Anyone switched from Tri-X to HP5+ ?

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello.  I'm sure this debate is as old as the films themselves, but this question also related to pricing .

The absolute cheapest I can get Tri-X these days in Australia is $16/roll (10 pack) , whilst HP5+ is available at $11 for single rolls.  (Used to be just a couple of bucks between them)

That's a big difference for film that are 'sometimes' spoken about interchangeably.

I do have a soft spot for Tri-X, maybe it is the romance of a lot of my favourite photographers having used it, or maybe there really is 'something' intangible about the images that I prefer to HP5.

From a practical point of view I have bought into the notion that I get better tonal range in mid tones with Tri-X.  I'm pretty sure I do but not certain ! 

HP5 comes our equally beautifully, certainly no-one other than me would know which stock I shot with .  Although to my previous point I do notice less range in the gradients between mid tones and also whiter whites / blacker blacks.    That would really be my main observations between the 2 as I like both of the grains.  I've had more issues developing HP5 particularly getting the film onto the spindles (creasing) but that could be complete co-incidence. 

How about you , what do you think and has anyone made the jump from Tri-X to Hp5+ because of these pricing differences .... and if so any regrets ?

At a 150% mark-up and the 2 being so similar it's becoming harder to justify reaching for the Yellow box. 

For anyone who may suggest bulk-100ft rolls ... Unfortunately it doesn't really work out significantly cheaper with Australian pricing (for both products the saving would be just 10%). 

For now I'm using HP5 if I'm working with someone (i.e. needing to shoot a few rolls in a session) and Tri-X for my own purposes. 

Thanks !

Edited April 19, 2022 by grahamc

[oldwino]

I switched to HP5. I find Tri-X very modern, contrast-wise, and HP5 more old school. If I want more contrast, I can simply leave it in the developer a little longer. HP5 seems more flexible in this regard. 

I admit to not having shot Tri-X in a long while, just some rolls here and there. I preferred Delta 400 to Tri-X even back then, but a "classic" emulsion seems to play better with my now preferred developers. 

[Advertisement]

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

[stray cat]

Hi Graham, I agree with almost everything you said, including the bit about the emotional/historic attachment to Tri-X. I am about to buy some more 400ISO B&W stock and have been going through a similar process.

However I'd recommend re-looking at the cost of 100-foot bulk rolls. Not that there seem to be many in stock at the moment. However Decisive Moment in Melbourne have a price of $139 against a 30.5m (100ft) roll of HP5+ - or approximately $7.78 per roll. Ikigai (where I get my colour films developed) are advertizing bulk rolls of XP2 Super in stock at $130 but they are out of HP5+ (same price) at the moment.

That's (HP5+) certainly the way I'll be swinging. Other vendors (Walkens etc) are also currently out of stock of HP5+ but you can ask stores to notify you when they do restock. You can get a bulk roll of Tri-X at Decisive Moment on sale for $220 which works out at $12.22 a roll, so that might factor into your thinking too.

As for the differences... In my experience, I've always found any differences between the films are very small and I look at it as an opportunity to embrace something other than my normal stock. They are both incredibly high-quality emulsions so no problem there.

But at the end of the day... $140 compared with $220 (ON SALE!) - come on!

[Ko.Fe.]

I have tried modern Tri-X (I don't think it is same as old one) several times over years. It is grossly overrated and over priced. IMO. I'd rather overpay to T-MAX 400. But HP5+ was my to go film in bulks until it became overpriced for me as well. I used it @3200, 6400. 

For box speed Kentmere 400 just works and even Foma has improved their 400 to the point it lost "grain monster" title. 

Mind you, at some point I have skipped the scanner waste of film and started to print under enlarger. Wet printed negs are way less different on type of the negative.

Even more, with scanner I was getting scratches scanned, with enlarger no scratches, because it was focused strictly on the grain.    

BTW, where was a rumor about GW using Tri-X, it lasted only until I got his book with contacts scans. He was using whatever he could get...

[johnwolf]

I switched to HP5 a few years ago, mainly because it dries flat. I got so tired of the Tri-X curl and fiddling to get strips into the scanner holder. 

The fact that iHP5 is cheaper is great. It also pushes well.  

John

[grahamc]

it sounds like Kodak are pricing themselves out of the market !

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, stray cat said:

Hi Graham, I agree with almost everything you said, including the bit about the emotional/historic attachment to Tri-X. I am about to buy some more 400ISO B&W stock and have been going through a similar process.

However I'd recommend re-looking at the cost of 100-foot bulk rolls. Not that there seem to be many in stock at the moment. However Decisive Moment in Melbourne have a price of $139 against a 30.5m (100ft) roll of HP5+ - or approximately $7.78 per roll. Ikigai (where I get my colour films developed) are advertizing bulk rolls of XP2 Super in stock at $130 but they are out of HP5+ (same price) at the moment.

That's (HP5+) certainly the way I'll be swinging. Other vendors (Walkens etc) are also currently out of stock of HP5+ but you can ask stores to notify you when they do restock. You can get a bulk roll of Tri-X at Decisive Moment on sale for $220 which works out at $12.22 a roll, so that might factor into your thinking too.

As for the differences... In my experience, I've always found any differences between the films are very small and I look at it as an opportunity to embrace something other than my normal stock. They are both incredibly high-quality emulsions so no problem there.

But at the end of the day... $140 compared with $220 (ON SALE!) - come on!

Thanks for all the info Phil - this pricing of bulk HP5+ consul give me the push I need to try the bulk loading .

Regarding the romance of Tri-X ....  I often forget that the photographers I'm referring to were probably not choosing Tri-X due to it being better than HP5 on x, y, z criteria ... the reality is they are all American photographers and the Kodak version was probably super cheap and commonly found !  And great of course, but as-is Ilford  

Edited April 20, 2022 by grahamc

[stray cat]

5 minutes ago, grahamc said:

Thanks for all the info Phil - this pricing of bulk HP5+ consul give me the push I need to try the bulk loading .

Regarding the romance of Tri-X ....  I often forget that the photographers I'm referring to were probably not choosing Tri-X due to it being better than HP5 on x, y, z criteria ... the reality is they are all American photographers and the Kodak version was probably super cheap and commonly found !  And great of course, but as-is Ilford  

As Ko.Fe. so correctly pointed out, photographers such as Winogrand, Robert Frank and Cartier-Bresson would have habitually just bought what was locally available and/or most economical. Why wouldn't we do the same?

[grahamc]

28 minutes ago, stray cat said:

As Ko.Fe. so correctly pointed out, photographers such as Winogrand, Robert Frank and Cartier-Bresson would have habitually just bought what was locally available and/or most economical. Why wouldn't we do the same?

I agree    I may have to join them at this rate 😂

Edited April 20, 2022 by grahamc

[david strachan]

Mmmm.  I wonder if they just used their usual film.  Perhaps buying in bulk. Using their trusted film would give expected  results...just as all of us expect, when we do the same.

I feel sure they wouldn't just buy the local cheapie, as they walked past a film kiosk.

But they're not here to find out so it's not so important anyway.

 

One thing i do know, someone like Ansel Adams would always be very particular about his B&W filmstock.

...

 

[stray cat]

Looking at Frank's proofsheets in "Looking In" by Sarah Greenough he was all over the place with film stocks so I really do think he just loaded whatever he had access to. I read somewhere that HC-B did bulk load his film and he would buy whatever he could get his hands on and then it was up to his lab guy to do the best job processing the films - although I had a photography teacher who claimed HC-B was very partial to HP4/HP5. Ko.Fe. has said that Winogrand was much the same in being catholic about his film choices and, given his humongous usage he MUST have had an eye for his costs. I'm sure others have been the same and yet others, like as you say Dave, Ansel Adams, used what they considered appropriate for the job - but he'd have tried everything, just as say a John Sexton would and did. Mary Ellen Mark was Tri-X all the way - she told us her husband's birthday present for her the year we first met her was 200 rolls in 120!

[grahamc]

23 minutes ago, david strachan said:

Mmmm.  I wonder if they just used their usual film.  Perhaps buying in bulk. Using their trusted film would give expected  results...just as all of us expect, when we do the same.

I feel sure they wouldn't just buy the local cheapie, as they walked past a film kiosk.

But they're not here to find out so it's not so important anyway.

 

One thing i do know, someone like Ansel Adams would always be very particular about his B&W filmstock.

...

 

That would make sense David .  I once did read 'on the internet' (!) a forum post from someone claiming to have assisted Helmut Newton (albeit for one shoot) and reported that HN purchased some consumer film from a drugstore on the way.

I was incredibly impressed but thought it quite hard to believe also

Incidentally the same flurry of research led to finding that HN used Tri-X and D76 .....  one of the reasons for this expensive 'preference' for the same 

Edited April 20, 2022 by grahamc

[david strachan]

Absoltamon!

We all try different stock..and go back back to what we know and trust.

All best..

[david strachan]

5 minutes ago, stray cat said:

Looking at Frank's proofsheets in "Looking In" by Sarah Greenough he was all over the place with film stocks so I really do think he just loaded whatever he had access to. I read somewhere that HC-B did bulk load his film and he would buy whatever he could get his hands on and then it was up to his lab guy to do the best job processing the films - although I had a photography teacher who claimed HC-B was very partial to HP4/HP5. Ko.Fe. has said that Winogrand was much the same in being catholic about his film choices and, given his humongous usage he MUST have had an eye for his costs. I'm sure others have been the same and yet others, like as you say Dave, Ansel Adams, used what they considered appropriate for the job - but he'd have tried everything, just as say a John Sexton would and did. Mary Ellen Mark was Tri-X all the way - she told us her husband's birthday present for her the year we first met her was 200 rolls in 120!

It's really hard to know what is the "truth" with HCB. So much mystique has built over the years, as reported by some, like exposures " all over the place" to just about any pile on. I just find some of the authorities hard to swallow...same with Winogrand, and more..the longer the internet runs,  etc

Even their books are often about selfagrandisment rather than reveling what they did to get the photograph..but why should they...it's always in the courts of truth so...

