Quote:
Originally Posted by David Brown  I've read numerous comments over the years about the differences/similarities between Tri-X (400) and HP5+. I've used both (in medium format) and I am beginning to see subtle differences in prints.
Anyway, I have decided to load up two backs and do a head-to-head comparison; taking identical pictures with the two films and see what happens. Anybody else done this? What did you find? What do you expect that I will find?  |
Well, being in Big-D, (when I lived there 22 years ago), the sun is going to be great for shots. I used to use HP5+ for portraits, because (at the time), I thought it to be the finest grained 400 speed film out there. Plus, HP5+ gives [i]softer[i] contrast rendition than other films (an Ilford trait throughout their line), which softened facial features etc.
Tri-X is great for anything. Rate it at 200EI, process in Rodinal 1:50 10min and you've got beautiful scenics/architecturals. Take that some 200EI Tri-X and process in HC-110 1:50 from syrup for 6½-7min, and it'll look smooth enough for portraits with still enough "punch" for regular photography.
Rolleijoe