Tri-X or HP5?

[Ben Calwell]

I'm starting to shoot 8x10 more these days, but my favorite film, Tri-X, is only available in that format in 50-sheet boxes, which is out of my budget.
I see that Ilford HP5 is sold in 25-sheet boxes at about $75 (more with shipping). Is this film at all similar to Tri-X?
I know I'll need to test it out, but would development times be similar with my beloved HC-110?
In other words, will I be going back to square one with HP5, or will I be able to transfer some of my working methods from Tri-X to Ilford?
Maybe there's another 8x10 film that would be better.
Thanks in advance for your comments.

[MIke Sherck]

HP5+ is a very different film than Tri-x, Ben. If less expensive film is what you're after look at J&C. It's not the same as Tri-X either, but it's even less expensive! (Or was, the last time I looked. It's been a while...) :)

Mike

[Oren Grad]

Is this film at all similar to Tri-X?

No.

[steve simmons]

Your development time will probably be longer as HP5+ is a lower contrast film but you will have to test. I would not do the J&C films.

steve simmons

[Frank Petronio]

I live in Rochester and have tried to support Kodak but I think it is time to support film companies that intend to serve their customers. I use Ilford now. I like the look of HP5 better than Tri-X anyway.

[tim atherton]

Your development time will probably be longer as HP5+ is a lower contrast film but you will have to test. I woud not do the J&C films.

steve simmons

I think this is at least the second post in which you have dissed J&C (and/or efke) films.

Why?

[steve simmons]

I think this is at least the second post in which you have dissed J&C (and/or efke) films.

Why?
__________________

If you look at the recent poll they do not seem to be very popular. I have heard stories about periodic unavailability so I don't know if this is the reason for the low useage or if there is another problem. I would prefer to encourage people to use products that are more common which indicates fewer problems.


steve simmons

[photographs42]

I used Tri-x for 20 years and was always happy with it. Six years ago I was in Seattle and couldn’t find a single box of 5x7 Tri-x and ended up with three boxes of HP5+. Based on my experience with Tri-x, I exposed it at EI 200. I did development tests at 200 before developing any real images and they turned out fine, but then I did film speed tests and discovered that for my system EI 400 is correct.

I develop in Xtol. As for being similar to Tri-x; I think they are similar but certainly not the same. I guess I have switched to HP5+ because I haven’t bought any Tri-x lately.

At any rate, I would not change films w/o doing basic film speed and development tests. As an economy measure, you can always cut the film down for the tests.
Jerome

[tim atherton]

I think this is at least the second post in which you have dissed J&C (and/or efke) films.

Why?
__________________

If you look at the recent poll they do not seem to be very popular. I have heard stories about periodic unavailability so I don't know if this is the reason for the low useage or if there is another problem. I would prefer to encourage people to use products that are more common which indicates fewer problems.


steve simmons

Apparently then Ilford Delta and Fuji Across have more problems than Efke, as they had fewer people using them...?

[steve simmons]

I've answered your question and stated my reason. I do not have the time or the interest to get into a long running debate wth you.

Why do you care what I suggest?

steve simmons

[tim atherton]

I've answered your question and stated my reason. I do not have the time or the interest to get into a long running debate wth you.
steve simmns

not a terribly well substantiated reason though.

[steve simmons]

I have explained my reason and answered your question.

Now, why do you care what I suggest?

steve simmons

[Kevin Crisp]

Ben: A box of 50 sheets of Tri-X 8X10 is $140.95 from Badger, or $5 less per 25 than you are quoting. In a cold fridge or freezer it would have a shelf life of at least 5 years, provided you keep it sealed when cold and while warming up. So there is no down side to having it on hand a bit longer. Switch if you want to (I am a big fan of Tri-x though I like the Ilford product as well) but in the long run you don't appear to be saving anything, just shifting for cash flow purposes $70.40 forward, one time, and for however long it is between film orders. Also consider that you would be saving 18 cents per sheet going forward. That is $36 if you use only 200 sheets per year. And factor in what are presumably lower shipping and handling costs ordering one box one time instead of two boxes too times, even factoring in the weight increase...

[steve simmons]

I would agree with the above advice. Don't switch unless you have to.

steve simmons

[Capocheny]

Tri-X is a great film but I switched to HP5+ awhile back when I couldn't get Tri-X at the place I buy my film.

