TMY vs HP5

[Lenny Eiger]

I used to think these modern films were lesser. They aren't, but they are different, they respond to chemistry differently. If you balance them carefully for the developer you are using, they will both be capable of luscious beautiful negatives with all the sensitivity one could imagine.

HOWEVER, the HP5 won't be as good, it won't be as sharp, and the grain is huge. If all you ever want to do is contact print, then its just fine. However, if you want to scan it or print larger, then you will see the grain. Lots of it.

That said, TMY is expensive, made by Kodak, who will undoubtedly discontinue it soon (right about when you get it perfectly balanced). I suggest you try Ilford's Delta 100. Great stuff. Just my 2 cents.

Lenny

[wiggywag]

If you're a landscape photographer what you can expect is a decrease in shadow detail and some empty shadows. This due to TMY's considerably better reciprocity performance.

I found just the opposite when I moved from 5x4 Tri-X to TMY -- a big gain in shadow detail with TMY, and the shadows under the rocks in that creek I keep going back to for some insane reason were no longer empty, but had some texture and detail. This from XTOL 1:3 for both films.

TMY is arguably the best B&W film ever made. Which is probably why you are using it. You know what happens when you move to a lesser film -- you're going to have to work with lesser capability.

You get wonderful shadow detail with HP5, just have to give it a little more exposure, 100 ISO - 200 ISO depending on developer. I use ISO 125 in ABC Pyro.

[Roger Cole]

Exactly. If you get less shadow detail with one film than another, you haven't exposed the film with less detail enough.

Likewise about reciprocity failure - that only matters IF your exposures are long enough for it to become a factor. Even for most landscape shots they won't be, especially with 400 film.

I guess "huge" grain is a relative judgement. There's no denying that HP5+ has larger grain than TMY-2. But whether you notice it or not, much less whether it makes any difference, depends on how much you enlarge. Aren't we talking about 8x10 here? How much would have you to enlarge to see the difference? As a SWAG I'd say at least 5x. Made many 40x50" prints lately?

Not that TMY-2 isn't a great film (it is) and that HP5+ isn't different (it is.)

[hmf]

HP5 8x10 is my main film in pyrocat-hd. Before pyro, I used Xtol exclusively. Xtol 1+1 in BTZS tubes. Xtol and HP5 were made for each other. One drawback with HP5 is that expansion is not as great as it is with TMY. I can get N+2 but with a big increase in B+F (N+1 followed by intensification in selenium skirts this issue) N+2 is not a problem with TMY. It also has a slight edge in sharpness over HP5... but HP5 has a more silvery look and fuller shadows in my opionion. Also, TMY works better than HP5 when it comes to carbon transfer printing (unless you develop HP5 in a high contrast developer such as D-19). HP5's reciprocity isn't too bad. I have lots of my own data I can swing your way if you like. Data that I've used in the field for years.

Andrew

Andrew -

i'd be interested in your data on HP5+ in Pyrocat HD, as a starting point for my own experimentation with that combo for NA2 Pd printing. Would you share it here, or by pm?

Thanks,
henry

[John O'Connell]

TMY and HP5 are VERY different. I'll be sticking with TMY until it's discontinued, for the reasons summarized above: reciprocity and highlight detail. I just develop to gamma infinity and print on contact paper or platinum. Love it.

HP5 in my experience has higher FB+fog and a very rounded shoulder by comparison. I know it's what I'll have to shoot soon, and I'll live with it then, but for now I'll take my exquisite high values, thank you very much.

[Bruce Watson]

If you treat every film precisely the same, then your results make sense. If you change your working methods to fit each film, they can all be good for you. There are no better films or lesser films, only different films.

I thought that too, in the beginning. But a couple of years of pains taking research and experimentation showed me how mistaken I was. Experience can be a harsh teacher. Sigh...

The bottom line is that one can't make a film with poor reciprocity characteristics into a film with good reciprocity characteristics. If part of the film doesn't see enough photons to make a latent image, that part doesn't have a latent image. Doesn't much matter what developer you use, or how long you develop it. No latent image = no image density on the negative. That's simply the laws of physics.

[premortho]

Well, I guess you explained why my rollfilm shots on hp-5 were so wimpy...I exposed it at 400, like it says on the box. So I should have exposed it as if it was an ASA 100-125 film? Great, a replacement for Plus-X, except with more grain. Now speaking for myself only, I'd tell you that if I wanted grain, I'd still be using a 35mm camera. From what I've heard from others, and you, Ilford has basically 3 ASA100-125 sp-eed films...fp-4, ASA80-100. Delta 100 @100 and, now hp-5 at 100-125. In spite of my tongue in cheek response, I thank you for this information, as I could photograph for the rest of my life and never use a film faster than ASA125 and be perfectly happy. Thanx

You get wonderful shadow detail with HP5, just have to give it a little more exposure, 100 ISO - 200 ISO depending on developer. I use ISO 125 in ABC Pyro.

[Ed Richards]

Don't underestimate the low reciprocity. When you get into second or two exposures, your shadows start falling off the toe. Up the exposure, and you shift your midtones up more than the shadows.

[Roger Cole]

Well, I guess you explained why my rollfilm shots on hp-5 were so wimpy...I exposed it at 400, like it says on the box. So I should have exposed it as if it was an ASA 100-125 film? Great, a replacement for Plus-X, except with more grain. Now speaking for myself only, I'd tell you that if I wanted grain, I'd still be using a 35mm camera. From what I've heard from others, and you, Ilford has basically 3 ASA100-125 sp-eed films...fp-4, ASA80-100. Delta 100 @100 and, now hp-5 at 100-125. In spite of my tongue in cheek response, I thank you for this information, as I could photograph for the rest of my life and never use a film faster than ASA125 and be perfectly happy. Thanx

Not really. It's a 400 speed film in the same sense that FP4 or Plus-X are and were 100-125 speed films. If you want the same sort of shadow detail on them, with some developers anyway, you'd be shooting at 25. In my experience HP5 is about as much faster than FP4 as the box speeds say, or close to it, at least in "normal" developers. I have no idea about ABC Pyro. I normally shoot roll film at box speed and most sheet film at about one stop less than box speed (that is, one stop over exposed relative to box speed) because almost no modern films have enough shoulder for one stop to be a concern for the highlights and I can stand the increase in grain. But if a particular scene demands loads of shadow detail I'll give an extra stop on any film, even in 35mm.

[premortho]

Yes, and you just hit the key to this whole issue. Not only were the ASA film speeds doubled several years ago, they were jacked up a little more when ISO/DIN became the standard. Just an hour ago I read an Ilford film developing table where they said that the current ISO numbers were rated at the foot (I take this to mean a barely printable negative) and that photographers might be happier using e.v.'s of 25 for pan-x, 50 for fp-4 + and 180 for hp-5.