Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,288   Posts: 1,535,358   Online: 771
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    419
    Peter, there is a kind of ... softness with HP5 that I don't get with Tri-X. It could be that I need to do more testing, and it may be that I expected HP5 to be a faster HP4. Does anyone else have this experience?
    "The beauty and profundity of God is more real than any mere calculation"

  2. #12
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,241
    Images
    296
    I would say that FP4 has more inherent contrast than HP5. To me, Tri-X looks more like a faster FP4 than HP5 does.
    I think that HP5 is softer in its appearance, especially in the low values. The adjacent tonal shifts don't seem to be as clearly defined as with other films, for better or worse.
    "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

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Posts
    292
    I have done a comparative test with 35mm HP5+ and FP4+ and found no difference in sharpness, which surprised me. Developer - ID11 1+3

    Alan Clark

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    419
    Alan, I believe you, and I guess it is not softness that I am trying to describe (lousy choice of words, especially in a photography forum). I think Thomas (see above) explained it better. It a tonality in the shadows that gives the appearance of softness. Hard to describe. Maybe I will scan some negs and show you what I mean.
    "The beauty and profundity of God is more real than any mere calculation"

  5. #15
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    In revisiting this, the crux of the matter is that Tri-X has a very characteristic curve, and you will be hard pressed to duplicate that with a different emulsion. There is a reason Tri-X is the go to portrait film for some photographers, and the response curve is perhaps for many the foremost of those reasons, whether they know it or not... in short, the best combo to give you what you are after is Tri-X in hc110. Fine results can be had with Ilford emulsions as well, but the curve will be different, end of story.

  6. #16
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,241
    Images
    296
    One more thing to keep in mind. The Tri-X 400 and 320 are different films. Completely different.

    I was talking about the 400 up above, because it's the only one I know well enough to have an opinion.

    - 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

  7. #17
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Perhaps the most important difference between 320 TX and 400 TX is the long toe of the 320. It is a helpful characteristic in portraiture, especially of us old folks, so I"ve heard. It could be approximated by pre- or post-fogging. If you are looking for that long toe in HP5+, you can try that. If you are looking for a shorter toe, good luck.
    Gadget Gainer

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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