Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,727   Posts: 1,515,176   Online: 976
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    south central Missouri
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,926
    Images
    9
    When I tested HP5 in 4x5 it came in at 200, while tri-x 400 (120mm) tested at box speed. I used Fred Pickers test.

    You might need to do a little testing to find the EI for you and the correct development time for your process type.

    Mike

  2. #12
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Film speed is not the critical issue in general. It is in this case because the shape of the curve of its CI vs development time. HP5+, for most developers, is such that it will not achieve as high a maximum contrast as TRI-X. The more you overexpose it, the closer you get to the place where CI levels off, the shadow area begins to rise more with extended time than the highlight area, and you have a flat negative, probably with high fog level.

    If you examine the D-LOG E and CI -LOG E curves of the two films, you will see what I mean.
    Gadget Gainer

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    NW Chicagoland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    551
    Images
    1
    Tri-x sheet film (320) does have a different curve shape. Sort of a long toe and upturned highlights. To me it looks contrasty and dramatic compared to the smooth look of the more general HP5 curve. Maybe that's your problem. If you like that Tri-x look you may have to stay with it.

  4. #14
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    There are actually two curve shapes we need to be aware of. One is the Density vs Time curve and the other is the CI versus time. It is possible for the Density vs time curves of two films to be quite similar at one CI and quite different at a higher one. I think I'm repeating myself, but I'm in my 82nd year, so who knows?
    Gadget Gainer

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central NC
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordke View Post
    Ok so I'd like to get similar results out of a ilford film that I get out of Tri-x in HC110. These results I speak of are the very smooth tonal seperation I get with tri-x sheet film and hc110. I have tried hp5 in hc110 and xtol and get a super flat negative. Any help with combinations is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
    I doubt you can get an Ilford film to look like Tri-X. Tri-X is relatively unique with it's long toe and rising highlights, especially in HC-110.

    You can develop HP5+ longer and increase the contrast, but it will shoulder off IIRC and highlights will be compressed compared to the same scene captured on Tri-X. I don't think there's any developer that will get around that for you.

    If you are using roll film you might try Delta 400. It'll perhaps get you closer than HP5+ will. But in the end it's not likely going to look like Tri-X.
    Bruce Watson
    AchromaticArts.com

  6. #16
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    These 2 figures show that you should not have too much trouble in HC-110. I copied them from an article by Phil Davis in Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques, MAR-APR, 1993. Of course, the films may have changed in the meantime, but it will give you something to work from.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails HP5+ HC-110.jpg   TRI-X HC110.jpg  
    Gadget Gainer

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    237
    Images
    4
    Thanks Gainer.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    876
    Jordke,

    Pat Gainer has provided you with some very useful information but I can't help wondering....If Tri-X/HC-110 gives you the results you are looking for, why on earth would you want to swithch? Let me guess. Is it because the Ilford film is $.20 less per exposure? If so, do you really shoot THAT many exposures to make the difference meaningful? 25 years ago when I first started in LF, I adopted Tri-X/HC-110. Why? Because that's what Ansel used and if it was good enough for Ansel..... To this day, I still shoot 4x5 and 35mm in with Tri-X/HC-110. When I moved up to 8x10 (about 5 years ago), I started with Tri-X/HC-110. But after reading EVERY post on the Azo forum, decided to switch to TMY/Pyrocat HD for negatives to be contact printed on Azo.

    It takes years to REALLY get to know a film/developer combination. I wouldn't dream of switching from my current film/developer combinations until the last sheet of Kodak film had been produced. Why go through all this aggrivation if Tri-X/HC-110 gives you the results you want. Just continue shooting Tri-X/HC-110....problem solved :-)
    John Bowen

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    NW Chicagoland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    551
    Images
    1
    Those film curves are for 35mm Tri-X. Not the same film as sheet film 320 Tri-x.

  10. #20
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Last I heard, Tri-X was 400, TXP was 320, different curves as well as different speeds. Which are we looking for here? Both are (or were) available in sheet film.
    Gadget Gainer

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