HP5, TXP or TMY for portraits

[Ron Marshall]

I am in the process of deciding on a film to use for studio portraits on 5x7. I have only tried TMY, which I am very happy with in Pyrocat, but just wondering if anyone has a preference for one of the other films, and why.

My major concerns are speed and how highlights and midtones are rendered.

Which of these films would give me a higher true EI in Pyrocat-HD, and good tonality?

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Ron.

Those are all top notch films (no pun intended), and each is capable of the highest quality results, but since you're already familiar with TMY, I don't think either of the other films has anything significant to offer in the way of improvement. In my experience, TMY gives the highest film speed, but I don't use Pyrocats, I use 510-Pyro which gives full ISO speed, or a little better with most films. Good luck.

Jay

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's all a matter of taste. I like TXP.

[Donald Qualls]

I'll be a maverick here and suggest Fortepan 400 (aka Classic 400 or .EDU "Made in Hungary" 400) as an excellent alternative. It looks very good in Parodinal/Rodinal, HC-110, and D-76, and costs enough less than the Big Brands that you can shoot more of it and get comfortable more quickly. Honestly, I like it better than the 9x12 cm TXT I have on hand...

[Hans Berkhout]

Whichever is the easiest to come by in your area. They are all good enough.

[jnantz]

hi ron

i have used a lot of tri x in 5x7 size to make portraits, and when i worked in a portrait studio all she used was tri x, it is able to give really nice results. i haven't used hp5 or tmy or used pyro developer though lots of other things to develop film, but not pyro ... in smaller formats i have used the other films quite a bit. when i shot for a newspaper tmy was my film of choice.

good luck!
john

[Capocheny]

Hi Ron,

I'd have to agree with Hans in that all of the films you've mentioned would be good for portraiture work. So, it really boils down to what's available in your marketplace and the price-point that you're willing to spend on it.

Personally, I've made the move to switch from Kodak to Ilford because I believe in supporting those organizations that support us. :)

So, for me... it's definitely FP4+ or HP5+.

Cheers

[Mr. Doyle]

Ron,
I spent five years processing film (not the best memories) for a printer in London who printed for such as Averdon and David Bailey both of whom shot 10/8" portrait in the studio and location (I then moved on and opened a commercial lab in London printing the old way, but thats another story..).We used Tri X developed in Kodak dectol and then changed to Xtol which contains no Hydoquinone, bad for the skin... This was a tried and tested formula and we actually recommended it for alot of photographers, Bailey included (he used tmy but the switch was mainly for shorter dev times as he shot so much film)
So I am offering:
Tri X shot at 400 asa.
Kodak Xtol (diluted 1-1)
21 degrees
7 mins
perfect.
Hope this is of some help.

[Robert Skeoch]

Of the three films I think HP5 would be the easiest to find in 5x7.
-Rob

[Scott Davis]

HP5, if you must pick one from your list. Personally I'm quite partial to FP4+ instead, for studio work. I've also put quite a bit of Fomapan 200 through my 5x7 in the field, and had wonderful results from it. It is also wonderful for alt-process stuff, if that is something you have an interest in. I bought the Freestyle Arista.EDU Ultra version of it (it is the same film) for $16 a box for 25 sheets. REAL hard to beat that price.

[Ken Lee]

If you plan to stick with PyroCat, you might be interested to know that Sandy King, who gave us the recipe, has tested a variety of films in the same ISO category. Based on his sensitometry and empirical results, he recommends TMY over the other 2 films you mention.

I'm just an amateur, but I have had good luck with the combination in 5x7, for portraits.

Here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/portraits/g0806.htm)is one recently made on an old Kodak 2A, with a Fujinon 240A. The 11x14 looks quite smooth.

[CXC]

No reason to change if you are happy.

To my eye the difference between Tri-X and TMY is readily visible, so you should pay your money and take your choice. Me, I prefer Tri-X, but that just shows that there is no accounting for taste...

[Ron Marshall]

No reason to change if you are happy.

To my eye the difference between Tri-X and TMY is readily visible, so you should pay your money and take your choice. Me, I prefer Tri-X, but that just shows that there is no accounting for taste...

Why do you prefer Tri-x over TMY?

I'm happy with TMY, but I have not tried the other two. I chose TMY for its reciprocity charecteristics for night shots I have been doing.

[Ron Marshall]

If you plan to stick with PyroCat, you might be interested to know that Sandy King, who gave us the recipe, has tested a variety of films in the same ISO category. Based on his sensitometry and empirical results, he recommends TMY over the other 2 films you mention.

I'm just an amateur, but I have had good luck with the combination in 5x7, for portraits.

Here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/portraits/g0806.htm)is one recently made on an old Kodak 2A, with a Fujinon 240A. The 11x14 looks quite smooth.

Thanks Ken. I have seen that before while visiting your site. I enjoy your work very much.

I am very happy with Pcat with FP4 and TMY.

I'll have a read of what Sandy has written about TMY.

Anchell and Troop say that traditional grain films render highlights more smoothly, so I thought that might be a plus for portraits.

