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

[artflic]

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

[BetterSense]

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.

[Ed Richards]

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.

[Bruce Barlow]

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...

[A49]

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

[John Bowen]

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...

Well I firmly believe that if anyone could "build a business case" for 25 sheet boxes Mr. Barlow is the man. Bruce, Bruce he's our man, if Bruce can't do it, no one can!!!

It never hurts to have a cheerleader :D

Now back to the OP. If your intent is to contact print on silver chloride papers, TMY is your film.

[Bruce Barlow]

Well, the case is underway elsewhere.

Help us all and chime in your support.

[Henry Ambrose]

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?

[Bruce Watson]

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've used both Tri-X and TMY-2 in 5x4. Used both HC-110 and XTOL with Tri-X, and only XTOL with TMY-2. At this point TMY-2 is my only B&W film.

I did the work to determine my personal EI and "N" development time for each combination. I got as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as I could (considering I don't run or work in a lab, and have very limited equipment).

My work with developers and Tri-X led me to conclude that under about 15x enlargement it's difficult to see the effects of the developers -- in prints. You can see subtle difference with a suitable loupe on a light table. But not where it counts -- in a print, unless you make really big enlargements. And few of us in LF go that large.

What I found comparing films, both using the same developer and processing technique (rotary, Jobo, 3010 tank, 25 rpm reversing, 20C, XTOL 1:3) was that TMY-2 is a considerably better film than Tri-X -- for my purposes, which is almost completely landscape. TMY-2 is considerably less grainy (not that that matters with LF), and considerably sharper (which you won't really see unless your camera/tripod technique is exemplary).

Again, at "real world" enlargement levels, the improved graininess and sharpness aren't major factors. But I found that tonality and reciprocity characteristics really are major factors. TMY-2 renders the tones in the landscape much better for me. I find that everything shows up as the shade of gray I thought it should -- and with Tri-X I found that difficult to control. TMY-2's sensitivity to the spectrum is better -- more linear, to my visual system.

In 5x4 you wouldn't think that reciprocity characteristics matter much. Yet, they do. I found that the same scene made with both films showed significantly more shadow detail with TMY-2. For example, a photograph of rocks in a mountain stream. The shadows under the rocks, placed on Zone III. The level of shadow detail from the TMY-2 negative was usually considerably better. It took me a while to understand, but with a 1/4 second exposure, those shadows where entering reciprocity failure with Tri-X, but weren't even close with TMY-2. And it makes a visible difference.

It took me a while to convince myself that what I was seeing wasn't just that I had screwed up my personal EI tests. When I figured it out I could test for it and show it happening over and over. Very repeatable. Clearly reciprocity failure.

What that really means, to me and the way I work anyway, is that if I'm shooting at less than 1/8, my shadow detail is at risk with Tri-X. And with TMY-2 I never even consider it. With TMY-2 I don't see any reciprocity problems at all out to 8 seconds. I haven't tested any farther.

So, if your game is graininess or sharpness, probably any of the films in your list will be fine. But for tonality and certainly for reciprocity characteristics, I'll take TMY-2 every time.

Does this help you? Not really. You know that you're going to have to do your own testing to find out what you personally should do, yes? But maybe this will point you more or less in the right direction. IDK.

[A49]

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/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/73d528c09b620a11c125697700548cd6), 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.

[Sirius Glass]

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/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/73d528c09b620a11c125697700548cd6), 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

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.

[Henry Ambrose]

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.

[Henry Carter]

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!

[A49]

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

Important point. HP5+ maybe the sharpest of all ISO 400 films if developed in an high acutance developer. The resolution numbers do not say much about sharpness, but they shurely say something about the differences between Tmax 400 and HP5+ / TRI-X in grain. To record the double number of lines of a test target, Tmax 400 must have a significant finer grain and it sure has. You don´t need test targets to see that and I never even shot one. I don´t even own one. But I have a few shots on HP5 and much, much more on the old (and slightly worse) Tmax 400 in the 35mm film genre where grain really matters.

As I said if you enlarge higher than 3-4 times the differences between the good old and the good new films begin to show and then you have to like grain if you work with HP5 / TRI-X.

Andreas

[chris6869]

I use TMAX 100, 400 developed with TMX RS and have used HP5.
The use and development of TMY2 is quite easy and analog to TMX.
With TMAX RS, I rate TMY2 at 250 isos while TMX is 64 for ZS.

About the results, TMX100 is slightly finer, and you can see it on 4X5 with the focusing magnifier. Both TMX and TMY2 have low reciprocity effects, wich is very interresting in low light conditions, when we use a 400 isos film.

