TMY vs HP5

[jeroldharter]

Every year or so, I flirt with the idea of giving up on TMY. I use 8x10 film so I like the reciprocity characteristics and I have used it exclusively for large format for years. But it costs ~$9/sheet and is getting harder to find reliably. I use BTZS testing and Xtol developer. Not interested in pyro at this point.

So please tell me what to expect if I switch to HP5. Thanks.

[ROL]

You should expect to switch to pyro. :D

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

[jeroldharter]

Hmm. That $900 for 100 sheets of TMY in my B&H cart...

Just asking: if HP5 is made for Xtol, why use Pyro? Which pyro?

I more often need contraction of 2+ stops rather than expansion of 2 stops. How is HP5 with that?

[sully75]

I use HP5 in XTOL. It works pretty ok. I'm not a zoner and I can say honestly my control of my negatives leaves something to be desired. That said, I've taken a lot of photographs I consider "good" with HP5, but I find it frustrating somehow. I find the mid-highs and mids to lack contrast somehow. This is for scanned negatives. I end up playing a lot in photoshop to get pictures to look the way I want them.

TMY, I've found that if I get everything right, the negatives are much closer to where I want them. However I think it might be more finicky than HP5.

Then again I think film is film and you just have to take some pictures. HP5 makes that easier because it's cheaper.

Then again I'm really pleased with my last batch of HP5. Maybe I have it under control. Not sure I can repeat though.

This is HP5 in XTOL 1+1, rotary development in a 8x10 print drum, 8.75 minutes I think
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8325/8113186087_4009bca350_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/8113186087/)
Emperor Nortons Stationary Marching Band (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/8113186087/) by Paul McEvoy (http://www.flickr.com/people/paulmcevoy/), on Flickr

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use pyrocat-hd. I use it over Xtol because I can get more contrast due to the colour of the staining ( yellow/brown blocks UV light for alt printing... activates the low contrast emulsion in VC paper for softer highlights). Pyro developers mask grain somewhat. Pyrocat-hd is also more economical than Xtol. I use 5ml of solution A and B "stock" per sheet. That's 200 sheets of
8x10 per litre of stock. HP5 is a medium contrast film, and contracts fine. You don't have to contract as much with pyro, preserving contrast in the shadows somewhat.

[jeroldharter]

Thanks for all the info. Nice photo Paul. I like the tonality.

[John Kasaian]

Different animals,
high tech grain vs. old school .
Does it matter? Plenty of masterpieces have been shot on HP-5+
I don't shoot TMY anymore because it is too expensive for my budget (I still have a box of TMY-1 in the freezer) but for the subjects I'm after, HP-5+ works splendidly and I don't miss TMY in the least (I do miss the happy yellow boxes, though!).

[Kimberly Anderson]

I have two galleries you can look at. It might help you make up your mind.

The first gallery is my ongoing project on Utah Bigfoot. All images are shot on HP5+, processed in PMK, using a JOBO. Images are scanned from the negatives.

Utah Bigfoot Gallery, 4x10, HP5+ (http://tawayama.com/utahbigfootgallery/)

The second gallery is an exhibit from Sweden. Images shot in 2010. The 5x7's are all TMY, processed in PMK using a JOBO. Images are scanned from the negatives. The 2 1/4 images are HP5+, processed in X-tol 1:1 in stainless tanks on reels. Images scanned from the negatives.

Sweden Exhibit, TMY 5x7, HP5+ 2 1/4 (http://tawayama.com/byuswedenshow/)

[wiggywag]

I was surprised how good HP5+ reciprocity characteristics are. Up to about 5 seconds it is as good as TMY-2. In X-tol it is only 1/3 stop slower than TMY-2.

Where HP5+ really excels, is in ABC pyro with tray processing. Super sharp, wonderful tonality, just beautiful....best negatives I ever had!!! I'm not going back to TMY-2.

[Brian Ellis]

I used HP5+ and D76 1-1. I liked the combination. I tested pyro extensively, it didn't seem to me to result in a print that I couldn't duplicate with a negative processed in D76.

[Drew Wiley]

The films are quite different except in speed. I dev both in pyro. TMY has a steeper toe
with better shadow and highlt separation in high-contrast scenes, and could almost (though not precisely) be classifed as a straight-line film. HP5 has much bigger grain, but
this has almost a "watercolor" blending in staining pyro, but with excellent edge effect.
I've printed quite a bit of both from 8x10. Just depends on the scene. But generally, I've
found TMY to be more versatile if one wants to tote around just one film.

[IanG]

I began using HP5 in for LF work about 3 years ago as I needed a fast film for hand held work and was astounded at the quality of the film, I'd used it many years ago in 35mm and 120.

While I now only use Pyrocat HD I'm sure it will work well with Xtol but I've found the HP5/Pyrocat HD combination perfect.

Ian

[jp]

Both are excellent quality films.

Both are excellent in pyrocat-hd.

Both are plenty adequate in terms of grain for 8x10 negatives, since grain's not that important at that size.

I've used TMY since about 1990, so I'm comfortable with it and can do versatile things with it, even without zone system. I also use it in the other formats (120, 4x5, 35mm), so I have the consistency. I prefer the finer grain of TMY for 120/35mm use. If TMY were a little less expensive, it could be a swiss-army-knife of B&W films. I'd be trying other things too at $9/sheet, but I have enough in my freezer I bought at $5.50-6.50/sheet which I considered a fair price.

