRI-X

 

HP5+

 

Both films are developed together in an home brew two bath developer, similar to Diafine. As you can see the differences are subtile. From here I would claim that HP5+ has a rather slightly coarser grain but appears a bit sharper. But this I guess can change with different developers a bit.

Don't you think Kodak would have bragged about finer grain if it were true?

[fotomas]

Finer then HP5+? 
It's rather close and they claim the finest grain for TMax.

[250swb]

13 hours ago, Ornello said:

Don't you think Kodak would have bragged about finer grain if it were true?

Bragged about using Diafine to get finer grain when they have their own range of developers to sell? I guess that's why Kodak don't allow lab technicians to run the company.

[Ornello]

19 hours ago, fotomas said:

Finer then HP5+? 
It's rather close and they claim the finest grain for TMax.

Yes, correct. If Tri-X is finer-grained than before the change, they would certainly be hyping it. I think HP5+ is slightly finer-grained. 

[Ornello]

Most recent tests in FX-39 1+14 show approximately equal times for Tri-X and HP5+: 9 minutes.

Using modified FX-15 (see below) 1+1 I found that HP5+ and Tri-X look virtually identical at 9 minutes. I included a roll of T-Max 400, which seems to need a little less development (perhaps 8.25 minutes). The T-Max shows more shadow detail, but if development were reduced this may not hold true. The modification allows shorter developing times for 1+1 dilution.

Original Crawley FX-15 formula:

Warm water	700 ml
Metol	3.5g
Sodium sulphite Anhyd.	100g
Hydroquinone	2.25g
Phenidone	0.1g
Sodium bisulphite	0.5g
Borax	2.5g
Sodium carbonate Anhyd. Sodium carbonate (monohydrated)	1g (1.25)
Potassium bromide	1.5g
Water to make	1 ltr

 

Modified, for 1+1 dilution:

Warm water	700 ml
Metol	3.5g
Sodium sulphite Anhyd.	50g
Hydroquinone	2.25g
Phenidone	0.1g
Sodium bisulphite	1g
Borax	3g
Sodium carbonate Anhyd. Sodium carbonate (monohydrated)	2g 2.5g
Potassium bromide	1g
Water to make	1 ltr

 

 

Edited May 2, 2022 by Ornello

[fotomas]

Here now my results from TRI-X and HP5+ with FX-15, diluted 1+3. One might get an idea why Crawley recommended FX-15 for low and medium speed films. The grain becomes a bit coarse and clumpy. For comparison another 100% detail with TRI-X in an home brew two bath developer similar to Diafine. This developer is usually more for sharpness then for fine grain.

Overview with the whole image (here TRI-X in FX-15):

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

And now the details.
TRI-X in FX-15:

HP5+ in FX-15:

and now TRI-X in my two bath:

I was a bit astonished about the coarse grain since FX-15 has as much sodium sulfite as D-76. Maybe the combination from the three developing agents forces this. Would be interesting to see how the modified version worked.

[johnwolf]

On 4/3/2022 at 4:25 AM, stray cat said:

Thanks for this. It is of particular interest because of the price of Tri-X now, even in bulk rolls. I think I'll be changing to HP5+ in bulk and these comparisons help a lot.

This is a little OT, but I'm curious how much one needs to shoot to make bulk rolling sensible. I was considering it but ran some numbers and now question if it's worthwhile for me.

I figured 25 rolls to break even on the ro[ler and casettes. After that I figured a saving of about $70 on each subsequent 25 rolls. 25 rolls is a lot for me. 

Seems like you'd have to shoot pretty high volume for bulk rolling to make sense. Your thoughts?

John

[johnwolf]

duplicate post

Edited May 4, 2022 by johnwolf

[Ornello]

2 hours ago, fotomas said:

Here now my results from TRI-X and HP5+ with FX-15, diluted 1+3. One might get an idea why Crawley recommended FX-15 for low and medium speed films. The grain becomes a bit coarse and clumpy. For comparison another 100% detail with TRI-X in an home brew two bath developer similar to Diafine. This developer is usually more for sharpness then for fine grain.

Overview with the whole image (here TRI-X in FX-15):

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

And now the details.
TRI-X in FX-15:

HP5+ in FX-15:

and now TRI-X in my two bath:

I was a bit astonished about the coarse grain since FX-15 has as much sodium sulfite as D-76. Maybe the combination from the three developing agents forces this. Would be interesting to see how the modified version worked.

FX-15 was designed as a solvent developer to be used stock or 1+1 with fast films. Why not do that? I cut the sulfite in half because I don't think it is necessary to use so much with today's better films. So, at 1+1 dilution the concentration is 25g/l. Are you using my variation? Are these scans or wet prints? What kind of enlarger, etc.

Are you sure you mixed up FX-15 and not some other FX formula?

 

Original Crawley FX-15 formula:

Warm water	700 ml
Metol	3.5g
Sodium sulphite Anhyd.	100g
Hydroquinone	2.25g
Phenidone	0.1g
Sodium bisulphite	0.5g
Borax	2.5g
Sodium carbonate Anhyd. Sodium carbonate (monohydrated)	1g (1.25)
Potassium bromide	1.5g
Water to make	1 ltr

Edited May 5, 2022 by Ornello

[Ornello]

1 hour ago, johnwolf said:

This is a little OT, but I'm curious how much one needs to shoot to make bulk rolling sensible. I was considering it but ran some numbers and now question if it's worthwhile for me.

I figured 25 rolls to break even on the ro[ler and casettes. After that I figured a saving of about $70 on each subsequent 25 rolls. 25 rolls is a lot for me. 

Seems like you'd have to shoot pretty high volume for bulk rolling to make sense. Your thoughts?

John

Off topic. Try another thread.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[johnwolf]

37 minutes ago, Ornello said:

Off topic. Try another thread.

Yes, you're right. Apologies.

John

[stray cat]

5 hours ago, johnwolf said:

This is a little OT, but I'm curious how much one needs to shoot to make bulk rolling sensible. I was considering it but ran some numbers and now question if it's worthwhile for me.

I figured 25 rolls to break even on the ro[ler and casettes. After that I figured a saving of about $70 on each subsequent 25 rolls. 25 rolls is a lot for me. 

Seems like you'd have to shoot pretty high volume for bulk rolling to make sense. Your thoughts?

John

Hi John,

Yes of course there would be economies of scale - the more bulk loaded, the more the savings over buying pre-rolled cassettes. For me, though, it’s not really about that. The whole thing about film after the maturing of digital photography is the “hands on” opportunities film offers. Sitting there and rolling film into cassettes is not an unpleasant exercise as long as you have the time and the inclination to be just that bit more involved with the process. AND at the back of your mind you know you are being as economical as you can be, which really is becoming increasingly important. I have tended to do my bulk loading when I’ve been pursuing a project or assignment that I’ve perceived will be heavy on film, but in going down that path now I know I’ll feel freer to use those extra shots that maybe I now baulk at using pre-loaded cassettes. 

Film photography is a journey. We all have different paths we want to travel and what’s right for one might not be right for someone else. But these possibilities are available to us which gives us that luxury of choice. 

25 rolls is a lot for me, too, John, and so is $70. I’ve had my bulk rolling machine since the 1970s and I’ve put many hundreds of rolls through it. My usage has slowed down now but I’m looking forward to getting back to the process. I wish you luck and enjoyment on your journey.