8x10 shooters, can HP5 come close to Tri-X 320?

[ryanmills]

I stopped shooting just before COVID and sold off my lens and it seems during that time the cost of my beloved tri-x has doubled and the only other film I liked Panco 400 died. Been thinking about getting back into it but film costs right now... ugh... I tried HP5 15 years ago and I admit, I had no idea what I was doing then. Initially I found it to be really flat dynamically for my tastes, I know some people like it but I tend to shoot in the worst of lighting conditions, 3pm sun on a beach sort things and fear it will just be a flat washed out mess. I shot both tri-x 320 at 100 and Pancro 400 at 200 to get a little extra and was always happy with the results. At this point there seems to be nothing else but HP5 or maybe FP4 that's reasonably priced to shoot 500 sheets of. I attached a few of examples of the type of light I like to work in, could I come close with HP5?


Tri-X 320, perfect dynamic rage for my tastes




Panro 400, flatter but in the right light still worked for me.

[paulbarden]

Ryan, I’d consider Fomapan 400 as an option. I bought some 2 weeks ago when Freestyle had a sale, and I’m really impressed with the film. (I bought 8x10 format). I’m liking it way more than Pancro 400, which I’d been using for years.
I’ve never really cared much for HP5 - I find it too flat in the upper values. I've compared HP5 with Delta 100 and the difference in the separation of the higher values is conspicuous. HP5 looks "lackluster" in comparison. It's fine for many things, (and many photographers) but I find it a bit dull.

[interneg]

HP5+ isn't flat if you respect its relatively higher shadow speed and don't develop it in questionable concoctions.

From the sounds of it, you spent your time trying to negate TXP's characteristic curve, so you're probably not looking for a developer to upsweep the curve.

Or you could just accept that 8x10 is (and was, with the exception of about a decade from the mid 2000's) an expensive format, cut your cloth accordingly, and use TXP

[paulbarden]

Or you could just accept that 8x10 is (and was, with the exception of about a decade from the mid 2000's) an expensive format, cut your cloth accordingly, and use TXP

OR.... you could take a chance - like I did - on a new film and give Fomapan 400 a try. I was very pleasantly surprised by this film and plan to buy it again. At Freestyle's sale price (they still have some) I paid $1.70 per sheet of 8x10. Don't tell me that's not appealing enough to check out.

[interneg]

OR.... you could take a chance - like I did - on a new film and give Fomapan 400 a try. I was very pleasantly surprised by this film and plan to buy it again. At Freestyle's sale price (they still have some) I paid $1.70 per sheet of 8x10. Don't tell me that's not appealing enough to check out.

Fomapan does the job, on the understanding that if it was qualitatively level with HP5+, it would be at least level in price (Foma said as much) - but for the average 8x10 hobbyist, it's more than acceptable.

[Michael R]

The Tri-X 320 characteristic curve is highly “upswept” with a relatively long toe and very high highlight contrast. It’s a fairly unique film in its tone reproduction compared with pretty much everything else currently out there.

If you’re used to that but find Tri-X 320 too expensive I suggest developing the Ilford films (or the Foma film Paul suggested) in HC-110 (or equivalent). HC-110 will tend to give a film’s characteristic curve more of that “upswept” shape (ie increased highlight contrast), though not as pronounced as Tri-X 320.

[6x6TLL]

I've seen a lot of comments casting doubt as to the quality control of the emulsion of the Foma films, as well as the Arista EDU ones, which are rebranded versions of the same stuff.

How is it holding up in your experience?

I'll add my voice to the "not a fan of Ilford HP5" crowd, I much prefer Tri-X (and APX100, when it was still available).

[paulbarden]

I've seen a lot of comments casting doubt as to the quality control of the emulsion of the Foma films, as well as the Arista EDU ones, which are rebranded versions of the same stuff.
How is it holding up in your experience?

I've heard critical reports about Foma films as well, but I decided to try them for myself rather than be swayed by a few bad reviews. I'm halfway through a box of 50 sheets of 5x7 Fomapan 100 and not found a single flawed sheet, no badly cut sheets, nothing unusual - no nasty surprises. I get the impression that quality control is better than it was 5-10 years ago.
I ended up trying the Fomapan 100 because a photographer I know and admire uses nothing but, and she told me that she finds it very reliable and of good quality. I haven't found anything that contradicts her findings. I suspect most of the bad reports about Fomapan are from users who use only 35mm and 120 format, so it's possible those films have different issues? I only use the sheet film sizes. The Fomapan 400 in 8x10 size is very new to me, but I am very impressed by my results.

I recently used both Fomapan 100 and Adox CHS 100 II on the same shoot, and found that the Fomapan had smoother, smaller grain, better highlight separation, and was slightly faster than the Adox product. In many other ways, the two films were very similar, as you'd expect from two "classic emulsion" type films of the same speed class. However, the Adox CHS 100 II is twice the price, assuming you can find it anywhere.

[Alan9940]

I'm also in the "don't care for it much" camp with HP-5+. I really tried to like it many years ago, but I suppose after shooting Tri-X 320 for so many years the HP-5+ just didn't sing for me. YMMV, of course. That said, the price of 8x10 Tri-X 320 nowadays is eye watering! I remember back in the early 80's when I started shooting 8x10 I could buy a 50 sheet box of 8x10 Tri-X for about $50. Ahh...fond memories!

I would agree with Paul. If you want a 400 speed film, I'd definitely give Foma 400 a try. I've shot hundreds of sheets of 8x10 Foma 100 and I quite like it. The speed is a challenge at times, but it can deliver quite lovely results. Yeah, I've read of quality control issues with Foma films, but I've never seen a single glitch in either 4x5 or 8x10.

As already suggested, grab a box from Freestyle's "short date" inventory and give Foma a try.

[paulbarden]

I'm also in the "don't care for it much" camp with HP-5+. I really tried to like it many years ago, but I suppose after shooting Tri-X 320 for so many years the HP-5+ just didn't sing for me. YMMV, of course. That said, the price of 8x10 Tri-X 320 nowadays is eye watering! I remember back in the early 80's when I started shooting 8x10 I could buy a 50 sheet box of 8x10 Tri-X for about $50. Ahh...fond memories!

I would agree with Paul. If you want a 400 speed film, I'd definitely give Foma 400 a try. I've shot hundreds of sheets of 8x10 Foma 100 and I quite like it. The speed is a challenge at times, but it can deliver quite lovely results. Yeah, I've read of quality control issues with Foma films, but I've never seen a single glitch in either 4x5 or 8x10.

As already suggested, grab a box from Freestyle's "short date" inventory and give Foma a try.

Alan brings up a VERY important point: the Fomapan films have some of the worst reciprocity rates of any film. For Fomapan 400, an exposure that measures 10 seconds becomes 60 seconds with reciprocity. But if you're not working in reciprocity territory, it's not going to matter.