Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,735   Posts: 1,515,411   Online: 1102
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,825

    HP5+ vs. TMY in 4x5

    I need a faster 4x5 film.

    Unfortunately none of the high-speed films is available in sheets. TMY is of course fantabulous film and comes it an $1.20/sheet. HP5+ is the only other 400 speed film I could find in 4x5, and costs like $.90/sheet.

    I'm concerned which would have better pushability. I've never had any luck pushing TM* films; nothing happens except the highlights blow out--I've never felt that I could "push" them by developing longer. Kodak recommends normal development for use at 800, which I can believe. Basically, there goes your shadows, but don't bother developing longer; it doesn't work. Overall I'm not a tmax fan, but at least I don't feel the need to under-expose it. I can generally shoot it at box speed and feel comfortable.

    TXP 320 is another 'fast' 4x5 film, but since I feel the need to expose regular tri-x at 200 I imagine the slower-rated Tri-X 320 is probably not what I'm looking for in terms of speed.

    I've never used HP5+ at all. I would like to know how it compares to say, TriX or Neopan 400 in terms of grain, speed, and pushability. Is this the "Illford Tri-X"? I have no trouble pushing Tri-X to 1600, but it's just not available in sheets.
    f/22 and be there.

  2. #2
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    I've never used HP5+ at all. I would like to know how it compares to say, TriX or Neopan 400 in terms of grain, speed, and pushability. Is this the "Illford Tri-X"? I have no trouble pushing Tri-X to 1600, but it's just not available in sheets.
    Generally speaking, yes, it's the Ilford Tri-X. But some people who are attached to one of them will tell you that they don't like the look of the other. So, to many people, they don't look the same.
    Charles Hohenstein

  3. #3
    Herzeleid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Ankara/Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    177
    From the darkroom cookbook 3rd ed.
    "So, instead of a flat-grain film with color-dye sensitizers like T-Max 400, Tri-X is now a semi-flat grain film with color-dye sensitizers."

    Generally speaking HP5+ is or was Ilford's Tri-x, but the new Tri-x is different in terms of emulsion. I never had the chance to try the old emulsion I can't compare it.
    It is quite hard to compare them really I realized that while I am writing this, I use them both in 35mm and medium format. I have equal stocks of both.
    HP5 has more apparent grain at box speed with D76/ID11. Tri-X has finer grain at box speed, probably an advantage from the new emulsion.
    If you are going to overexpose and cut development, they are both fantastic performers.
    I think there would be no argument on HP5's exposure latitude and considering the new emulsion of Tri-X that makes sense.
    I won't hesitate to push HP5+ to ISO3200 and develop in D76/ID11, it won't be the best combo but it works better than Tri-X IMO.

    They don't look the same, yep that is very true. Even if we compare speed grain and sharpness they don't substitute each other.
    If you like Tmax I think Tri-X would appeal more to you. The same cliche goes you must try it for yourself, but really the look of both of films
    are quite different.

  4. #4
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,162
    Images
    148
    I would prefer to use Delta 400 in LF but it isn't made so I'm using HP5 instead.

    In LF HP5 is a great film, I use it with my Crown Graphic for hand held work here in Turkey and made some excellent 20"x16" prints from the negs on my last trip back to the UK. Certainly no trace of grain and superb tonality, gives negatives that are very easy to print.



    I'm processing HP5 in Pyrocat HD which is a great combinations, I may go follow in the footsteps of St Paul and go preach to the great unwashed Digital shooters with the Graphic & HP5 later today or tomorrow at Ephesus

    Ian

  5. #5
    Bosaiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sumner, Washington
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    400
    HP5+ is nice, I shoot a lot of it in 4x5. If it were available I'd shoot Neopan instead, but HP5+ is up there with the new Tri-X for me. Best way to tell is to buy a box and try it, of course.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15
    Reviving this thread. I have found myself with a 4x5 camera, and am trying to decide on B&W 400 speed film options. The cost of TMax 400 is about $1.80 a sheet, whereas the cost of HP5 is about $1.15 a sheet. Is TMax 400 so much better than HP5 that is worth spending an extra 55%?' I don't mind spending the extra if there's a significant advantage, but if not, I'd rather save the money.

    I would plan to use this for portraits and/or landscapes. Acros 100 might be a better choice for landscapes, but is even higher.

    If you have used both HP5 and Tmax 400 (in any format), what are your opinions?

  7. #7
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,579
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Both are excellent films. IMO save your pennies for now.

    In time, with much practice, you may find the real limits of HP5 when you do you can try something else. When you get to that point your experience with HP5 will help you to ask the right questions.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, Western Suburbs
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,431
    Dear Apugabug,

    If you are new to sheet film, buy a box of whatever is really cheap. There are just so many places to make one's first mistakes in handling and development. After that, whichever film you prefer when using medium format will tell you a lot.

    Neal Wydra

  9. #9
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,162
    Images
    148
    4 years on and a lot more experience of using HP5 in LF the print quality is stunning, might make me switch back to FP4 in LF after 27 years

    It's an excellent film with a touch more latitude than TMY.

    Ian

  10. #10
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,579
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    4 years on and a lot more experience of using HP5 in LF the print quality is stunning, might make me switch back to FP4 in LF after 27 years

    It's an excellent film with a touch more latitude than TMY.

    Ian
    My point exactly!
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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