I've stayed with the HP5+ because I think Ilford is trying to be "in the game" for the long-haul. Whereas, I can't be as confident with Kodak.

Here today, gone tomorrow seems to be their attitude. At least, that's the way "I" see it.

Cheers

[Ben Calwell]

Thanks, everyone. It's kind of a Catch-22 situation. I want Kodak to know that many photographers still desperately want Tri-X, but it would be nice to support Ilford, since they seem to have a bigger commitment to film.

[CXC]

Switching away from a product which you are happy with, based on speculation about future business practices, seems silly to me.

Not wanting to pay a higher out-of-pocket total outlay makes perfect sense, to me. But don't forget to factor in the cost of materials wasted or used in testing, along with your own time, getting up to speed with the new product.

Anyway, those are the thoughts of this Tri-X user. If Tri-X were about to die, I would by MORE of it, not less.

[Pronier Jean Claude]

Kodak, Ilford and other brand sheet films will be more and more expensive. It's the price to pay when we love analog photography.
The better support for them is to buy enough film.
We have to work hard on a film which fit with our way for pictures and lab process.
regards

[David A. Goldfarb]

J&C Classic 400 (Fortepan 400/Classicpan 400) looks more like Tri-X than HP5+ does. I'd describe it as like the old TXT with more manageable highlights. It's grainier than the current TXP, which will not make a huge difference in 8x10", and is a softer emulsion, so it requires more careful handling, particularly if you develop in trays. It also doesn't age as well as Tri-X, so don't buy more than you need for a year or so. With those caveats, it's a beautiful film.

If you decide to try it, you can use your development times and EI for Tri-X 320 as a starting point. You might find them adequate, or you might increase development time slightly to push the highlights up a bit.

[Jim MacKenzie]

HP5 is worth trying, even if you really like Tri-X. It is similar but different. I find it to be slightly sharper and have slightly finer grain, but I still like the tonality of Tri-X. Generally I prefer the Ilford product but I would not be unhappy to use the Kodak if I had to.

I do find that HP5 has less general stain than Tri-X does when I use PMK. I haven't run enough tests with Pyrocat-HD to know if the same applies with that developer.

The Ilford products were cheaper when I got interested in b&w photography in the 1970s (at least the prices were better here in Canada, despite us being closer to Rochester than to Mobberley) so I have used the Ilford products more than the Kodak. I use Kodak experimentally occasionally and when I can't get Ilford (due to Kodak Canada's minimum order requirements, it's a lot easier to get large format Ilford product in Canada than it is to get Kodak product).

[Bill_1856]

I would not do the J&C films.

steve simmons
I would guess that J&C don't advertise in VC mag.

[steve simmons]

I support a lot of companies that do not advertise in View Camera. When is the last time you saw an Ilford ad or a Kodak film ad in View Camera???. Nevertheless I frequently recommend Tri-X and FP4+ films to people.

Save the uninformed cheap shots.

steve simmons

[optV]

I'm fairly new to LF, but have shot delta 100 and the new t-grain films for years. (I love delta for 120) It doesn't seem like many LF shooters use tmax or delta films. Any particular reason? I can understand less concern for grain properties. Perhaps thats why?

[John Kasaian]

I shoot 8x10 Tri-X. When Kodak went to 50 sheet boxes I was really bent out of shape over that, but I've changed my mind. I know I'm getting 50 sheets from the same batch which can only help being more consistant. A 50 sheet box of Kodak costs about the same as two 25 sheet boxes of Ilford so theres no real savings over either film. With 50 sheet boxes I find I'm less likely to run out film (in a format nobody stocks in my town.)

Of course I have to suck it up and place a more expensive order than I'm used to, but I have to order less boxes to feed my habit.

I actually shoot more Tri-X and TMax400 than I did in the past since Kodak went to the 50 sheet boxes, but I also shoot a lot of FOMA in it's J and C and Freestyle incarnations.

[sanking]

I'm fairly new to LF, but have shot delta 100 and the new t-grain films for years. (I love delta for 120) It doesn't seem like many LF shooters use tmax or delta films. Any particular reason? I can understand less concern for grain properties. Perhaps thats why?


