Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: T-Max 400, HP-5, Tri-X comparison?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    19

    T-Max 400, HP-5, Tri-X comparison?

    Hi all, I did some shooting this past week with my favorite film, T-Max 100, but there were a few instances where an extra stop or two would have been nice. I am interested in hearing from anyone who has used all three of the films (T-Max 400, Tri-X (320) or Ilford HP-5), or at least two of them. I would like your opinions on which you prefer and why. I probably can't go wrong with any one of them, but I'd be interested in some input. T-Max 400 would be easy as I would not have to change developers (T-Max RS) and have extra chemical storage. Alternately I could use T-Max RS on the others, but there may be better developer choices for the other films. Thanks for the help. Regards, Rob Rielly

  2. #2
    hacker extraordinaire
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,331

    Re: T-Max 400, HP-5, Tri-X comparison?

    IMO TXP is a special-purpose film, whereas TMY is the ultimate general-purpose film. TXP has an upswept curve which is the opposite of what I would prefer if I can't have a straight curve. It can make landscapes look somewhat dramatic and old-school depending on your tastes.

    I used to use HP5 and liked it ok, it was the closest thing to tri-x 400 in sheets. If you have some grudge against t-grain films (some do), then there's your general-purpose film.
    Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
    --A=B by Petkovšek et. al.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    2,428

    Re: T-Max 400, HP-5, Tri-X comparison?

    Xtol is a better developer choice for Tmax across the board. Assuming you are shooting LF, you could just go to Tmax-400 (TMY-2) for everything - a number of us have and find no problems. If you like the 100, TMY-2 is just the same with faster speed, better toe on the bottom end, and only very slightly increased grain, at least in Xtol.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Westport Island, Maine
    Posts
    1,236

    Re: T-Max 400, HP-5, Tri-X comparison?

    There's no bad choice. HP5 tests at ISO 200 for me, whereas the Kodak films test at rated speed. I like as much speed as I can get for the flexibility.

    I use Kodak in 4x5 and 5x7, HP5 in 8x10 solely because of their 25-sheet boxes. A recent email from Kodak told me to go find a rep and "build a business case" for larger boxes of Kodak 8x10. In my spare time...
    Bruce Barlow
    author of "Finely Focused" and "Exercises in Photographic Composition"
    www.brucewbarlow.com

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    36

    Re: T-Max 400, HP-5, Tri-X comparison?

    If the grain and sharpness are the most important for you, then the vote for TMAX 400 is very clear. Here are the number of line pairs that the three films and your known TMAX 100 can resolve at high contrast targets:

    TMX 100 = 200 lp/mm
    TMY 400 = 200 lp/mm
    HP5 = 100 lp/mm
    TRI-X= 100 lp/mm

    HP5 and TRI-X are also much grainier. I estimate you could enlarge a TMY negative at least 30-40 % more (linear) before it looks as grainy as the HP5 or TRI-X print.

    From this technical point of view there is no question. Despite of that the hardest task is to check out the greyscale of the three. There are differences in tonality and the only way to find out would be, to shoot some identic scenes with all of them and to compare thereafter. If that is too much effort for you than start with the TMAX 400 and see if you "like" the pictures. If yes, everything is fine, if no, go to the TRI-X...

    Best regards,
    Andreas

  6. #6

    Re: T-Max 400, HP-5, Tri-X comparison?

    Quote Originally Posted by A49 View Post
    snipped......

    Here are the number of line pairs that the three films and your known TMAX 100 can resolve at high contrast targets:

    TMX 100 = 200 lp/mm
    TMY 400 = 200 lp/mm
    HP5 = 100 lp/mm
    TRI-X= 100 lp/mm

    snipped...

    Andreas
    Can you show data to support these numbers?
    Did you test them yourself or are you quoting someone else's work?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    36

    Re: T-Max 400, HP-5, Tri-X comparison?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Ambrose View Post
    Can you show data to support these numbers?
    Did you test them yourself or are you quoting someone else's work?
    I took them from a chart in a German forum. The author is highly reliable and some of these numbers I have read already at different places. The numbers also make sense from experiences I have with some of these films. I think they come from technical data published by the producers or from tests in magazines.

    The important thing about them is that they are for high contrast targets. For pictoral photography you can assume that only the half to two thirds of this resolution is possible, which is due to the usually lower contrast you have between different areas in nomal pictures. The limited lens resoultion will also reduce the achievable resolution and the developer also can play a big role. If you then shoot without tripod you can think about achieving maximum 40 lines per millimeter (http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b...25697700548cd6), although this naturally depends on your shutter speed (With my Nikon D80, 10 MP, half frame camera and a 50 mm lens I will loose maximum sharpness / resolution if I go beneath 1/250 second handheld.).