HP5 is great but since I use TMX, TMY2 is my favorit film for landscapes.


Christian

[jvuokko]

I haven't never got change to try Tri-X in LF, so I don't really know how it compares with Hp5+ and TMY2 in terms of tonality.

For those who's interested, here is curves of Hp5+ and TMY2 developed using D-76 1+1.
As you can see, the Hp5+ is pretty straight until with long shoulder.
The TMY2 is opposite, long toe type curve.

http://jukkavuokko.com/linkatut/lf/tmy2-hp5plus-N-curves.jpg

[Ken Lee]

"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)"

Tri-X is a lovely film, but has a long toe: many people shoot it at ISO 200, which it needs for adequate shadow rendition. This has been true for decades.

HP5+ is similar, but not identical. I shoot HP5+ these days, at ISO 400, developed in Divided D-23. It gives full film speed and lovely tonality: here's a sample image (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/img003a.html).

Here's a "real-world" test image (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/dd23-1.jpg). Note that the low values and high values have excellent separation. White paper, white enamel paint, white cotton fabric, a dark cloth, some metal, a black apron, some black plastic - all are rendered naturally and smoothly. This is what we would expect, based on Jukka's chart below.

With regard to contrast and development, HP5+ it is just as linear as TMY. It is more linear in terms of spectral response.

HP5+ is not a tabular-grain film, so it requires less sensitizing dye - which translates to shorter washing times. It has been pointed out that tabular grain films require less silver, a benefit for manufacturers, but not necessarily for consumers.

Developed in Pyrocat HD, HP5+ has less general stain (along with FP4+), which means less fog and better shadow rendition.

For LF purposes, HP5+ is basically grainless.

In my view, the only compelling attribute of TMY over HP5+ and TriX, is reciprocity. Since I rarely shoot longer than a few seconds, it's not a "show-stopper".

HP5+ is available in a wide variety of sizes, and... it's appreciably cheaper :)

[Gem Singer]

I totally agree with Ken.

I have no scientific proof. However, in my opinion, HP-5+ and Pyrocat HD is a wonderful combination of film and developer.

Rated at ISO 400, this film really digs into the shadows, and semi-stand development in pyro makes for very high acutance. I find it almost impossible to blow out the highlights.

I scan 4x5 negatives on an Epson V750 and make 16X20 prints on an Epson 3880 with excellent tonality and no sign of grain.

[Drew Wiley]

Each of these films has a different personality with a potentially different look, with
the nature of the toe being one of the chief differences. TM400 has the longer straight line down into the toe, so will separate deep shadows better, and is capable
of finer grain than the other two. But a lot depends upon the developer. HP5 has the
most prominent edge effect with expanded development, but the least conspicuous
grain per se in pyro. TM400 will have the longest straight line in something like HC110, while Tri-X becomes quite gritty in HC110 - some people like that look, but
I do not. In practical terms, I find that the new TM400 gives me the more versatile
neg in pyro, without as much risk of blowing out the highlights while giving sufficient
separation in the deep shadows - which was more of a challenge with HP5 and a
conspicuous flaw in Tri-X. Although all three films are obviously capable of stunning
images, it is simply easier to control TM400 in terms of long-scale tonality.

[Andrew O'Neill]

My main film is HP5 but I prefer TMY-2 for carbon printing. Loooooooooong straight line section and short toe. Another film I like is FP4.

[Ed Richards]

I think you miss out on some of the value of Tmax by not using Xtol, esp. at 1:2 and 1:3. You get full speed and good acutance.

[BetterSense]

It used to be cheaper than TMY, which is why I used to use it more. Now, since Ilford raised their prices a few months ago, the prices are comparable between TMY and HP5+ so I just use TMY. I definitely prefer TMY to HP5+ in 35mm because of the grain factor.

[J. E. Brown]

In looking at the J-109 development document for Xtol, I notice there isn't any time table for development in fresh developer in large tanks for TMY-2. The tanks I use hold ~6 L of developer. Has anyone else used Xtol in large volumes such as this? Is there a better document containing the appropriate development chart for tank development? Or would I just take the tray development and adjust to my tastes? I have used D-76 in the past, but would like to see what Xtol has to offer.

The link below is to the pdf for Xtol by Kodak.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf

Thank you in advance for any comments.


Kind regards,

-JB

[Ken Lee]

It used to be cheaper than TMY, which is why I used to use it more. Now, since Ilford raised their prices a few months ago, the prices are comparable between TMY and HP5+ so I just use TMY.