I personally like T-grain emulsions a lot. Ilford FP4+, for example, is an excellent film, but compared to TMAX-400 it has less resolution in lppm, lower film speed, higher reciprocity failure, and as much grain.

On the other hand, T-grain films such as TMAX-100 and TMAX-400, do not have a lot of latitude in development, in fact they have a trigger like response to increasing time of development. Also, the curves of these films are very straight line and offer no highlight compensation. These two factors together mean that development must be very precise in terms of time and temperature for optimum results, especially when printing with graded papers. Films like FP4+ and TXP-320, on other other hand, have a more gentle and gradual response to extended develoment.

Sandy King

[steve simmons]

It was surprising to me that in the recent poll, and it was fun but not necessrily scientific, that Tri-X was more popular than the two T-Max films combined. If you are going to shoot either of the T-Max films you should have them mechanically processed They are very sensitive to any variation in time, temp, and agitation. This hair trigger response makes them impossible to consistently hand develop and is beyond anything that is needed to make zone system adjustments.

Additionally, many of us who have been around for years, since the 70s and before, do not feel that their tonal range is nearly as good as the older films. Images produced simply do not have the depth of tone that images from Tri-X, SuperXX, etc. have. I am adjusting to being an old fart but then I have looked at thousands of images by Baer, Caponigro, the Westons etc. and what they did with their tonal range is my reference. Sexton is one of the very few who has done anything with the T-Max films but he shoots in consistent lighting situations and processes them mechanically. Out in the inconsistent real world the variations in lighting also have an effect on the film speed of T-Max fims and adds to the difficulty of using them. I would bet that much of the useage of the T-Max films is from people who have moved up from smaller formats in the last 10 years who got sidetracked by the felt need for fine grain.

One more thought, in lf fine grain should not be a deciding factor in selecting a film. Tonal range, depth of the tones, and film speed would be more important to me.

steve simmons

[sanking]

It was surprising to me that in the recent poll, and it was fun but not necessrily scientific, that Tri-X was more popular than the two T-Max films combined. If you are going to shoot either of the T-Max films you should have them mechanically processed They are very sensitive to any variation in time, temp, and agitation. This hair trigger response makes them impossible to consistently hand develop and is beyond anything that is needed to make zone system adjustments.

Additionally, many of us who have been around for years, since the 70s and before, do not feel that their tonal range is nearly as good as the older films. Images produced simply do not have the depth of tone that images from Tri-X, SuperXX, etc. have. I am adjusting to being an old fart but then I have looked at thousands of images by Baer, Caponigro, the Westons etc. and what they did with their tonal range is my reference. Sexton is one of the very few who has done anything with the T-Max films but he shoots in consistent lighting situations and processes them mechanically. Out in the inconsistent real world the variations in lighting also have an effect on the film speed of T-Max fims and adds to the difficulty of using them. I would bet that much of the useage of the T-Max films is from people who have moved up from smaller formats in the last 10 years who got sidetracked by the felt need for fine grain.

One more thought, in lf fine grain should not be a deciding factor in selecting a film. Tonal range, depth of the tones, and film speed would be more important to me.

steve simmons

[Frank Petronio]

OMG I agree with Steve Simmons on something! Good rant, I agree!

[Ken Lee]

You might want to have a look at the characteristic curves of the films that you are considering.

With repect to HP-5 Plus, many have suggested that it has a rather long "toe". In my humble experience, even when shooting at a speed of 200, the shadows are a bit empty.

The more linear the film, the better, no ?

[Henry Ambrose]

Funny thread, kinda like ice cream flavors.

I would characterize HP5 as anything -but- giving empty shadows.
And whats grain in 8x10? I don't see any in 2 foot wide prints from HP5.

The more linear the film the better? Why yes, and its not much problem to get plenty of straight line from most films. Especially HP5- it can go on and on.

But that's just my experience and others have their own. What works for you is what works. I don't think anyone here is wrong. But if you can't make a good picture with any good modern film it may not be the film's problem.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

This is a good thread.

