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?
You're thinking: "Hey David, do the test and post your results on APUG!"
Yeah, well, I've done similar things in the past and been told I was wrong, so I thought I'd do this backwards and ask for the right answer first.
__________________ David Brown In Nomine Papierus, Filmio, et Spiritu Argentine, AMEN
Last edited by David Brown; 09-17-2007 at 04:15 PM.
Reason: too much irrelevant info
That the comparison is meaningless. We've shot both, with a lot of cameras, occasionally shooting the same subject, etc. on both. My wife prefers Tri-X; I prefer HP5. We use both, though more HP5. The tonality is different. So, probably, if you measure them, are granularity and sharpness, but not enough to matter. It's what the picture looks like, with your subjects, that matters.
The tonality is different. What do YOU expect to find?
Cheers,
Roger
That the tonality is different. But Roger, I don't think that's "meaningless", I think that's possibly significant. I wasn't talking about grain or sharpness, although since I mentioned those two aspects, I guess I misled ... They're too close there (in my experience) to be concerned about. (I'll edit my OP)
I understand that the answers I asked for will be subjective - it's why I asked. Objective comparisons can be looked up.
__________________ David Brown In Nomine Papierus, Filmio, et Spiritu Argentine, AMEN
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?
You're thinking: "Hey David, do the test and post your results on APUG!"
Yeah, well, I've done similar things in the past and been told I was wrong, so I thought I'd do this backwards and ask for the right answer first.
David Whatever was said to be wrong with testing and posting? Seems a great idea to me.
That the tonality is different. But Roger, I don't think that's "meaningless", I think that's possibly significant. I wasn't talking about grain or sharpness, although since I mentioned those two aspects, I guess I misled ... They're too close there (in my experience) to be concerned about. (I'll edit my OP)
I understand that the answers I asked for will be subjective - it's why I asked. Objective comparisons can be looked up.
Dear David,
Fair enough. But how are you going to quantify or even describe this? "The tonality is different. I prefer this one." The test is meaningful in the sense that it might help you personally decide which you prefer, but it will help no-one else decide.
What I'm really questioning is the methodology: the usefulness of a head-to-head test, as compared with shooting real pictures with one, and the other, turn and turn about, and doing a rough statistical analysis of which gives you more pictures that you like.
David, I'm glad you are going to run some tests, because although I had heard there was not much difference between HP5+ and Tri-X, eventually I decided I liked tri-x better. The reason: HP5+ seemed muddier to me developed in HC-110, while tri-x had a hint of glow I liked.
There are way too many factors that influence the final outcome--developer, developing techniques, scanning v. printing, and on and on--but for me tri-x gets better results with the way I do things.
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.
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.
I did this comparison about two years ago and to me, Tri-X was visibly grainier. So I switched to HP5+ for roll film. But I still use Tri-X in sheet film, because I have not yet done the tests for HP5+.
There is a way in which HP5+ is demonstrably better, at least as of a few years ago. It has about 1/5 of the low intensity reciprocity failure. If you have an indicated reading of 100 seconds, HP5+ will need an additional 200 seconds while TX400 will need an additional 1000. These are not manufacturers propaganda, but the experimental results of Howard Bond who is about as meticulous as anyone I know of.
Head to Head: Tri-X and HP5+ 
Linear Mode