Perhaps this depends on where you shop. Even when purchased in small amounts, there is a difference (https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=253) of 10% or more. Perhaps that is negligible to some, but it adds up over time. I recently purchased a 100-sheet box of 4x5 HP5+, at an even more appreciable saving. As you know, TMY is not available in 100-sheet boxes, even in 4x5.

Perhaps most importantly, Ilford film is available in a variety of sizes, where TMY is not. In such cases, the difference is... compelling.

[Richard Wasserman]

I suggest using replenished Xtol. It is quite economical,and very easy, just use stock Xtol as the replenisher, and it's very stable. Also gives excellent reults...

TMY2 times are on the Kodak document.




In looking at the J-109 development document for Xtol, I notice there isn't any time table for development in fresh developer in large tanks for TMY-2. The tanks I use hold ~6 L of developer. Has anyone else used Xtol in large volumes such as this? Is there a better document containing the appropriate development chart for tank development? Or would I just take the tray development and adjust to my tastes? I have used D-76 in the past, but would like to see what Xtol has to offer.

The link below is to the pdf for Xtol by Kodak.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf

Thank you in advance for any comments.


Kind regards,

-JB

[J. E. Brown]

I suggest using replenished Xtol. It is quite economical,and very easy

Richard,

Thank you for your response.

Does replenishing change the consistency of Xtol to a noticeable degree? I really like to keep all variables out of my process and it seems like replenishing would add an unknown with the 'strength' (ie. too strong, too weak) of the developer after replenishing, especially as time goes on. Although, the idea of being able to reduce cost by using replenisher is very inviting.

Also, there is no development time table on the J-109 for TMY-2 developed in large tanks with fresh developer. To get started with Xtol, what times would you recommend with the fresh developer?

Again, thanks for the comments and information. I am very interested in comparing Xtol to what I have already been doing with D-76.


Kind regards,

-JB

[Richard Wasserman]

Once the replenished solution is seasoned it is very consistent. It takes a few 8x10 sheets of film (or equivalent) for the developer to get stabilized and then simply replenish with 70-100ml of stock Xtol per 80 square inches of film processed. The advantages of replenishing are that it is very economical, especially with deep tanks, and you get the fine grain of straight Xtol with sharpness similar to when it's diluted. And I really like the tonality.



Richard,

Thank you for your response.

Does replenishing change the consistency of Xtol to a noticeable degree? I really like to keep all variables out of my process and it seems like replenishing would add an unknown with the 'strength' (ie. too strong, too weak) of the developer after replenishing, especially as time goes on. Although, the idea of being able to reduce cost by using replenisher is very inviting.

Also, there is no development time table on the J-109 for TMY-2 developed in large tanks with fresh developer. To get started with Xtol, what times would you recommend with the fresh developer?

Again, thanks for the comments and information. I am very interested in comparing Xtol to what I have already been doing with D-76.


Kind regards,

-JB

[J. E. Brown]

Richard,


Very interesting. I will have to try this out with some test sheets after I get an 'aged' developer established and see how it goes.

I hope to find something that I like even better than what I have experienced with D-76, and having more money to spend on film makes everything even better.

Thanks for your response.


Kind regards,

-JB

[Gary Nylander]

Hi Rob,

I have used all three films (T-Max 400, Tri-X and HP5 ) some longer than others ( all in 4 x 5 size ). For myself Tri-X (320) was my film of choice for many years, a beautiful film which I rated at 200 iso, I found it easy to develop and fix and used mostly HC-110 , in more recent years I used Kodak Xtol developer and regular powder packed Kodak fixer. For the last 18 month I used T-Max 400 ( the new type ) which I also rated at 200 iso, also a very nice film, the only thing I didn't like about it was that it took longer to fix and exhausted my fixer more quickly than Tri-X. Just recently I have been using Ilford HP5, ( @200 iso ) I decided to give it a try after Tri-X went up in cost by about $10 a box up here in Canada, it used to be that T-Max was the more expensive film. So far after shooting about 150 sheets of the HP5 I like it, I still need to tweak the development times in Xtol, so far I found that the negatives were a little flat in contrast, probably due to my using developer that was a bit old, to fix that I found that running the negs through a solution of Selenium toner (1:3 ) for a few minutes has snapped up the contrast quite nicely and the negatives have a beautiful Selenium tone color to them too ! As you said in your post you probably can't go wrong with anyone of these films what ever subject you find to photograph these films will do an excellent job of recording the tonal information when exposed and developed correctly, Good luck with your film choice.

Gary

[artflic]

Thanks to all who responded. At this point I think I will go with TMY-2 as I am used to working with T-Max RS and usually have it on hand. Best regards, Rob Rielly