HP5, TXP or TMY for portraits

[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 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 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 (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.