You can get very similar results from both films, if you want a flatter image with Tri-X it can be pulled whereas HP5 contrast can be added in post or the darkroom. I’ve also shot both and enjoy them both but ended up using HP5 more for 35mm as it is more cost effective to bulk load. In 120 format I tend to lean towards tri-x for 400 film. The key is not so much the film you pick but more about learning how to control a film to get the results you want consistently.
Great vid! My observations mirror yours. Straight scans I prefer the punch of Tri-X, but HP5 definitely has more shadow detail. At box speed, I find Tri-X to be a 250-320 iso film in most developers except XTOL (true 400 speed) or diafine (1000 speed). HP5 is a true 400 iso film in my experience. I think I slightly prefer the grain structure of Tri-X, but overall HP5 is a much more versatile film
I’m am re-engaging with my film photography hobby from 50yrs ago. I used to waste allot of Tri-X until I started shooting it at 320. I thought my camera meter was off. I am amazed at the info diversity and depth for B&W film on the Internet. I used to use PlusX with D76 and Acufine, Pushing to 1600 and higher was beyond my imagination as a teenager. I didn’t know that one could use different developers fir different tonal effects. I was just happy if I could get a decent negative from one combination. My how things have changed.
I was ready to tell you why tri x is the one. I went back & forth. Back in the day it was almost all tri x for me. I rem buying hp for my medium format & when I blew it up to even just 8x8 I gulped. Ilford & such wasn't always easy to find back then. Mostly digi these days but once in while I load up one of the old cams & go for a walk. You gave me some good memories here. Thanks!
Thank you for producing this video. Back in the 60s I only shot Tri-X. At that time I often I desired more shadow detail; shot sports as in basketball and football. Seeing a direct comparison of Tri-X vs HP5 this video is excellent. My desire is to bulk roll film, now I have to decide HP5 vs Delta. Based on your video I am leaning HP5. Thank you.
Nice video - made me pull out my old Nikon FE and pop in a roll of Tri-X myself. Interesting for me to return back to such questions after years of digital cameras. Two questions: 1.) What is the size of the three b+w pictures hanging behind you, and 2) What is the music playing in the background? Thanks again, and cheers.
Hi man, love your videos. I mainly shoot Tri-X and lately I've changed my developer and it made me think about this comparison. So I wanted to come back and share some info with you. I used Rodinal and had very contrasty grainy images, which can turn out spectacularly good sometimes. But it doesn't scan nicely in most cases. Recently I've been developing with Xtol and it completely changed the results. Much finer grain and higher sharpness. Still a nice amount of contrast but with much more shadow detail. So in post I can add or lower the contrast as I want. It brings perspective when you compare one roll to another if you see that the results can be that different. Note that the developer you're using probably is developed for the Ilford film stock. Xtol and HC110 are developed to get the most out of Kodak black and white film stocks. Maybe an interesting topic for a next video would be to compare film stocks with their dedicated developer? Hope you appreciate this feedback. Take care man.
I'd like to see a comparison using the same camera, developed in Diafine and scans with identical adjustment. I liked your review. My preference is 400TX in Diafine.
I am mesmerized by the 3 moles inside your left hand. Never seen that before. Have not shot b&w film in many years, and when I did, it was T-Max and I did not care for the results I got. Your video has convinced me to shoot some Tri-X, both pushed and at box speed.
Good try, but there are some things in this comparative that have no sense. When somebody push a film form ISO 400 to ISO 1600 will not be to shot outside at the mid of a sunny day. Normally it done to shot indoor or street at evening/night. As you have seen the behavior of the films have changed in your only one indoor picture. Indoor and street night light conditions affect to films according with their spectral sensitivity. The other thing wrong in you test is to process both with the same parameters and developer. I will understand if you process HP5 with the Ilford developer and Tri-X with HC-110 with times defined by the manufacturer for each film. It is something that many people don't use to do in comparative film test. Every film have their "primary" developer and time and not always match with other films (an less across different brands). Finally, lens affect to image contrast. Using the cheapest Nikon's lens and an expensive Leica looks not too much equal. Nikon 50 1.8 E is great a lens for the price it have, but you must be agree with me that is not comparable to the Leica lens. Design, glass quality and lens coating are far away one to the other. More balanced will be to use a Nikkor 1.4 that is less far to the Leica.
