Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,939   Posts: 1,557,391   Online: 967
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by white.elephant View Post
    I'm an HP5 man, and I like it because to my eye it has a weight that Tri-X doesn't match. My personal taste.
    I think this is a really good description of the difference between them. At least my eye sees it similarly. I don't have a consistent preference---some subjects work better for me with the "weight", others without.

    Fomapan 400 is underappreciated, I think. I rate it at 400 in PC-TEA (I would assume it would work in Xtol 1+2 as well), and while the results are never going win any prizes for fine grain, dang if it ain't sharp.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    I think this is a really good description of the difference between them. At least my eye sees it similarly. I don't have a consistent preference---some subjects work better for me with the "weight", others without.
    Yup. I agree. Tri-X is a bit "lighter" (not tonewise, but contrast/mood wise) in my experience, due to the spectral sensitivity's effect on the shadows in daylight. I love the look for some things, and when I want it, I still use Tri-X, even though I have switched to HP5 as my general purpose film. I think HP5 flatters skin more than Tri-X, so usually use it for portraits, when I must do them.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  3. #13
    Nicole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,548
    Images
    8
    Hi Keith, it depends on what I'm photographing but currently I switch between TriX400 and Delta400 for 120mm and same including Neopan 1600 for 35mm - and develop mostly in Xtol. Delta usually for a lighter tone, softer grain and Xtol for when I like it dark and moody, but again, it all depands on the circumstances.
    Last edited by Nicole; 03-24-2009 at 04:39 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #14
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,376
    Images
    299
    Tri-X 400. But switching to Tmax 400 because I want the same emulsion in all formats. In sheets, Tri-X 400 isn't available.

    A little less grain, but I believe I can achieve a similar tonality to Tri-X, or close enough.

    I don't think I've ever tested an ISO 400 emulsion that I didn't like - Ilford HP5+ (wonderful 'light' tone, sharp), Ilford 400 Delta Pro (nice grain, very sharp), Tri-X 400 (wonderful 'bite' in the prints, well defined tonal shifts), Tmax 400 (smooth grain but very very sharp), Foma 400 (I have to rate this film at EI 100-160, so doesn't really count, but beautiful tonality, love the grain), Forte 400 (fantastic grain), Lucky SHD 400 (like old Tri-X but without antihalation, nice grain), Neopan 400 (crisp, sharp, beautiful highlights), and I'm sure I'm missing some...

    But I am doing away with all of them, except for TMY-2.

    - Thomas
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,909
    I also like T-max 400.

    Jeff

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Shropshire, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    87
    I've always liked HP5 Plus.

    I am sure the others have great characteristics (I remember being suprised at the lack of grain in TMY) but I'm not unhappy with what I have so I'll just keep using it. Tried Neopan 400 and it seemed fairly similar... or was it that I couldn't tell the difference?

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    south central Missouri
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,929
    Images
    9
    I use Tri-x in 120mm and HP5 in 4x5 since Kodak doesn't make the 400 in sheet film.

    My limited expreience with Foma 400 in 120 would make me go over to the darkside if that was all that was available. For me, it curled like a soda straw, Tri-X is always flat.

    Mike

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,401
    Images
    3
    Thanks for the replies.

  9. #19
    mhanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    267
    Images
    10
    TMY-2 followed closely by Tri-X. I have only returned to B+W within the past year so do not have the breadth of experience as others posting here. Previously when I had a darkroom most all I shot was Tri-X - loved it then and love it now. However, now I prefer TMY-2 for its great tonality and "lightness" versus the more "somber" Tri-X. Perhaps, this is an age thing or maybe it better suits my tastes at the moment.

    I will also say that, I greatly prefer 400 ISO B+W films and shoot them exclusively right now (save the 3 rolls of Adox CHS 100 that I am trying out now. Postings here of this film show a really interesting look and feel.)

  10. #20
    JDP
    JDP is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bedfordshire, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    72
    Nobody has mentiond Ilford XP2 Super. If you like fine grain, lots of detail and smooth tones it is worth a punt. Also benefits from a wide exposure latitude, and copes with contrasty scenes well (keeping highlight and shadow detail well). Pics from 35mm are so smooth they almost look like medium format.....

    It is C41 process, though, which some may not like.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin