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.
Plus-x is an extraordinary film but so few have learned to unlock it's secrets that it will probably get the axe. That's why there is a lot in my freezer.
Mark
__________________
Mark Layne
Nova Scotia
and Barbados
FWIW, I have shot TriX400 and HP5+ a lot in both 35mm and 120 (developed in ID-11 or D76, 1+1). I prefer the look of TriX400(latest version) in 35mm and HP5+ in 120...haven't yet figured out why
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.
lee\c
Dear Lee,
There is a difference between holding a different opinion, and being combative. Neither of you is obliged to agree with a word I say; nor am I obliged to believe everything (or indeed, anything) anyone else says. If you see this as being combative, and if you feel the need to resort to capital letters (generally equated with shouting in a post like this), well, tough: you are perhaps someone who sees combat and dispute as the same thing. I don't.
I think I have explained well enough my own experiences with 'head to head' tests and why I find them valueless even for me, let alone being able to understand how my comparisons might benefit others. But I have also said that I wish the very best of luck to anyone who wants to do it. What is your problem with any of this?
Plus-x is an extraordinary film but so few have learned to unlock it's secrets that it will probably get the axe. That's why there is a lot in my freezer.
Mark
Personally I think this is an interesting question and I'm looking forward to the results. For once, I don't agree with Roger as a controlled test should show up the differences more quickly and decisively than general usage. A crucial point, I think, is which developer to use -- D76/ID11 1:1 would probably be a good choice. I've recently been shooting a lot of Tri-X and Neopan 1600, which are like chalk and cheese with Tri-X giving better gradation in the shadows and Neopan better in the highlights (both rated at EI640). By the way, I am scanning rather than printing. Past use of HP5+ tends to show that it is more grainy than either Tri-X or Neopan but the tonality is more important that grain and also, for films in this class, pushability. Good luck with the test.
I am looking forward to the tests. I do get something from comparing the same photo with two different films. It gives me a common point of comparison.
Steve
__________________
Hobby! I don't need not stinkin' hobby, I got obsessions: photography, skiing, off-roading and cordless bungie jumping!
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to you financial well being!
I bought both. I shot both. They are both good. But, when enlarged, the HP5 has a different paisley shape grain than the very point shaped grain of the TRI-X. If you look really close. I prefer the point shape grain. There are probably cases where HP5 tonality is nicer. But there is no test that will say one is "better" than the other. Pepsi tried to do that with Coke. Prove their product "tasted" better. Coke is still doing fine. Different tastes, different soda pop, different film, it is almost a silly question except if there was something wrong with one of the films. Like the film speed is way off, like APX400, or the film is blue and curly like the old J&C films. But that is not the case with HP5 and TRI-X - If HP5 was cheaper here than TRI-X (it is not) I might get used to the paisley shaped grain ....
__________________
My photos are always without all that distracting color ...
Linear Mode