Great video. Not sure why T-max always gets left off these kind of comparisons? Would be worth throwing into the mix next time? Unfortunately the lens can affect the contrast too, so to be completely scientific you definitely should have switched lenses say half way through the day.
Just ordered my first film camera, it's in the mail, the Olympus OM-1. I sloooowly would love to change/incorporate film on my street photography channel, so I'm excited. Btw, I have bought both of these film as well to try out. So this video was very helpful. Stylistically, I prefer the punchiness of the TriX, BUT I can wait to see and judge my own photos.
Great video. Subscribed today. The wo films in my experience end up looking the same in prints. Why? Because HP5 is a bit flat so people increase the contrast. Trix is too contrasty so people decrease contrast and lighten some of the shadows. Results therefore end up being very similar in practice! I prefer the more striking look of trix, and i find that i can lighten some of the shadow areas to get some of the detail back if i want it. Both great films!
I'm interested to know how these compare to Ilford FP4 Plus. What is the grain like in comparison with 125 ISO on the FP4 vs the grain of HP5 and Tri-X, or how it compares pushing FP4.
Im trying to figure out one black and white slow film to stick with, I usually use Delta 100. I have a roll of Fp4, Tmax 100 and D100 but unfortunately only two backs for my RZ when I get a third back I want to do a comparison of the three and see the differences.
I am very interested in these in 6x6. Specifically I am preparing for a project of exploring the limits of the Kodak DuaFlex (Glorified box camera). Since the lens on mine has no exposure control exposure is by latitude, film speed, and processing. So bright sunny days low-med speed such as FP4 or Ortho 80, on overcast days 400spd, or deep shade (woods walk) 400 pushed. In this application I suspect that the higher speeds would be used where added contrast is welcome. Interesting to consider.
Informative video thanks for making, I've always shot hp5, for the same reasons you've mentioned here, it captures more dynamic range, giving you more control either in lightroom or the dark room. It's also a beast for shooting landscape on 5x4.
I always work on the basis that you want to get the maximum information on the neg. The final contrast is down to the print, whether from the neg. or from the digital file. The Tri-x / developer combination may have slightly higher edge-contrast which make it look sharper, but they both look to have pretty fine grain overall.
This is a great way to compare films. Thank-you! I can see the desirable properties of Tri-X, but they all take away from 'tonality' which is very important to me most of the time: the tone curve is just right and it looks like you are looking through a filter into a real life situation. In situations where Tri-X shines, it completely discards tonality, instead representing each of the major tones so that you can recognise the image. The first contrasty concrete photo shows it well: Tri-x shows a (pleasant) black and white stylised representation, but the HP5 feels like you're looking at a real place
I admit to being a HP5+ user, but I develop it in Rodinal 1:50 which ups the contrast, and maybe a little sharpness but not at the same level as Ilfosol 3. I like TriX on sunny days (not a typo) for the contrast when going for those Fan Ho geometric shapes. Sharpness is overrated in digital and is practically a non entity in film. Look at the masters like Koudelka, Erwitt, HCB, Adams, Mark, and to throw an Aussie in, Parke, I can’t think of a truly sharp image between them. I’m sure Mary Ellen Mark and Trent Parke both shot/shoot TriX, but Trent Parke (the horses image and the one with the cars) are purposely unsharp. I’m not saying we should all go out and shoot blurred images, but when shooting black and white as long as it’s in focus composition and light are far more important. Great video, really informative seeing both images together.
Tri-X is the clear winner. How did you process these? I DO use HP5+ for portrait work, for the soft contrast which helps with skin so much. Mostly I shoot slow films like Rollei 25 Ortho, it’s just a fantastic film. But may get some Tri-X out of the freezer and load it in the Mamiya M645 Pro. Usually I’d just use it in Rodinal 1:100 semi stand. Will be interesting to see the results.
I prefer TriX. I like the more classic look of it. The classic out of the camera look is one of many reasons I love film photography. The flatter look of HP5 looks a little more modern and updated. I love both stocks but give the edge to TriX. Pushing film sent me here. Gotta do some binge watching now.
Great video, it confirmed my thoughts. As much as I love trix as my go to film for general street shooting or more careful zone system applications, hp5 retains more shadows, I believe there are 1 to 2 thirds of a stop in speed difference depending on the developer. That being said I find hp5's mid tones way too flat so I think it's perfect for pushing. As long as one takes care of the shadows my opinion is that trix gives nicer tones due to the higher separation and midtones contrast.
Nice video. Kodak TMax p3200 is coming. Would you make a video to compare tmax 3200 and delta 3200? at box speed, push to 6400, 12800, or pull to 800 or 1600? I think that must be very interesting.
So, same aperture, shutter speed, developer, dev times, but completely different lenses? Not quite a match, then, might as well develop both in different developers
Hp5 at box speed is so flat and lifeless, I really only like using it for pushing to 1600 and higher. Tri-X always gives me a look that I like either at 400 or pushed, yea you can add contrast but Tri-X does it in a special way. I feel like Hp5 has a really fat middle grey and trix is more linear but the way it renders things transitioning into shadow is so nice, I can never get the same look adjusting contrast/shadow sliders in LR or in the darkroom. That said, my favorite is FP4+!
I like hp5 more I think it’s more forgiving in the developing stage esp with temperatures being off but I do like tri x too it just never comes out good when I developed it
I was and always will be in the HP5 camp, maybe because I grown up with it, in the time without any digital camera around. That being said, Jospeh said HP5 appeares flat. From my experience that might be true, but that depends on developer - HP5 really shines if developed in Ilford's Microphen developer. I know, many people don't like to use it cause you have to cook / disolve it first. In my mind developer is much more important than the lens used, all do the test would be more fair that way 😁
First, get a refund for your scans. There was a lot of dust and scratches on them for being professional scans. Then, save a bunch of money by learning to scan your film yourself with your digital camera. B&W film is especially easy to scan because all you need to do to convert to a positive is to flip the tone curve in post and do some minor adjusting to the blacks and whites. Super easy to do and renders sharper images than film scanners. Doing it his way allows you to be in control of your own scans. Shooting them RAW allows you to extract the shadows because you have a RAW file to deal with so the whole contrast thing is a non-issue. Personally, I think HP5 has a brown wash to the shadows that I don't really like, Tri-X seems a little more neutral in that regard
You cannot really be comparing sharpness and detail when using a leica lens next to a nikon one. Even if the nikons can be amazing, I don't think it is that fair, also scans don't look that good, so I don't think it is accurate to look at these to use for your comparison. Anyways, still loved the video! Thanks!
Nikon 50 1.8 Series E is an amazing lens, don't let the plastic construction mislead you, but both lenses will exhibit completely different characteristics that render comparisons moot
alvareo92 Please! The lack of multi-coating on all of the Series E lenses would by itself account for a significant part, if not all, of the contrast differences shown here.
You could have cropped the scanned files so they would actually show the same spot, so it would be easier to see the potential difference in tonality and contrast. As for sharpness, you would need to crop much closer. Also leica and nikon glass behaves somewhat (maybe marginally) differently, so here, now you have a reason why you need another leica. (or nikon for that matter)
Great video, appreciate your work mate! HP5 and TRIX are both versatile films, on the 35mm camera, it does seem that HP5 outperforms TRIX when being pushed. However, I'm not sure this is true for medium format cameras, especially large negative size like 6X7. Since the larger negative may allow the film to capture the details and maintain the shadow at the same time.
Why does everyone push film nowadays? We never used to do this unless it was too dark. And then we used tmax3200 and rated it around 1250-1600 for more speed. Remember a negative is your template, not a final image. The more information on your template, usually the better. Also an slr will generally be more focus accurate over a rangefinder. That is why you think the Tri x was sharper.