    Why I said all this? Just to say, that the film is only one, not unimportant factor in achieving high resolution. The numbers are only a rough guide to what you can expect from the different films. You can read them as: The smallest things "modern" T-grained Tmax 400 will record under "perfect" conditions (where resolution is not considerably reduced by other factors) are half as big (linear) as the ones that the older, conventional grained films will record. That is the result of the Tmax´s finer grain and of effects during development. In real life you will see the difference if you enlarge your negatives at least about 3 to 4 times linear.

    Best,
    Andreas

    P.S.: Sorry for telling these things to a professional photographer, but I wrote them for the other, maybe less experienced readers of this thread too.

  8. #8
    Cordless Bungee Jumper Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,123

    Re: T-Max 400, HP-5, Tri-X comparison?

    Quote Originally Posted by A49 View Post
    I took them from a chart in a German forum. The author is highly reliable and some of these numbers I have read already at different places. The numbers also make sense from experiences I have with some of these films. I think they come from technical data published by the producers or from tests in magazines.

    The important thing about them is that they are for high contrast targets. For pictoral photography you can assume that only the half to two thirds of this resolution is possible, which is due to the usually lower contrast you have between different areas in nomal pictures. The limited lens resoultion will also reduce the achievable resolution and the developer also can play a big role. If you then shoot without tripod you can think about achieving maximum 40 lines per millimeter (http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b...25697700548cd6), although this naturally depends on your shutter speed (With my Nikon D80, 10 MP, half frame camera and a 50 mm lens I will loose maximum sharpness / resolution if I go beneath 1/250 second handheld.).

    Why I said all this? Just to say, that the film is only one, not unimportant factor in achieving high resolution. The numbers are only a rough guide to what you can expect from the different films. You can read them as: The smallest things "modern" T-grained Tmax 400 will record under "perfect" conditions (where resolution is not considerably reduced by other factors) are half as big (linear) as the ones that the older, conventional grained films will record. That is the result of the Tmax´s finer grain and of effects during development. In real life you will see the difference if you enlarge your negatives at least about 3 to 4 times linear.

    Best,
    Andreas

    P.S.: Sorry for telling these things to a professional photographer, but I wrote them for the other, maybe less experienced readers of this thread too.
    Usually, film and the development are not the weakest links in the Image Chain, the camera, the lens, and the photographer usually are. The photographer who complains about mirror slap on a Hasselblad, but never even held one, and the claims to be able to handhold a Rollei for "10 seconds" and gets photographs as sharp as if it were tripod mounted will be the one who studies the number of lines per mm ad nauseam and will pontificate on this or that, get into the minutia of photograph really knows nothing. The rest of us figured out, in the words of Andreas, that
    Quote Originally Posted by A49 View Post
    Just to say, that the film is only one, not unimportant factor in achieving high resolution. The numbers are only a rough guide to what you can expect from the different films.
    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  9. #9

    Re: T-Max 400, HP-5, Tri-X comparison?

    Quote Originally Posted by A49 View Post
    snipped.....

    P.S.: Sorry for telling these things to a professional photographer, but I wrote them for the other, maybe less experienced readers of this thread too.
    Thanks for explaining. I am surprised to see the very large differences. I've not shot any TMY2 but maybe its time.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    136

    Re: T-Max 400, HP-5, Tri-X comparison?

    Film resolution is not the only factor to consider in determining sharpness, you must also cosider acutance and the edge effects of grain and their contribution to perceived sharpness of a print made from a negative.

    HP5 may not be the highest resolving film, but it has high acutance and excellent edge effects. Anyone who makes prints from HP5 that has been processed in PYRO can attest to this.

    The t-grain films have higher resolution but decreased acutance and so they do not look quite as sharp as their resolution would suggest.

    To use an analogy, the performance of a car is not simply a function of horsepower - you have to consider many other factors including acceleration, handling, cornering, suspension, ride, braking, transmission, tires etc.

    Now drive that car over the film resolution test targets and shoot something more interesting!

Similar Threads

  1. T Max 400 ULF- What Are You Waiting For?
    By Michael Kadillak in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 30-Jan-2006, 17:16
  2. T Max 400 - The Final Push
    By Michael Kadillak in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 23-Jan-2006, 12:15
  3. Kodak T Max 400 LF/ULF Clarification
    By Michael Kadillak in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20-Dec-2005, 08:13
  4. Kodak T Max 400 LF/ULF Purchasing Update - Lets Go
    By Michael Kadillak in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 16-Dec-2005, 12:21
  5. T Max 100, how does it compare to Tri X, Hp5?
    By Ed Burlew in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 22-Sep-2001, 14:27

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •