Anyone switched from Tri-X to HP5+ ?

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

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.

Good to know!  I am beginning to feel the same - backed up by me posting a pic the other day and labelling it 'Tri-X' when in fact it was HP5 +.  Picked it up and corrected it but I was looking at the pic as I made the initial error.  To my untrained eye I agree there would be many other factors along the exposure and development process more relevant. 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by grahamc

[grahamc]

Looks like I will soon be subjecting my beautiful cameras to the indignity of a cut-price daily film stock .

This is not how things were supposed to turn out , I thought it was Tri-X and smokey New York streets all the way from here 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by grahamc

[Ornello]

I use both, and as far as I can tell they are almost identical. 

[fotomas]

As you see here.

[Ornello]

5 hours ago, grahamc said:

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. 

Pricing may vary around the world. In the US, there is not a huge difference. $8.15 vs $10.50 for 36 exp. But Ilford has always been cheaper.

Here:

https://mikeeckman.com/2021/11/a-look-back-at-the-prices-of-film/

Edited April 20, 2022 by Ornello

[250swb]

The myth was true because at one time Tri-X was the only widely available 400 ASA film, but it's been degraded over the years while HP5 has matured slightly. And nowadays there is the price difference that doesn't make Tri-X a logical choice given the minimal difference in results. The only thing you may see in the negative is a deeper density of the film base in HP5.

[Doug A]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

The only thing you may see in the negative is a deeper density of the film base in HP5.

I suspect the denser film base may account for the view held by some that HP5 is "flatter" in appearance than Tri-X if the only examples they have seen are prints from the old one-hour film labs that, in my experience, never did a proper job with B&W film, even though there was a one day wait for B&W rather than one hour for color. 

[giannis]

I never “switched” per se. I’d use interchangeably what was easier available and cheaper. While I was in the UK, that was HP5+ by far. Still remember when “standard” price for HP5+ was a fiver (£) even in local stores, and that wasn’t too far back, like 5-7 years. 
 

In any case, modern TriX and HP5+, when developed in the same developer and for the appropriate times each so as to be developed to the same contrast, they’re pretty much interchangeable in every regard (grain, sharpness, speed, characteristic curve), with marginal differences that are not relevant in practice. The only thing I could barely notice, side by side only, is that TriX has maybe a tiny bit more speed (around 1/3rd of a stop or less) in Diafine? Again, not field relevant. Secondary things like HP5+ drying flatter are more relevant in this case. And price and availability of course. This is the biggest criterion, since all else is pretty much equal, and in Europe at least Ilford has the edge by quite some margin.

Lastly, even though I love Kodak colour film, I have to give it to Ilford when it comes to B&W, they seem more committed and they offer such a full range of products, that makes me want to support them as much as I can. Ilford has pretty much all bases covered in their portfolio: they have a full range of traditional grain film (ISO50, ISO125, ISO400), they have a full range of t-grain films (ISO100, ISO400, “ISO”3200), they have “specialty” films too (near infrared with SFX200, orthochromatic with Ortho Plus 80), and of course a very complete range of papers. Even when it comes to developers, it’s the only brand offering, say, stuff like a fully fine grain developer (Perceptol, Kodak had Microdol-X but discontinued it some time ago), on top of all the other more common developers. 

[Ornello]

On 4/20/2022 at 9:38 PM, giannis said:

I never “switched” per se. I’d use interchangeably what was easier available and cheaper. While I was in the UK, that was HP5+ by far. Still remember when “standard” price for HP5+ was a fiver (£) even in local stores, and that wasn’t too far back, like 5-7 years. 
 

In any case, modern TriX and HP5+, when developed in the same developer and for the appropriate times each so as to be developed to the same contrast, they’re pretty much interchangeable in every regard (grain, sharpness, speed, characteristic curve), with marginal differences that are not relevant in practice. The only thing I could barely notice, side by side only, is that TriX has maybe a tiny bit more speed (around 1/3rd of a stop or less) in Diafine? Again, not field relevant. Secondary things like HP5+ drying flatter are more relevant in this case. And price and availability of course. This is the biggest criterion, since all else is pretty much equal, and in Europe at least Ilford has the edge by quite some margin.

Lastly, even though I love Kodak colour film, I have to give it to Ilford when it comes to B&W, they seem more committed and they offer such a full range of products, that makes me want to support them as much as I can. Ilford has pretty much all bases covered in their portfolio: they have a full range of traditional grain film (ISO50, ISO125, ISO400), they have a full range of t-grain films (ISO100, ISO400, “ISO”3200), they have “specialty” films too (near infrared with SFX200, orthochromatic with Ortho Plus 80), and of course a very complete range of papers. Even when it comes to developers, it’s the only brand offering, say, stuff like a fully fine grain developer (Perceptol, Kodak had Microdol-X but discontinued it some time ago), on top of all the other more common developers. 

Ilford developers seem to be the one area where I would suggest they need an upgrade. Though there is something to be said for keeping certain products the same, so that photographers and lab personnel can rely on some constant factor, Ilford have often improved and modified their films and papers. But Microphen has been around for a long long time, and so has ID-11. Many developers are better than those. I have heard that Ilfosol 3 has keeping problems, but that Ilford has addressed them. Adox FX-39 is superb. Why doesn't Ilford offer something similar to it? Has anyone tried it Ilfosol 3? The dilutions appear to be similar.

My recent tests of FX-15 (slightly modified) show it to be a real winner.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Ornello

[250swb]

5 hours ago, Ornello said:

 

My recent tests of FX-15 (slightly modified) show it to be a real winner.

Love to see some examples.

[malligator]

Kodak is legendary. Leica is legendary. My Leica M-A came with a roll of Tri-X. I'm *supposed* to be using Tri-X. Any gritty street film shooter uses Tri-X. Or so I thought and tried to tell myself.

Unfortunately, I just like HP5 Plus better. I didn't want to and I've fought it, but I just can't help that I find myself loading HP5+ almost exclusively these days. My exposures just look better--well-exposed, balanced, easy to work with.

It doesn't hurt that my local shop gives me a discount so I get HP5+ for about $5.75/roll.

While I appreciate that Kodak still makes film and chemistry and I will (and want to) support them they seem to be stagnant. Ilford seems to care a lot more about the end user. They make more user-friendly products and maintain better quality control.

I still love Kodak. I'll always have Tri-X on hand. Portra will remain my goto color stock (unless Cinestill 400D turns out to be awesome, but that's still Kodak). But...HP5 just works better for me in my B&W film workflow.

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by malligator