8x10 shooters, can HP5 come close to Tri-X 320?

[ryanmills]

HP5+ isn't flat if you respect its relatively higher shadow speed and don't develop it in questionable concoctions.

From the sounds of it, you spent your time trying to negate TXP's characteristic curve, so you're probably not looking for a developer to upsweep the curve.

Or you could just accept that 8x10 is (and was, with the exception of about a decade from the mid 2000's) an expensive format, cut your cloth accordingly, and use TXP

I looked but struggled to find any good examples of HP5 being shot in harsh conditions but still maintaining a pleasing curve, without clipping either the highlights or shadows. It always seemed like a characteristic of the film. Would you happen to have any you could share?

Yes, I would agree to a point on it costs what it costs, when I started with 8x10 I knew it was costly, but three years ago I was spending $80 at box vs $180 a box now. I spent a few years shooting only 4x5 so I could learn, and on those shoots I would take 50 sheets on a shoot. When I switched to 8x10 I limited myself to 20 most of the time and its usually enough to get that 1 shot I'm aiming for while still attempting risker shots. Hitting focus, in full sun, no hood, neck deep in a lake with the camera 1 inch above the water while someone hands me holders from a boat, maybe it works, maybe I drown the camera lol. I can still afford to shoot it, but you have to understand a few years ago I was shooting 1600 sheets a year, pretty much the max I could afford. So that price jump ultimately limits the number of shoots I can do in a year by a lot. I know nothing will be the same, but if I can get close and still shoot the amount I use too, I'm willing to try something new.

And its two-fold, I know exactly what I'm getting with tri-x, unless its fast-changing cloudy light I don't really need a meter, I know what light will work and what light will waste money and pulling tri-x that much means my dev times are borderline too short at about 4:30 to 5:00. Switching films I will have to experiment again to find the sweet spot for my tastes. And part of what burned me out was coming back from a long trip with 800 sheets and spending day after day for hours alone in the dark just shuffling sheets. I love the experience shooting the 8x10 with people, the way it forces people to be makes photos you can't get with a digital, believe me, I have tired very damn digital all the way up the high end H6D's and they all sucked and never came close to my trashed 70-year-old Kodak Master View. But developing and scanning, that sucked the life out of me, I gave up on Panco partly because of the extra time dealing with mixing xtol and 19 minute dev times. I took 1000 sheets to Europe to try out and it took me 2 months to finish it all.

Ryan, I’d consider Fomapan 400 as an option. I bought some 2 weeks ago when Freestyle had a sale, and I’m really impressed with the film. (I bought 8x10 format). I’m liking it way more than Pancro 400, which I’d been using for years.
I’ve never really cared much for HP5 - I find it too flat in the upper values. I've compared HP5 with Delta 100 and the difference in the separation of the higher values is conspicuous. HP5 looks "lackluster" in comparison. It's fine for many things, (and many photographers) but I find it a bit dull.

Your description is exactly how I felt. I did look at the fomapan, I have seen photos here and there that I liked the tone of, but I heard they have had some quality control issues. I had some with at least the early runs of Pancro having scratches and it ruined a few shots where they went thru the eyes in a way I could not fix, not a lot but lost a few shots I really loved. Did you have any issues? With tri-x its was always perfect and if it had scratches, it was from sand in the holders or my own mistakes.

The Tri-X 320 characteristic curve is highly “upswept” with a relatively long toe and very high highlight contrast. It’s a fairly unique film in its tone reproduction compared with pretty much everything else currently out there.

If you’re used to that but find Tri-X 320 too expensive I suggest developing the Ilford films (or the Foma film Paul suggested) in HC-110 (or equivalent). HC-110 will tend to give a film’s characteristic curve more of that “upswept” shape (ie increased highlight contrast), though not as pronounced as Tri-X 320.

This is exactly what I felt, tri-x 320 just handles light in a different way than everything else, I have no idea why they kept tri-x 400 over tri-x 320 for roll films, tri-x 400 is nothing like 320 and it reacts like most other films in its speed, the difference is very subtle to me. I feel like I could make other films looks like tri-x 400, but nothing looks like my trusty TXP other than maybe tmax 100 in xtol. I think for me it's more about dynamic range than contrast, I can always add in more contrast, but if the image ends up with 4 stops of range, I dont have much to work with. With TXP I am developing for a density that maxes the range of my scanner in its sweet spot vs a good density for wet printing. I think thats something people often overlook, I see a lot of photos I can just tell were developed with too much density for a scanner, they will probably wet print great, but scanners have a very limited range.

[ryanmills]

I've heard critical reports about Foma films as well, but I decided to try them for myself rather than be swayed by a few bad reviews. I'm halfway through a box of 50 sheets of 5x7 Fomapan 100 and not found a single flawed sheet, no badly cut sheets, nothing unusual - no nasty surprises. I get the impression that quality control is better than it was 5-10 years ago.
I ended up trying the Fomapan 100 because a photographer I know and admire uses nothing but, and she told me that she finds it very reliable and of good quality. I haven't found anything that contradicts her findings. I suspect most of the bad reports about Fomapan are from users who use only 35mm and 120 format, so it's possible those films have different issues? I only use the sheet film sizes. The Fomapan 400 in 8x10 size is very new to me, but I am very impressed by my results.

I recently used both Fomapan 100 and Adox CHS 100 II on the same shoot, and found that the Fomapan had smoother, smaller grain, better highlight separation, and was slightly faster than the Adox product. In many other ways, the two films were very similar, as you'd expect from two "classic emulsion" type films of the same speed class. However, the Adox CHS 100 II is twice the price, assuming you can find it anywhere.