"You cab always add contrast". Yes, you could put green filter in front of the lens of the HP5 and / or develop it faster in the warmer developer to add contrast for example. Or you could lower the contrast of the TriX by developing it with less contrasty developer and maybe longer in 18C like Kodak's D-23 or Ilford's Microphen. Skip editing, do it rightly straight out of camera ;-)
I don't think using either of these films at 1600 would be my idea of going out and shooting in bright sunlight. But if you can, why not? , I suppose. Seems to me the TriX just looks nicer generally and the "scooped shadows in sunlight" issue could easily be addressed by giving, in camera, a stop more exposure than you normally would and then printing the final negative out at a flatter contrast, or whatever the equivalent is using the scanning->digital route. But since 1600 shooting will mostly be done in relatively diffuse light (overcast or indoors) that's where you really want to concentrate the comparison between the two, and I think you'll find TriX wins that one - Hp5 just looks too darned 'grey'.
Tri-X all the way for me. I like the extra grain and sharp contrast that is why I shoot it. When I don’t want that I am shooting a fine grain 100 film. I work in the darkroom and there is a huge difference between a wet print and a scan.
I find Tri-X unworkable in the darkroom. HP-5's acutance can be increased by shooting at your exact personal speed (as opposed to box speed) and with the precise development time. HC-110 also gives it more punch.
Too many uncontrolled variables to here to make a meaningful comparison, although I appreciate the effort: shutter speeds, lens contrast, and degree of development are all assumed to be of equal effect, which they are probably not. To do this carefully, use the same camera and lens. Determine development times by equalizing a test highlight subject, which will require a densitometer to measure negative highlight densities. Then shoot your field tests for apparent performance differences. Anything short of that effort is just kidding around. I've never seen a YT video seriously present this type of comparison, but they sure bring out the fanboys for one film or another.
You can get very similar results from both films, if you want a flatter image with Tri-X it can be pulled whereas HP5 contrast can be added in post or the darkroom. I’ve also shot both and enjoy them both but ended up using HP5 more for 35mm as it is more cost effective to bulk load. In 120 format I tend to lean towards tri-x for 400 film. The key is not so much the film you pick but more about learning how to control a film to get the results you want consistently.
Yes both can be printed to the same result, in the dark. Keep in mind Tri x isn’t 400.
@@nickfanzo What is the real iso of Tri-x?
@@nickfanzo What is it?
@@diegoborrajo1323 around 250
These are pretty much the only 2 films I shoot these days. Thanks for the side by side. Nice work!
Thanks a lot!!! But..... How it is possible for you to shoot iso1600 at a bright/sunny day??? what is your fastest shutter speed? Or do you use a ND?
Great comparison, spot on conclusion too! Agree it's good to have that extra versatility to add contrast later.
A big reason why I don’t see the point in pushing in the sun. You’re losing detail for no reason.
Great vid! My observations mirror yours. Straight scans I prefer the punch of Tri-X, but HP5 definitely has more shadow detail. At box speed, I find Tri-X to be a 250-320 iso film in most developers except XTOL (true 400 speed) or diafine (1000 speed). HP5 is a true 400 iso film in my experience. I think I slightly prefer the grain structure of Tri-X, but overall HP5 is a much more versatile film
I’m am re-engaging with my film photography hobby from 50yrs ago. I used to waste allot of Tri-X until I started shooting it at 320. I thought my camera meter was off.
I am amazed at the info diversity and depth for B&W film on the Internet.
I used to use PlusX with D76 and Acufine, Pushing to 1600 and higher was beyond my imagination as a teenager. I didn’t know that one could use different developers fir different tonal effects. I was just happy if I could get a decent negative from one combination. My how things have changed.
In my country, TRI X is 80% more expensive than HP5.
Andrew Criswell yeah it’s new expensive in Australia too, but not that much
Shootswithcoops in Thailand, HP5 is about AUD 8.20 and TRI X is AUD 14.20.
that's why the tariffs! :)
Order from the US
Yeah that sucks.
Very helpful!!! I wondered, how did you meter these shots - for highlights (to get extra contrast) or shadows for more detail there?
Great video. Thank you for taking the time. Can you tell me which Nikon your shooting with?
I was ready to tell you why tri x is the one. I went back & forth. Back in the day it was almost all tri x for me. I rem buying hp for my medium format & when I blew it up to even just 8x8 I gulped. Ilford & such wasn't always easy to find back then. Mostly digi these days but once in while I load up one of the old cams & go for a walk. You gave me some good memories here. Thanks!
One thing I have to ask is whether you are using a hand-held independent light meter? Were both sets taken at identical exposure values?
Great video! Very interesting to see them being compared directly like this.
Very nice and very helpful little video. Thank you so much for making it.
Can you do a video detailing your developing process? Also do you use an Ilford developer for Kodak triX?
Thank you for producing this video. Back in the 60s I only shot Tri-X. At that time I often I desired more shadow detail; shot sports as in basketball and football. Seeing a direct comparison of Tri-X vs HP5 this video is excellent. My desire is to bulk roll film, now I have to decide HP5 vs Delta. Based on your video I am leaning HP5. Thank you.
Nice video - made me pull out my old Nikon FE and pop in a roll of Tri-X myself. Interesting for me to return back to such questions after years of digital cameras. Two questions: 1.) What is the size of the three b+w pictures hanging behind you, and 2) What is the music playing in the background? Thanks again, and cheers.
Erik Dorset thanks man. There 5x7 darkroom prints I made. Music is something I pulled off epidemic sound
Hi man, love your videos. I mainly shoot Tri-X and lately I've changed my developer and it made me think about this comparison. So I wanted to come back and share some info with you. I used Rodinal and had very contrasty grainy images, which can turn out spectacularly good sometimes. But it doesn't scan nicely in most cases. Recently I've been developing with Xtol and it completely changed the results. Much finer grain and higher sharpness. Still a nice amount of contrast but with much more shadow detail. So in post I can add or lower the contrast as I want. It brings perspective when you compare one roll to another if you see that the results can be that different. Note that the developer you're using probably is developed for the Ilford film stock. Xtol and HC110 are developed to get the most out of Kodak black and white film stocks. Maybe an interesting topic for a next video would be to compare film stocks with their dedicated developer? Hope you appreciate this feedback. Take care man.
GeoffreyEduard thanks for reaching out Geoff. Appreciate the feedback and support
@@shootswithcoops you're welcome. Take care man
I'd like to see a comparison using the same camera, developed in Diafine and scans with identical adjustment. I liked your review. My preference is 400TX in Diafine.
I am mesmerized by the 3 moles inside your left hand. Never seen that before.
Have not shot b&w film in many years, and when I did, it was T-Max and I did not care for the results I got.
Your video has convinced me to shoot some Tri-X, both pushed and at box speed.
T max can be amazing, but it is very fickle and you need to be perfect with your metering and exposures.
Top video mate I enjoyed that very useful I’ve been interested in the two pushed so this is been very very helpful
Good try, but there are some things in this comparative that have no sense.
When somebody push a film form ISO 400 to ISO 1600 will not be to shot outside at the mid of a sunny day. Normally it done to shot indoor or street at evening/night. As you have seen the behavior of the films have changed in your only one indoor picture. Indoor and street night light conditions affect to films according with their spectral sensitivity.
The other thing wrong in you test is to process both with the same parameters and developer. I will understand if you process HP5 with the Ilford developer and Tri-X with HC-110 with times defined by the manufacturer for each film. It is something that many people don't use to do in comparative film test. Every film have their "primary" developer and time and not always match with other films (an less across different brands).
Finally, lens affect to image contrast. Using the cheapest Nikon's lens and an expensive Leica looks not too much equal. Nikon 50 1.8 E is great a lens for the price it have, but you must be agree with me that is not comparable to the Leica lens. Design, glass quality and lens coating are far away one to the other. More balanced will be to use a Nikkor 1.4 that is less far to the Leica.
