Is TRIX320 98% better than Ilford HP5 Plus ??

[Jim Andrada]

I still love it - and I shoot so little 8 x 10 these days that a couple of hundred $$$ will take care of me for a year or two. But I like FP4+ a lot too!!! And 8 x 10 Acros - I'm ordering a few boxes from Yodobashi Camera tonight since a friend is coming over next week and will hand carry it for me.

[Alan Gales]

They each have a different look. Some prefer one and some prefer the other. I wouldn't say one is better. Try both out and find out for yourself.

I like Tri-X but that is my preference.

[vdonovan]

I really love TXP320, I've shot it for years, but I am moving to HP5. It's cheaper, and I like having the same emulsion in 35mm, 120, 4x5 and 8x10. It will take me a while to get a tonal curve that I like, but I don't mind experimenting.

[Peter De Smidt]

Both are very good films. HP5+ is limited to about +2 development, and it has larger grain, but for most of our purposes, it works just fine.

[axs810]

I've used both for my large format work and as much as I want to like HP5+ I would still rather pay more for Kodak Tri-X 320. I'm sure if I spent more time experimenting with developing Ilford films in various developers/times my opinion would change but without changing my shooting/dev methods for both films I prefer Kodak Tri-X 320 hands down.

The best way I can explain why I prefer Kodak is because of the tonality of the darkest shadow areas and the ease of pulling development when overexposing and underdeveloping. Whenever I shoot Ilford films I always find that the darkest areas containing shadow detail (before going straight black) seem to just have more contrast than Tri-X. Whenever I print or scan Tri-X I can get all the shadow detail I want easily and adjust contrast to my liking after. With Ilford films I find the blacks just kind of go off and it's sometimes difficult to get the smallest amount of shadow detail back without compromising the richness in the blacks. If you want to do a general search just to see this visually google both films and add "flickr" at the end and compare the "general" results.

I'm not trying to say HP5+ isn't any good I just prefer the dynamic range more with the Kodak films because I've used it a lot more and understand how it will react in certain situations before I even develop the film. I'm sure if I spent more time with Ilford films I would change my opinion but for now I'll stick with shooting Kodak as long as it's available. Sure it's more expensive but I think we go into that when we dive into LF photography lol.


Oh and for the times where I want some beautiful contrast that's almost unique I'll shoot Fujifilm Acros. The bergger pancro 400 is pretty nice too especially for the price but I still need practice with that film (many places are out of stock at the moment) I'm finding with the pancro 400 it's a nice film to scan but I'm a little hesitant on how well I'll be able to print with them.



BTW, this is just my opinion. To really make a decision on which one is better (for you) you really need to do various tests for yourself in many different situations. Everyone has a different style...just find yours and stick with it

[LabRat]

One thing to check for is if you commonly push film, TX tends to have the shorter dev time for every (+) stop push, but some higher EI pushes on other films take much longer, so check the posted times for the others...

Besides speed for the smaller format TX users, a big plus for users was that it tended to have a slight bump in mid-tone density around Zone 7, for faces and flesh, it tended to highlight a face in a scene, so for press and people photography, people would stand out better...

Steve K

[Pere Casals]

Question;
I just orderer 30 sheets of TRIX320 from B&H for $240 without shipping. I now see that I could have gotten 50 sheets of Ilford HP5+ for less than that........Is TRIX that much better??

Neil

Absolutely no, same general quality, "H" "P" it originated as Hypersensitive Panchromatic plates in 1931, so also HP5+ commes from a long tradition, as TX/TXP do.


Technical differences:

Most important is grain structure, but this is not seen with LF, and impossible to see in 8x10. This is very important for 35mm, and important for

MF. Now TXP for MF is dicontinued, but TX is close. TX has more grain in the dark greys and HP5+ has more grain in the mid greys.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/





For the rest of technical differences one can perfectly match one look to the other, and when I say perfectly I mean that this only depends on photographer' skills to obtain what he wants from a film.

Let's see how:

To match Shadow/Highligt detail:

See how toe/shoulder are used from film and paper curves, if scannig+PS it's just direct. Also one can add some Benzotriazole to the developer to act as a toe cutter to match toes...


Tonality:

TXP is not completely linear, TMX linearity lovers would say this is a defect, it can enlight white caucasian faces, but same effect can be obtained with filtering or illumination, TXP (some say) was more studio intended than TX (for MF and LF) when both were made in both formats, this translates to TXP sheets. TXP needs to be more accurately metered (easy in the studio), because if not that ZVII slight bump may be counterproductive.


The other thing is slightly different spectral response, both are panchromatic, but right colors of the filters will make match the translation from color to BW.


My conclusion:

TX (TPX brother) is very different from HP5+ in MF and 35mm because grain structure (both as good), but for LF there is no grain, so one can do what he wants with both, just a calibration/tunning matter.

IMHO those how say that they obtain a particular LF look with one of the films would also obtain the same with the other film, if making the necessary effort for process adjustment, to the point a double blind test would not discern it, I repeat, IMHO. Also I'm pretty sure the grain structure foodprint is very different for MF/35mm formats.


Price:

You mentioned the price difference of sheets. I use some TX (close to TXP) in MF because price is near the same than HP5+.

I'm not to speak again about that (also I feel I'm not allowed ) as I mounted some quarrels about it aganist reputed members. This was a heated debate I'm not proud of.

Anyway you can review that film pricing threads.


Regards.

[Pere Casals]

Both are very good films. HP5+ is limited to about +2 development, and it has larger grain, but for most of our purposes, it works just fine.

Hello Peter,

My impression is that, rather than larger grain, it is about grain structure. I'd say that TXP has more grain in the darks, and HP5 has more in the middles. Perhaps having more grain in the middles makes grain more evident...

But this is with 120 MF, grain is way irrelevant in 8x10...

Regards.

[LabRat]

I had found that HP5 & TX (+P) to be different films, with different "looks"... TX was helpful in the studio shooting a new product where it would render bright/new looking, due to the mid-tone "bump", and photographing a darker/flatter scenic under flatter light to be very helpful to brighten up dark/dank conditions, but other films would have a more "natural" looking curve... But the TX would almost look overexposed, even at normal exposure in the mid-tones under very bright conditions (like the beach, etc)... But great under darker overcast, dark fog, etc, to brighten things up, or shooting available light of people, so the faces pop out (even in print form)... Or with flash at events of celebs to REALLY make them stand out... (But could be tough if lighter and darker skinned faces were in the pix, and getting detail on someone's black tux, too...) Tended to look kinda contrasty, even at normal exposure...

But out here in the bright Cali sun, it could be a bit much, as the scale could bunch up when bright outside... (For awhile, fashion & headshot photographers would use it to "scrub" down actor's or model's facial features on headshots, etc to clean up skin so much, that noses would disappear, and all you could see was two little nostril holes below where the nose was supposed to be!!!) Could look "soot & chalky" with a strong development, and hard to tame while printing... (Esp with warm, over-replenished, commercial lab processing...) Lotsa burning in is required!!!

So the conditions one shoots under and taste will help decide which film is for you... Test and decide...

Steve K

[Pere Casals]

I had found that HP5 & TX (+P) to be different films, with different "looks"...

Hello Steve,

I'm pretty sure that shooting 2 films side by side, and later making an "standard" development as datasheet says will render an slightly different look.

But then we have scientific tools, at the end we are recording light levels.

First, spectral response charts we'll give us a "filter" that we'll make match the response, if practice filtering we'll give much more adjustment room than the film nature difference is.

Second, a sensiometric curve explains very well how a film works. From each ammount of light is related with a density, so if one understands what BTZS says one can get get what he wants about tonality, with film or with paper.

IMHO if one just scans+ps+lambda it is way straight obtaining what he wants. With wet printing sometimes a master prointer has to be there, independently from film.

Regards