Tri-x 400 fan vs. All other options

[RodinalDuchamp]

I have used tri-x 400 until now in 35mm and 120. I like this film. It plays well with Rodinal, the grain is something I enjoy it does not overpower an image.

However now in 4x5 TX400 is not available. I have read that TX320 is finicky and requires more control. I take this with a grain of salt but I do 80% of my shooting at night (landscape, long exposure) so control isn't always under my mastery due to x and y factors.

I am considering trying out ilford hp5+. Can I get some feedback from guys/gals who have had to make this decision? What where your experiences and how did other films stack up to TX400 in particular. Thanks.

[BetterSense]

There is nothing special about 400TX. It is a very plain good film. I would suggest TMY2. It is like 400TX but better.

TXP is nothing like 400TX.

HP5 is also very good but does have its own character. It has mediocre reciprocity characteristics, which could be disappointing for night photography.

[Ari]

If reciprocity is very important to you, you might want to try Fuji Acros.
It's a beautiful film with amazing reciprocity characteristics.

[mikew]

I have used tri-x 400 until now in 35mm and 120. I like this film. It plays well with Rodinal, the grain is something I enjoy it does not overpower an image.

However now in 4x5 TX400 is not available. I have read that TX320 is finicky and requires more control. I take this with a grain of salt but I do 80% of my shooting at night (landscape, long exposure) so control isn't always under my mastery due to x and y factors.

I am considering trying out ilford hp5+. Can I get some feedback from guys/gals who have had to make this decision? What where your experiences and how did other films stack up to TX400 in particular. Thanks.

Both HP5 and Tri-X320 are great films. You won't go wrong with either. I've used them almost interchangeably. It's really a matter of preference and whether you can execute the print you wish too. Tri-X 320 is no more difficult to control than any other film and differences in grain size/structure between films is pretty negligible these days. My only advice is that whatever you choose, stick with it for at least 3 months, assuming that you don't have any defect issues.

Have fun!

Mike

[RodinalDuchamp]

Both HP5 and Tri-X320 are great films. You won't go wrong with either. I've used them almost interchangeably. It's really a matter of preference and whether you can execute the print you wish too. Tri-X 320 is no more difficult to control than any other film and differences in grain size/structure between films is pretty negligible these days. My only advice is that whatever you choose, stick with it for at least 3 months, assuming that you don't have any defect issues.

Have fun!

Mike

Well I have used TX400 for so long and really don't want to change I want to eliminate as many non starters as possible. Testing will still take a while but it seems like right now its up between hp5+ and tmax though tmax is a "modern" grain which I'm not too sure if I'll like at all.

[StoneNYC]

Well I have used TX400 for so long and really don't want to change I want to eliminate as many non starters as possible. Testing will still take a while but it seems like right now its up between hp5+ and tmax though tmax is a "modern" grain which I'm not too sure if I'll like at all.

HP5+ will be closer to the grain you're used to.

Acros100 is my favorite for night exposures.

TMY-2 (Tmax400) is a second best for night exposures, both are excellent with night, the "second best" is personal preference not absolute, both have great reciprocity.

HP5+ is best for grain.

[Kevin Crisp]

It is hard to think of a less finicky film than 320 Tri-X.

[John Kasaian]

I have used tri-x 400 until now in 35mm and 120. I like this film. It plays well with Rodinal, the grain is something I enjoy it does not overpower an image.

However now in 4x5 TX400 is not available. I have read that TX320 is finicky and requires more control. I take this with a grain of salt but I do 80% of my shooting at night (landscape, long exposure) so control isn't always under my mastery due to x and y factors.

I am considering trying out ilford hp5+. Can I get some feedback from guys/gals who have had to make this decision? What where your experiences and how did other films stack up to TX400 in particular. Thanks.

HP-5+ is good stuff. I've found it to be an excellent replacement for Tri-X 400 in 35 & 120. I've also replaced Tri-X 320 with HP-5+ in large format. FWIW Badger Graphic has the best prices I've found for the stuff.

[mikew]

Well I have used TX400 for so long and really don't want to change I want to eliminate as many non starters as possible. Testing will still take a while but it seems like right now its up between hp5+ and tmax though tmax is a "modern" grain which I'm not too sure if I'll like at all.

If you're transitioning from one film format to another you'll have to test regardless. How much you choose to test depends on what you're trying to achieve and how comfortable you are with what you're producing.

Your real issue is processing method. I never consider the quality of a film without marrying it to a developer and processing method. With under-exposure and over-development or "expansions", for example, HP5 or Tri-X320 processed in Rodinal will yield larger, more pronounced, grain than if it was processed in Xtol. For some people that matters, for others it doesn't.

All that being said, HP5 will give you more latitude with development manipulations (N, N+1, etc) relative to T-Max. Both are great films, though.

All of the advice you'll read on here is only the starting point of a starting point. Testing can be maddening, but it's the only way to understand the limitations and capabilities of the materials with which you're working.

Best of luck!

Mike

[Corran]

In my opinion, fast (~400-speed) films are the last thing you should use for night-time exposures. If you think your exposure will be longer than about a minute, I highly suggest any of the T-grain emulsions available. I've used both T-Max 100 and Fuji Acros in very low-light conditions (inside abandoned buildings) with exposures ranging from 5 minutes up to 30 minutes (with reciprocity corrections). When I do astrophotography even 100-speed films are hard to work with, which is why I usually shoot between f/5.6 and f/8 max (with 2-3 hour exposures usually), though that is usually with Fuji T64 or Provia 100F chromes.

I believe I have read from multiple sources, that most 100-speed films are "faster" than 400-speed films when reciprocity is taken into consideration in very long exposures.

Now if you mean "night landscape" as more of a dusk/twilight time, then 400-speed films may be fine, though even then at f/22 or smaller may put you into rapidly worsening reciprocity failure.