Also, and much less importantly, the time-(contrast index) curves on Unblinking Eye of HP5 in Pcat are much flatter than those for TMY, which of course is not a good thing for zone system use in general photography; but for studio portraiture with controlled lighting that permits a less precise development regimen.

[CXC]

Funny about reciprocity -- to me, the fact that it breaks down for long exposures means that you don't have to be so accurate with length of exposure: make it somewhat longer than you think you need, and you will be sure to get plenty of light, but don't really risk getting too much.

I find the TMax look flat, boring and too mid-toney, preferring the bolder, brassier Tri-X.

[Ken Lee]

Anchell and Troop say that traditional grain films render highlights more smoothly, so I thought that might be a plus for portraits.

Also, and much less importantly, the time-(contrast index) curves on Unblinking Eye of HP5 in Pcat are much flatter than those for TMY, which of course is not a good thing for zone system use in general photography; but for studio portraiture with controlled lighting that permits a less precise development regimen.

I don't recall if Anchell and Troop included PyroCat HD in their study, or they might have phrased things differently regarding this general trend.

I discovered that HP5's reputation (a rather precipitous dropoff and a rather flat response to high values) is not unfounded. This makes it a very unforgiving film in my experience. In this photo (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/portraits/sgn2.htm) (8x10) I had a heck of a time getting a print with texture in the high values - They just seemed to turn into chalk. And that's by contact print. Also note the area under the woman's hair. It just seems to have dropped off into black.

I stopped using HP5 as soon as I could.

TMY, on the other hand, seems to have as straight a response curve as I have found anywhere, making it more tolerant, and more of a candidate for experimentation with Development By Inspection.

[Ron Marshall]

Thanks Ken, very interesting about the HP5 curve. On Ilfords site it looks very similar to the TMY curve. I have some HP5 in 120 which I'll try in a controlled lighting situation just for fun, but I don't doubt what you have said.

I am very happy with TMY in Pyrocat-HD and just curious about HP5, I'm not on a grail quest.

Especially since I just tested Fp4 and TMY with XTOL, Pyrocat and Rodinal. The differences are there but very slight: a little more grain here, slightly sharper there, slightly better midtone or highlight separation. The most important thing I learned from the testing was how difficult it is to subjectively judge a negative; unless the negatives being compared are both developed to the optimal CI.

I looked at the image you linked and I think I see what you mean; the highlights do seem chalky, but it is difficult to judge on a monitor.

Pyrocat didn't exist when Anchell and Troop did their tests. I was referring to what they said about T-grain films in general.

[cobalt]

I kicked myself for buying HP5 when I started shooting 8x10 because it was flat and unremarkable, in my opinion...until I read somewhere that many prefer the look of it pushed a stop or two. I find that it is quite a different animal if pushed to 800 or 1600. I actually prefer it to Tri X. Strangely, however, I prefer Tri X to HP5 in 120 or 35mm....go figure.

[Ron Marshall]

I kicked myself for buying HP5 when I started shooting 8x10 because it was flat and unremarkable, in my opinion...until I read somewhere that many prefer the look of it pushed a stop or two. I find that it is quite a different animal if pushed to 800 or 1600. I actually prefer it to Tri X. Strangely, however, I prefer Tri X to HP5 in 120 or 35mm....go figure.

I haven't tried it yet, I use Neopan 400 in 35mm (great film), but from what I have read it would be a useful film for moderately high contrast situations, since with normal development it is much less contrasty than TMX, and even TMY.

[Frank Petronio]

I rely on a lab to process my HP5, which is flat. But I want flat. You can always add contrast, especially digitally.

[Ron Marshall]

I rely on a lab to process my HP5, which is flat. But I want flat. You can always add contrast, especially digitally.

Frank, what EI do you use for HP5?

[Donald Qualls]

Strangely, however, I prefer Tri X to HP5 in 120 or 35mm....go figure.

Worth keeping in mind that 400TX, available in 35 mm and 120, is a completely different film from 320TXP, available in 120, 220, and sheet sizes. They have different curves and processing characteristics, not just 1/3 stop speed variation.

FWIW, I like both, but I shoot different things with my plate cameras (which use the size I have in Tri-X 320) and my 35 mm (which was the bulk of my Tri-X consumption until I finished off the last of my super-cheap bulk rolls).

[cobalt]

I haven't tried it yet, I use Neopan 400 in 35mm (great film), but from what I have read it would be a useful film for moderately high contrast situations, since with normal development it is much less contrasty than TMX, and even TMY.

Neopan 400 is absolutely the best film on the planet, as far as I am concerned. I find it excruciatingly frustrating that I am unable to find it in any format larger than 120.
By the by...although I like HP5...Neopan is a friend of mine...I know Neopan....HP5 is no Neopan.

[Ken Lee]

Are there any shots you have made with Neopan, that you can share ?

[Oren Grad]

I find it excruciatingly frustrating that I am unable to find it in any format larger than 120.

You can't find it because Fuji doesn't manufacture it in sheet film - it's a roll-film product only.

[cobalt]

Are there any shots you have made with Neopan, that you can share ?

[cobalt]

Still working on this one...