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.