One photographer i do trust is Adams, having read all his books, and tried his processes, and enjoyed his  (truthful) autobiography.

...

 

 

 

[Sandokan]

For slower speeds, I am a fan of Agfa APX which has a high silver content (or so I read) but whose tonality I love. I recently came across 10 rolls of the older original APX so am happy. 

I prefer Delta 400 to HP5 ... but no reason as I cannot remember the last HP5 I used. 

[grahamc]

I think the debate about cost-effectiveness and readily-available is probably one in the same .

I can't image Tri-X being hard to get hold of, especially in the states, in the times we are discussing and since many of the photographers that inspire me to use it are mostly American it probably wasn't expensive either 

This would surely have combined to make it a consistent stock choice for so many 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by grahamc

[grahamc]

6 hours ago, oldwino said:

I switched to HP5. I find Tri-X very modern, contrast-wise, and HP5 more old school. If I want more contrast, I can simply leave it in the developer a little longer. HP5 seems more flexible in this regard. 

I admit to not having shot Tri-X in a long while, just some rolls here and there. I preferred Delta 400 to Tri-X even back then, but a "classic" emulsion seems to play better with my now preferred developers. 

Interesting thanks .  What developer (s) are you using for HP5 ?

[LocalHero1953]

Recent returnee to film here..... I started with Tri-X as a known quantity, with plenty of advice on its behaviour out there. Then decided I should try some others and fix on one in particular. I bought two rolls each of Tri-X, HP5+, TMax400 and Delta 400. You know what? My amateur inexperienced eye couldn't tell the difference between HP5+ and Tri-X, or between Delta 400 and TMax 400, though I could see the difference between the conventional and T grain stock. I'm not saying there is no difference (others clearly can) - just that it is small to my eyes, and I would have to spend a lot of time with each to work out exactly how they differed. 

So I chose on price. For 35mm I have a bulk roll of Delta 400 that I am working through at the moment. For 4x5, where I'm not trying to minimise grain, I have boxes of HP5+. Perhaps, after quite a while using these and understanding how they behave, I might try another brand, just to see if I can then tell the difference.

At the moment, how my film images look depends far more on how well I took the original shot, and the lens I used, than on the film stock.

Edited April 20, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[Pintpot]

Having worked in the photo industry, one way or another, all my working life selling Kodak & Ilford films, paper & chemicals. I saw Kodak make some serious mistakes which brought this one time world leader in all forms of imaging to it's knees. Ilford however managed to keep it's head above the water. I've always thought that size & over reach was the biggest problem for Kodak. With the shrinkage of film sales over the last 20 odd years it was obvious that the cost of film would have to increase, this is inevitable. Kodak even up to the time I retired had a massive supply chain worldwide and that will have shrunk now, it will have had to. I used to take delivery of pallet loads of film on a weekly basis, but that shrunk with the advent of digital imaging, that's the simple cause of price increase. It's a shame as I always rated Kodak products extremely highly, as I did Ilford, and would use both the brands interchangeably. It's sad to see Kodak pricing themselves out of the market and I hope they don't, as I still wish to use their film, we shall see. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[grahamc]

2 hours ago, Pintpot said:

Having worked in the photo industry, one way or another, all my working life selling Kodak & Ilford films, paper & chemicals. I saw Kodak make some serious mistakes which brought this one time world leader in all forms of imaging to it's knees. Ilford however managed to keep it's head above the water. I've always thought that size & over reach was the biggest problem for Kodak. With the shrinkage of film sales over the last 20 odd years it was obvious that the cost of film would have to increase, this is inevitable. Kodak even up to the time I retired had a massive supply chain worldwide and that will have shrunk now, it will have had to. I used to take delivery of pallet loads of film on a weekly basis, but that shrunk with the advent of digital imaging, that's the simple cause of price increase. It's a shame as I always rated Kodak products extremely highly, as I did Ilford, and would use both the brands interchangeably. It's sad to see Kodak pricing themselves out of the market and I hope they don't, as I still wish to use their film, we shall see. 

That's extremely interesting thanks .  

It's nice to read you used them interchangeably after so much professional experience 

Yes without knowing the ins and outs of each company's business it is hard to comment with any intelligence on the reasons, but the price difference being x1.5 is staggering really.  

I share your feelings and hope Kodak makes some changes as there must be many others veering away from this pricing .  10% or 20% seems reasonable to pick your preferred product, but 50% on top seems crazy.

I follow a photographer that I really respect who mentioned it in an interview ("I used to shoot with tri-X and it's lovely, but it's too expensive these days so I use HP5+") .... and that's what first got me thinking about it .

$16 (AUS) isn't going to break the bank as I'm still in my working life but just feels a little frivalous.  If I jump ship to HP I'm getting every 3rd roll 'free', versus staying with Tri-X .  Not to mention, to even get the Tri-X at the price I've mentioned I need to buy 10-packs.  But HP is $11 from roll one. 

Edited April 20, 2022 by grahamc