Roger, agreed, there will be no absolute winner, but even seeing what works for one individual may be useful for those of us who are less experienced with these emulsions and particular developing combos.
What worries me is the variables. Frances and I keep EVERYTHING else the same -- cameras, lenses, developers, enlargers, printing paper, you name it -- and we still come out with different preferences. Change ANY ONE of those variables and everything is turned on its head. That's before the images are strained through a scanner and put on a monitor....
Why would it worry you about the variables? David is a very experienced photographer and has a pretty air tight processing system. And the info is for David and not you.
I have exactly the same feeling as David. HP5 can be amazing for certain things. I tend to like HP5 for still lifes and portraiture.
Then again, Tri-X is no slouch in those areas either, but where I want some real sharp bite to the image, Tri-X is probably better.
I tend to go with Tri-X more often than HP5, but that's my personal taste. I have a feeling that things like your developer, agitation method, your printing methods, et al, will affect your results almost as much and with some variable even more than your choice of film. But I digress. I believe that wasn't what the question was about to begin with...
Both will serve you very well, but there is a distinct difference between them. It's up to you what you do with it.
Why would it worry you about the variables? David is a very experienced photographer and has a pretty air tight processing system. And the info is for David and not you.
lee\c
Dear Lee,
I didn't mean the variables in HIS processing: I meant the variables between his and anyone else's -- variables which would render the experiment useless to anyone else. This is quite apart from personal preference.
As I say, what I'm really questioning is the methodology. Most of the time, I find it just about impossible to concern myself simultaneously with aesthetics -- which involves taking everything for granted, materials and equipment -- and comparisons (carefully set up shot with time to switch backs). There are a few areas in which head-to-head comparisons are easier than others, especially still life and some kinds of landscape, but that's only a part of what I (and most others) shoot.
My point is this: I see no advantage in performing such a test under the artificial constraints of taking the same picture twice. What is the objection to shooting the two films alternately, taking real pictures of real subjects (not empty 'tests') and seeing which, on average, you prefer? The latter makes far more sense to me. What advantage do you (or does anyone else) see in the OP's approach?
I'm not trying to be combative. I'm just thinking about 40+ years of my own photography, with a wide variety of equipment and materials, and the approach which I have found to give the most meaningful answers. Anyone who wants to do a head-to-head test, the very best of luck to them; but the OP did ask what differences others have found from similar exercises.
An important difference for me is the price. At 7dayshop.com Hp5 120 is £1.40 and Tri-X is £2.15. As a pensioner, that's decisive!
Reminds me of a friend who used to work for Ilford: "They're all very good. Actually, I slightly prefer Plus-X to FP4, but as I have to pay for Plus-X, well, Plus-X isn't that much better."
Plus-X was, incidentally, the only Kodak film he preferred to Ilford.
If you only shoot one roll of each how are you sure you have the optimum speed and developing time. First you need to run all your film tests to do it right. Or at least bracket your exposures and run a few rolls using different processing times.
Roger said this, "My point is this: I see no advantage in performing such a test under the artificial constraints of taking the same picture twice. What is the objection to shooting the two films alternately, taking real pictures of real subjects (not empty 'tests') and seeing which, on average, you prefer? The latter makes far more sense to me. What advantage do you (or does anyone else) see in the OP's approach".
So, it is just testing that you don't like? The OP said he was gonna take "real" pictures and "SEE" which one he liked. How is this an "empty test". It looks like to me that the posts agreeing with the OP are running about everyone agreeing that this would be ok with the exception of YOU Roger. You say you are not trying to be combative but it surely appears that way to me.
Linear Mode