[Martin Aislabie]

Hmm. That $900 for 100 sheets of TMY in my B&H cart...

Just asking: if HP5 is made for Xtol, why use Pyro? Which pyro?

I more often need contraction of 2+ stops rather than expansion of 2 stops. How is HP5 with that?

I use HP5 from 5 to 12 stops SBR without issue (ID11 @ 1+1).

It suits me fine

YMMV

Martin

[evan clarke]

Hi Jamie, Rodinal 1+50 is really great for 8x10 HP5. I have a nice homebrew clone recipe if you would like to have it..Evan Clarke

[mikebarger]

I use HP5 in XTOL. It works pretty ok. I'm not a zoner and I can say honestly my control of my negatives leaves something to be desired. That said, I've taken a lot of photographs I consider "good" with HP5, but I find it frustrating somehow. I find the mid-highs and mids to lack contrast somehow. This is for scanned negatives. I end up playing a lot in photoshop to get pictures to look the way I want them.

TMY, I've found that if I get everything right, the negatives are much closer to where I want them. However I think it might be more finicky than HP5.

Then again I think film is film and you just have to take some pictures. HP5 makes that easier because it's cheaper.

Then again I'm really pleased with my last batch of HP5. Maybe I have it under control. Not sure I can repeat though.

This is HP5 in XTOL 1+1, rotary development in a 8x10 print drum, 8.75 minutes I think
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8325/8113186087_4009bca350_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/8113186087/)
Emperor Nortons Stationary Marching Band (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/8113186087/) by Paul McEvoy (http://www.flickr.com/people/paulmcevoy/), on Flickr


Nothing wrong with this combination.....

[evan clarke]

Hi Jamie, Rodinal 1+50 is really great for 8x10 HP5. I have a nice homebrew clone recipe if you would like to have it..Evan Clarke

I made the Rodinal clone from Ian's recommendations and it's great

[Bruce Watson]

So please tell me what to expect if I switch to HP5. Thanks.

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.

[C. D. Keth]

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.

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.

[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.

[mike rosenlof]

I haven't used TMY in quite a while. When I did, it was fine. However, Hp5 is my standard film for 35mm all the way to 8x10. It's just what I know. It looks great when I enlarge 35mm negs to 8x10 prints, and just gets better with the larger film formats. I rarely make prints bigger than 8x10, never bigger than 11x14, that's just me.

[wiggywag]

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.

In a conventional developer 180 seems correct for this. I did a test with HP5 in Xtol it was a little less than 200 ISO. ABC Pyro is a little slower, therefore 125, but is just magical with HP5. I have now settled with HP5 as my only film. Luckily it is available in all formats. It is the only ULF film in 11x14" size you can buy as regular stock at BHphotovideo.

[Henry Carter]

I have had excellent results using 4x5 and 120 HP5 developed in PMK Pyro. This has been my main film/developer combination since the 1990's. I am also very pleased with Fuji Acros 100 in PMK Pyro.

Another factor in choosing between Kodak and Ilford products is to consider who has a greater commitment to supporting film-based photography as part of their long-term business strategy? We will all have the option of shooting on Ilford film long after the bean counters at Kodak pull the plug on film, so I urge you to support the company that wants to be there for us well into the future. Become a part of the solution and support the viability of Ilford!

[Kimberly Anderson]

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.

Would you mind sharing a link or posting an image of that developing table? I know that it is true for my workflow, but somehow getting students to trust me on the half-box-speed thing is a little challenging.

Thanks!

[Andrew O'Neill]

Henry, I'll email it to you when I get home today.

[BILL3075]

Andrew,

Can you post it as well?

Thanks,

Bill

[Drew Wiley]

Too many generalizations here. Half box speed could be a formula for disaster if you don't
understand the highlights. I dev all these film in PMK pyro, so have that common denominator to work from. I shoot HP5 at box speed (400) unless the shadows drop too
hard. If they do, I'd rather shoot TMY, but HP5 can be boosted up the toe some. Pan F I
routinely shoot at 25, but it simply has too short a straight line for most high contrast work. FP4 is more of a general purpose film. In PMK HP5 gives a lovely watercolor grain and
superb edge effect without any annoying salt and pepper graininess - very nice for 8x10
film and moderate enlargement. In smaller formats it takes on a different personality, and
can appear a bit mushy if enlarged too much (though popular as a journalistic film). When
I'm just winging it with a Nikon I reach for Delta 3200.

[premortho]

Rash generalizations? Where were you when the American film industry doubled the box film speed virtually overnight, by reducing the exposure requirements for an accetable negative. Almost literally, when I went to sleep Tri-x was a 180-200 ASA film. When I woke up the next morninig, viola! 320 ASA. Verichrome at 32 became 64. And on and on. Now I know many films are new since that happened. But the test exposures are rated to the same standards as these previous films. So Tri-X, rated at 320, but exposed at 200, which a lot of people do, just re-rates it to what it used to be. My experience is limited with more modern film, like tabular grain film. So I will take your word for the box numbers being able to render a negative with full shadow detail, without blowing out the highlights.

[Drew Wiley]

I visualize the entire curve for any given film/developer combination and how it applies to
a specific scene - shadows, highlights, and midtone tonality. I've done one helluva lot of testing with a lot of different films - and no blanket generalization works well in the real world. Often box speeds are overoptimistic, but not always. Just depends exactly what you are doing.