Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In my experience hp5+ is pretty much a like-for-like replacement for tri-x. There are differences, but I find them very subtle. I cannot subscribe to the opinions expressed here and elsewhere that hp5+ gives much flatter results than tri-x in similar conditions - in fact it generally gives quite a luscious palette of tones. Not better or worse than tri-x, only subtly different. One example - the following shot was taken in lightly-clouded sunshine at box speed, developed normally in xtol 1:1, 12 minutes, 20 degrees and with minimal post-processing in photoshop. You might agree or disagree with my processing choices here but there is plenty of scope to give the scene more snap if that's what you're after:

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!

museum of pop culture, seattle 2024

m6ttl, 35mm summicron, hp5+

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, stray cat said:

In my experience hp5+ is pretty much a like-for-like replacement for tri-x. There are differences, but I find them very subtle. I cannot subscribe to the opinions expressed here and elsewhere that hp5+ gives much flatter results than tri-x in similar conditions - in fact it generally gives quite a luscious palette of tones. Not better or worse than tri-x, only subtly different. One example - the following shot was taken in lightly-clouded sunshine at box speed, developed normally in xtol 1:1, 12 minutes, 20 degrees and with minimal post-processing in photoshop. You might agree or disagree with my processing choices here but there is plenty of scope to give the scene more snap if that's what you're after:

museum of pop culture, seattle 2024

m6ttl, 35mm summicron, hp5+

Cool, dystopian image, StrayCat. Love it!

Obviously, you know how to deal with HP5. And I find your informed opposition to my take on HP5 so interesting that I’m going to buy a few rolls along my trusted Tri-X to investigate my bias.

That being said, I also shoot Kodak Double-X which is more old-school Kodak than Tri-X. It’s notably less forgiving in contrast, requires more precise exposure, but gifts you with that je ne sais quoi you won’t find elsewhere. In my eyes, it’s the skin tones’ contrast that makes the difference.

However (what would the world be without “however”?), I recently shot a few rolls of modern day Agfa APX-400, aka Kentmere 400, and was again surprised how well that went. The case can be made that Kentmere 400 belongs also into the group of greyish B&W stocks with a higher sensitivity to red and yellow (thus rendering skin a tad flatter and brighter). But when shooting it against the light in a high-contrast environment it sings. I developed the role in Xtol (the recent one) for 9:15 minutes in a 1:1 solution at 24 *C, which is a mild push about 1/2 stop, according to Kentmere’s recipes. No exaggerated grain but fat negatives that are on one level with Tri-X. Nice!

Here you go:

Edited by hansvons
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, grahamc said:

Where I live HP5 is still half the price of Tri-X so I am sticking with it but much prefer Tri-X 

Can you get a reasonable price for Kentmere 400, Agfa APX-400, or Rollei RPX-400 down under? If so, try it if you haven’t already done so. It’s close to HP5 but has a tad less latitude, which makes it easier to work with. I get technically comparable results to Tri-X and HP5 regarding resolution and grain. As with HP5, a mild push is helpful in most situations. 

Edited by hansvons
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, hansvons said:

Cool, dystopian image, StrayCat. Love it!

Obviously, you know how to deal with HP5. And I find your informed opposition to my take on HP5 so interesting that I’m going to buy a few rolls along my trusted Tri-X to investigate my bias.

That being said, I also shoot Kodak Double-X which is more old-school Kodak than Tri-X. It’s notably less forgiving in contrast, requires more precise exposure, but gifts you with that je ne sais quoi you won’t find elsewhere. In my eyes, it’s the skin tones’ contrast that makes the difference.

However (what would the world be without “however”?), I recently shot a few rolls of modern day Agfa APX-400, aka Kentmere 400, and was again surprised how well that went. The case can be made that Kentmere 400 belongs also into the group of greyish B&W stocks with a higher sensitivity to red and yellow (thus rendering skin a tad flatter and brighter). But when shooting it against the light in a high-contrast environment it sings. I developed the role in Xtol (the recent one) for 9:15 minutes in a 1:1 solution at 24 *C, which is a mild push about 1/2 stop, according to Kentmere’s recipes. No exaggerated grain but fat negatives that are on one level with Tri-X. Nice!

Here you go:

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Hans. This community really is supportive and instructive.

I must readily admit that I am someone who likes to settle on a film/developer/process combination and stick with it. It used to be Tri-X and now, due largely to economics but also because I used them a lot in the past, it is HP5+ and FP4+, often bulk-loaded. Developer is now always XTOL 1:1. But I do like it when other people experiment and come up with tempting suggestions and compelling pictures like your backlit portrait above.

I'll be interested to read how your future experiments with HP5+ turn out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I second hansvons comment on straycat’s pic! Beautiful shot! I did stock up on some double x now, intending to do that in xtol 1+3 semi-stand, since I get more and more  the impression that this is a sweet spot for xtol for some reason I absolutely will not claim to even remotely understand. Earlier on in this thread I posted HP5 souped in that and really liked the result, apart, indeed, from the skintones. I’m a bit slacking with shooting at the moment though so progress is slow. Agree on Kentmere 400 and its rebranded forms, but they don’t have the likable (for me) tonality of double and tri x. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ArnoG said:

Agree on Kentmere 400 and its rebranded forms, but they don’t have the likable (for me) tonality of double and tri x.

Agreed. However, as an alternative for roughly half the price for party photos etc. Kentmere 400 makes tons of sense. Regarding skin tones, as said above, I'd go even so far as to say that today's Tri-X isn't as Kodak as Double-X. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, hansvons said:

Agreed. However, as an alternative for roughly half the price for party photos etc. Kentmere 400 makes tons of sense. Regarding skin tones, as said above, I'd go even so far as to say that today's Tri-X isn't as Kodak as Double-X. 

Agree about Double-X. Its really lovely.

I find it very strange that Kodak doesn't package this up for still photography. They (and Alaris) would sell a bunch of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Double x in Xtol 1+3, 12 min at 22 C, 30" initial inv, then 5" every min. Negatives looked "fat". Film has seen one Xray dose. Testing a 50/1.5 Opton Sonnar on an M2 using an Amedeo adapter. Lens collimated at f/2 and shot at f/2 while focusing on the scoops in the foreground. Shot at sunset (sun was already gone). 1/15th of a second if I recall well.

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Same story as above but further away from the scoops

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now at bright sunlight. EI for the entire film was 400, so must have stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8...

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!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Focus test at f/2: RF focusing on the steering stem of the first bike. Collimated the lens plus adapter on a Sony NEX7 body at about 1.5 m distance, and all seems to finally work well. Never worked that good on my Contax iia body, which was way harder to focus accurately. Alas, this thread is about Xtol but I'm properly pleased that my Opton Sonnar is working so well on my M2...I started 3 years ago taking months to do a CLA on a Contax iia body just to get this lens working since I love the way it renders.

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!

Edited by ArnoG
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, hansvons said:

Can you get a reasonable price for Kentmere 400, Agfa APX-400, or Rollei RPX-400 down under? If so, try it if you haven’t already done so. It’s close to HP5 but has a tad less latitude, which makes it easier to work with. I get technically comparable results to Tri-X and HP5 regarding resolution and grain. As with HP5, a mild push is helpful in most situations. 

Thanks very much - I'll give these a try .  I thought I'd hit on something very close with the 800 push of HP5 but lately have found the grain a little overbearing.  In saying that I've also switched to rotary processing of B&W which could be increasing grain.  I'm going to try a pre-soak before the pushed HP5 rotary processing, as well as trying the films you've recommended, thanks ! 

I can go back to inversion processing, of course, also 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ArnoG said:

What’s a good B&W ISO100 film in xtol? Looking for sharp, small grain, and specifically good skin tones (it’s for portraits). Any suggestions/recommendations?

Have a look at this video. It explains differences in spectral sensitivity in modern (available) B&W films, which is one of the most relevant factors for portraits.

It's not specifically about XTOL, but that developer works well with most films.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Posted (edited)

The below is from a test roll I just needed to develop quickly, didn't have any XT-3 (which I switched to in the meantime) readily mixed - but then remembered that I still have two 1L bottles of XTOL working solution in the cupboard..
..happy to see this is still working fine about 4,5 months after mixing it (stored in 1L glass bottles, filled to the very rim, and closed tightly with a screw-on lid) 👍

 

 

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!

Tri-X in XTOL (stock)

Edited by username
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one more from the old-ish XTOL, Delta 100 Pro this time.

Again in stock XTOL, for the recommended 8 minutes at 20°C, alas agitated the whole first 30 seconds of the dev time (as opposed to just 10) accidentally, which is why it looks a bit "hot" maybe 😬

 

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, thanks for the ongoing and interesting conversation. I’ve made some more progress with my dip test on the film leader that I reported some time ago, and am currently obtaining very nice negatives using that method. I was asked by others to share my findings so I made a writeup on my blog so I can also share it here:

https://www.arnogodeke.com/Blog/My-experience-with-optimizing-BW-film-development

comments, as usual, are appreciated!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Delta 400 in XTOL 1:1 @ 20°C / 12min

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!

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...