Have you tried the Foma 400 vs 100? I think I will have to give it a try, for the price that could be huge. I shoot tri-x 320 at 100 so I am used to the speed but, working with people and specifically kids, getting a little more speed goes a long way in avoiding blurry shots. Not sure how much I'm giving up for the 400.

[interneg]

The Tri-X 320 characteristic curve is highly “upswept” with a relatively long toe and very high highlight contrast. It’s a fairly unique film in its tone reproduction compared with pretty much everything else currently out there.

If you’re used to that but find Tri-X 320 too expensive I suggest developing the Ilford films (or the Foma film Paul suggested) in HC-110 (or equivalent). HC-110 will tend to give a film’s characteristic curve more of that “upswept” shape (ie increased highlight contrast), though not as pronounced as Tri-X 320.

PQ Universal on HP5+ might also be an option, it'll give the highlights a good kick. Though I've often found that whenever people start stating they're significantly overexposing TXP, it's usually because they're attempting to pretend it doesn't have a softer toe.

[Michael R]

PQ Universal on HP5+ might also be an option, it'll give the highlights a good kick. Though I've often found that whenever people start stating they're significantly overexposing TXP, it's usually because they're attempting to pretend it doesn't have a softer toe.

I think you are right. My guess is the extra low EIs people assign to TXP are primarily a Zone System thing as TXP and HC-110 were a popular combo in the 1970s-80s. Given the shape of TXP’s curve, and the way HC-110 works, the Zone System speed point and highlight density criteria would tend to lead to people assigning TXP’s ISO speed more than the usual ~2/3 stop ZS speed penalty. After all TXP was designed primarily for controlled lighting and/or low-flare applications - ie mostly studio portraiture.

[paulbarden]

Have you tried the Foma 400 vs 100? I think I will have to give it a try, for the price that could be huge. I shoot tri-x 320 at 100 so I am used to the speed but, working with people and specifically kids, getting a little more speed goes a long way in avoiding blurry shots. Not sure how much I'm giving up for the 400.

Ryan,
I have used mostly the Fomapan 100. My experience with the 400 speed Foma is recent, but it immediately fell in step with my technique and expectations. Did you look at the example photo I linked to? That was Fomapan 400, exposed at 200 ASA and developed in Thornton 2-bath developer, a version of Divided D-23. The excellent separation of the higher values especially surprised me. Plenty of usable shadow detail as well. Overall, it has a strong "classic film" feel to it that I like a lot.

[Drew Wiley]

I prefer HP5 over Tri-X any day of the week, especially if developed in PMK pyro. I've gotten soooo many wonderful prints from that combination. No, it's not as versatile in terms of scene contrast range as TMY400 or even FP4, and won't enlarge more than 3X without starting to show some grain compromising - but heck, that's still a pretty big print when 8x10 film is involved, and less grainy than TX 320 with respect to pyro development.

Foma 400 was a disappointment to me - not the same quality at all, but OK I guess; just OK, nothing special. But all my quality control issues were with Foma 200, not 400, which is unfortunate, because the "200" speed product is special, but nowhere near actual 200 speed.

Like any other workflow transition, it takes time to adjust to a new film and discover its actual potential. Don't expect HP5 to mimic Tri-X. It has its own special look. And it works best in moderate contrast scenes, not in those involving a 10-12 stop range. It has a moderately long toe. The signature look of HP5 with PMK is an unusual "watercolor grain" effect, devoid of conspicuous grain clustering, yet with superb edge effect, lending an almost etched look to some subjects when not excessively enlarged. It can be stunning in 8x10 film enlargements up to 20X24 inches.

Many expose HP5 at 320, but you can use full 400 in lower contrast scenes. I don't recommend significantly overexposing it, a bad habit even with Tri-X - a holdover from back in long-scale contact printing paper days, which doesn't work so well with modern projection papers. The habit of some, placing shadow gradation way up belly-button high on Zone III, tempts the highlights to shoulder off, and is counterproductive with either of these films. I agree with Michael's assessment.

If you want films which won't clip highlights or shadows in difficult contrast situations, that would limit you to either speed of TMax (plus Foma 200 except at long exposure - it's reciprocity characteristics at long exposure are downright abominable). Too bad that good ole Super XX as well as Bergger 200 are long gone. BUT getting the most out of any of these long-scale films means careful shadow metering. That simply comes with the territory with steep-toed "straight line" films. They're less forgiving than Tri-X or HP5.

FP4 might be an excellent transition choice for you if you can accept its slower speed.

[Mark J]

6x9cm HP5+ in PMK for ref, I will be getting another box of 5x7" soon.
https://ibb.co/WpSZpFy

[6x6TLL]

As I recall, Foma 100 & 400 are traditional cubic grain films, while 200 is tabular grained. Since you mention TMY, maybe that's why you found Foma 200 to be "special" (qc defects aside).

[david@bigeleisenlaw.com]

HP5 is fine. Develop in PMK or X-Tol.
David

[Mark J]

Yes, HP5+ does respond well to PMK as Drew says.
Also, having just moved to a Durst condenser head, any concerns about the tendency of HP5+ being a bit flat or shouldered in the highlights have disappeared. I have been reprinting a few 6x9 HP5+ negs and getting a totally different look. I will very likely be adding a box of 5x7" HP5 to my current Fomapan 200, shortly.

Also ( let's get all the bullet points covered here ) have any of you checked the real reciprocity of Foma 200 ?
I recently took a close-up shot at f/32 , which was indicated at approx 8sec, required about 1 stop for the extension, then I allowed another stop for reciprocity ( ie. 15sec > 30sec ) . It was overexposed.
I believe ( and I'm not alone - ref Photrio ) that Foma are badly mis-representing their own product , and the reciprocity behaviour is actually very normal . Not as good as TMax, but that does stand out from all the others.