APUG - View Single Post - Head to Head: Tri-X and HP5+

Lee Shively · 09-17-2007, 04:46 PM

Go for it. Without opinions there wouldn't be much to discuss on the internet.

I've used a lot of both films, mainly used Rodinal, FG7 and D76 as developers and my take is that HP5+ has a prettier tonality and that Tri-X has a snappier contrast. Both have grain that's about equal and both seem to push to 1600 about equally with HP5+ still showing nicer tonality and Tri-X still showing more contrast. I'm certain that I've shot more Tri-X than any other film--probably tens of thousands of rolls during my time as a newspaper photographer. I've preferred HP5+ for the last several years and right now I have nearly 200 rolls of HP5+ in the freezer so I'll be using it for the foreseeable future. If I couldn't get HP5+, I'd be happy to use Tri-X again.

09-17-2007, 04:46 PM	#8 (permalink)
Lee Shively Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Louisiana, USA Posts: 1,325	Go for it. Without opinions there wouldn't be much to discuss on the internet. I've used a lot of both films, mainly used Rodinal, FG7 and D76 as developers and my take is that HP5+ has a prettier tonality and that Tri-X has a snappier contrast. Both have grain that's about equal and both seem to push to 1600 about equally with HP5+ still showing nicer tonality and Tri-X still showing more contrast. I'm certain that I've shot more Tri-X than any other film--probably tens of thousands of rolls during my time as a newspaper photographer. I've preferred HP5+ for the last several years and right now I have nearly 200 rolls of HP5+ in the freezer so I'll be using it for the foreseeable future. If I couldn't get HP5+, I'd be happy to use Tri-X again.