Like many, I have used HP5+ for a long time and find it to be an excellent film. I do not find it similar in many ways to Tri-X, but that is OK for me. I was just testing HP5+ today with Rodinal 1+50 and found my EI to be 640, which is exactly the same as when I develop it in DDX. I use a Jobo Expert drum on a Beseler motor base and I think the agitation causes the film speed increase. But even at 640, I find the film to be excellent.

As far as the "modern" films go, T-Max is a fine film but not for me. I am just not precise enough with my development tempretures to get it right. Sexton does but as Steve pointed out, he is usuallly photographing in shadows or low light and he has it dialed in. I do use a lot of Delta 100 which I rate at 200. I find it to be a great film and DDX is a wonderful developer with it. I don't think it is quite as difficult to process for a clod like me as compared to T-Max.

But, if you are really looking to change I would go ahead and experiment with a few films you are interested it. Test them, work out the kinks, get to know them a little and that way you will have options as opposed to being locked into one film. It may cost you a few dollars more to do this, but in the end it might be worth the extra time and money just to see which ones you really like.

Good luck.

[MIke Sherck]

If you are going to shoot either of the T-Max films you should have them mechanically processed They are very sensitive to any variation in time, temp, and agitation. This hair trigger response makes them impossible to consistently hand develop and is beyond anything that is needed to make zone system adjustments.I'm not trying to start a flame war (honest!) but I've heard this before and have never understood it. I started LF shooting HP5+ and, while it's a nice film, I greatly prefer the T-max films for the landscape work I do most often. I simply have never had a problem controlling TMX or TMY's contrast and tonality during tray development in D-76 (straight and fresh.) Others I shoot with have similar experiences; in fact, comments such as yours have become a running joke between us as we simply can't imagine what the problem is. Yes, T-max films are sensitive to processing variations (age of developer being extremely important,) but they are far from being unmanagable. They just take practice and care.



I would bet that much of the useage of the T-Max films is from people who have moved up from smaller formats in the last 10 years who got sidetracked by the felt need for fine grain.steve simmons
Actually, I moved from PX and TX in 35m and medium format to TMX and TMY in 4x5; not because of the grain but because that's what the local stores carried in large format films. I've tried other films in 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 and I prefer pretty much everything about the T-max films: grain, tonality, sharpness, reciprocity, etc. I don't know that the old Plus-X can be bettered for portraits but as for older films, I got into the game too late to have used them. I never worried too much about that as I've always been told that the photographer was more important than the equipment, anyway. ;)
mjs

[Ted Harris]

Personal preference and developer/film combinations play a large role in what film you use. Some may see/get results from a film that others never do. Having said that, I have tried FP-4 and HP-5 numerous times over the years in rolls, 4x5 and 5x7. Invariably I find I like the results less than I like the results from either Kodak, EFKE/Adox or (RIP) Agfa films. Mostly it is a question of tonal range.

Over time I have developed a strong preference for Adox/EFKE ISO 25 film for many applications but beyond that, today, I stay with Tri-X in 5x7 and ACROS in 4x5.

With respect to J&C I am a customer but I do recall that there have been a number of problems with their house brand film over the past year with regard especially to diminsions. I also recall reading in several other threads that some of their house brand fim was "seconds" from one of their other suppliers, perhaps John could chime in and add something to that. Many ot the films J&C sells have been around for decades and have always been less expensive than the films from Kodak, Ilford or Fuji. Largely a question of point of origin I assume since they are manufactured in Central or Eastern Europe with lower labor costs and, when part of the Soviet Bloc, sometimes lower quality control but that is changing today. Again, you need to choose to suit your needs. I first discovered Adox KB14 at Freestyle some 35 years ago and have been using it since.

[optV]

Its ironic that Sexton is mentioned in this thread. It my opinion that he is one of the best technical photographers so far in my generation (im a young squirt of 23).

As previously mentioned, I've never had a problem controlling my delta's consistancy, in fact, I far prefer hand development (roller) over my Jobo CPE2 (at least for 120). I am purchasing a used ATL-2 for 4x5, for now its a 3010 expert drum and a roller.

I can understand sticking with what you know if you've used it for years (eg. tri-X pan, hp5) but I'm wondering how many classic emulsion photographers have genuinely tried to develop a system with a newer T-grain film. These days, people tend to read something and follow the rest. There's a ton of bad advise out there, from "experts" and novices. My guess is that even some of the people responding in this thread haven't tried all the films mentioned. My advise is to try different films and see what you like.

