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

[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/c12567a8003b58b...25697700548cd6), 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.

[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.

Here's a "real-world" test image. 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.