I can honestly say that I have not tried tri-X in 4x5 but do plan to. Partially because I haven't established a system (personal IE), etc with 4x5 film yet, partially because I hope to discover something beautiful. For me, one of the biggest thrills of photography is trying something new.

My delta 100 results with 4x5 have been pleasing and consistant so far.

[Kevin Crisp]

TMAX 100 isn't my favorite film in sheet sizes but I do sometimes use it when I have a need for Readyloads. This year I took many rolls of TMAX 100 on a long trip, so most of my experience with this emulsion is recent. I appreciate the fact that TMAX 100 is more sensitive than some other films -- an extra minute, for example, can give a plus 1, at least in my darkroom. I just can't agree that processing it by hand (in tanks with manual agitation, in trays, following the Kodak recommendation on their web site for constant gentle tray agitation) is insanely difficult or precise or beyond the reach of a reasonably careful darkroom worker. Yes, you need to use an accurate thermometer. Yes, you need to agitate the film the same way each time. Yes, you need to keep track of the time and not stop development too soon or too late. Pretty basic stuff, really, and good suggestions for processing any film. I disliked the film early on but then that was developing it in HC110, as opposed to diluted D76 and Xtol which I now use. Now if you want to complain that you don't like the TMAX 100 look, I can understand that as a point of view, even though I don't entirely agree with it. The extra fixing and washing it requires is sometimes a little annoying. I just don't think it is fair to write the material off as fickle. Treat it consistently and it won't surprise you. And no, I have no good explanation for why this is tacked on to a Tri-x vs. Ilford thread.

[David Karp]

Ben,

I think that Bruce Barnbaum used (uses) the same times in HC110 for Tri-X and HP5+. That might have come from his book.

I like HP5+ a lot. I can't explain it. I just like the way my photos look. If HP5+ disappeared, I would probably use Tri-X. It is not the same, but it is good. I also like Pepsi, but would also drink Coke and be satisfied. Its the same sort of thing. No matter how we rationalize it, its just personal preference. As you have already mentioned, you just have to try it to see how you like it.

[sanking]

With respect to J&C I am a customer but I do recall that there have been a number of problems with their house brand film over the past year with regard especially to diminsions. I also recall reading in several other threads that some of their house brand fim was "seconds" from one of their other suppliers, perhaps John could chime in and add something to that.

So far as I know JandC resolved the specific dimension issue in question with all of their customers, which as I recall involved only one, or possibly two, emulsions. And there are a lot of very satisfied customers of Jand C out there. There is a current thread on APUG to this effect. See http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?p=364022#post364022

As for the JandC 400 film that was earlier suggested as an alternative to TRI-X and HP5+, I have used it and found it to be a very nice film. I like TRI-X 320 more, but no one I know is selling TRI-X in ULF formats. Between HP5+ and JandC 400, I give HP5+ a slight advantage because of keeping issues, but for the price JandC 400 is a much better value. Just don't plan to hold on to it too long, as it develops B+F faster than TRI-X 320 and HP5+. However, the fresh stuff is every bit as good as HP5+, IMHO.

My own dealings with JandC have been excellent and I highly recommend the company. It is important to note that over the past three or four years JandC has been the *only* reliable source of film in ULF formats. Many times I picked up the phone and called places around the US looking for TRI-X or HP5+ in 7X17 or 12X20 size and none was avaiable, in contrast to the supply of JandC 400 which has been consistently available during the same time period. And more recently, JandC, along with Michael Kadillak, made the big TMY deal a success. Given Kodak's lack of committment to the ULF market in the past this was probably a one shot deal and I don't give them much credit. But I do give JandC credit as a reliable source of ULF film over the past several years, when almost no one could deliver.

Sandy King

[Don Hutton]

I'm starting to shoot 8x10 more these days, but my favorite film, Tri-X, is only available in that format in 50-sheet boxes, which is out of my budget.


Ben

If Tri-X 50 sheets boxes are not in your budget, then Tri-X is clearly not a choice for you, regardless of what certain people have suggested here. You really need something else which is - it's very tough to beat the J&C400 for the price. J&C are an excellent outfit to deal with too and often run specials on there house brands.