Great video. Not sure why T-max always gets left off these kind of comparisons? Would be worth throwing into the mix next time?
Unfortunately the lens can affect the contrast too, so to be completely scientific you definitely should have switched lenses say half way through the day.
Full agree.
Just ordered my first film camera, it's in the mail, the Olympus OM-1. I sloooowly would love to change/incorporate film on my street photography channel, so I'm excited. Btw, I have bought both of these film as well to try out. So this video was very helpful. Stylistically, I prefer the punchiness of the TriX, BUT I can wait to see and judge my own photos.
Great video. Thank you so much. I wanted to see something just like this. It only confirms my love for Tri-X.
Hi, what was the exact Nikon camera model? I can't make it out.
Great video. Subscribed today. The wo films in my experience end up looking the same in prints. Why? Because HP5 is a bit flat so people increase the contrast. Trix is too contrasty so people decrease contrast and lighten some of the shadows. Results therefore end up being very similar in practice! I prefer the more striking look of trix, and i find that i can lighten some of the shadow areas to get some of the detail back if i want it. Both great films!
I'm interested to know how these compare to Ilford FP4 Plus. What is the grain like in comparison with 125 ISO on the FP4 vs the grain of HP5 and Tri-X, or how it compares pushing FP4.
The8TrackChap hmm sounds like a video idea lol
Im trying to figure out one black and white slow film to stick with, I usually use Delta 100. I have a roll of Fp4, Tmax 100 and D100 but unfortunately only two backs for my RZ when I get a third back I want to do a comparison of the three and see the differences.
I am very interested in these in 6x6. Specifically I am preparing for a project of exploring the limits of the Kodak DuaFlex (Glorified box camera). Since the lens on mine has no exposure control exposure is by latitude, film speed, and processing.
So bright sunny days low-med speed such as FP4 or Ortho 80, on overcast days 400spd, or deep shade (woods walk) 400 pushed. In this application I suspect that the higher speeds would be used where added contrast is welcome. Interesting to consider.
Informative video thanks for making, I've always shot hp5, for the same reasons you've mentioned here, it captures more dynamic range, giving you more control either in lightroom or the dark room. It's also a beast for shooting landscape on 5x4.
Great comparison. Thanks!
I always work on the basis that you want to get the maximum information on the neg. The final contrast is down to the print, whether from the neg. or from the digital file. The Tri-x / developer combination may have slightly higher edge-contrast which make it look sharper, but they both look to have pretty fine grain overall.
Great vid as usual mate ...love shooting with HP5, but the Tri-X looked good as well. I add a bit of contrast to HP5 and Acros as well anyway.
This is a great way to compare films. Thank-you! I can see the desirable properties of Tri-X, but they all take away from 'tonality' which is very important to me most of the time: the tone curve is just right and it looks like you are looking through a filter into a real life situation. In situations where Tri-X shines, it completely discards tonality, instead representing each of the major tones so that you can recognise the image.
The first contrasty concrete photo shows it well: Tri-x shows a (pleasant) black and white stylised representation, but the HP5 feels like you're looking at a real place
I admit to being a HP5+ user, but I develop it in Rodinal 1:50 which ups the contrast, and maybe a little sharpness but not at the same level as Ilfosol 3. I like TriX on sunny days (not a typo) for the contrast when going for those Fan Ho geometric shapes. Sharpness is overrated in digital and is practically a non entity in film. Look at the masters like Koudelka, Erwitt, HCB, Adams, Mark, and to throw an Aussie in, Parke, I can’t think of a truly sharp image between them. I’m sure Mary Ellen Mark and Trent Parke both shot/shoot TriX, but Trent Parke (the horses image and the one with the cars) are purposely unsharp. I’m not saying we should all go out and shoot blurred images, but when shooting black and white as long as it’s in focus composition and light are far more important. Great video, really informative seeing both images together.
I love them both but I would totally agree with you that HP5 is amazing for retaining detail in the shadows when you need to push it :-)
Tri-X is the clear winner. How did you process these? I DO use HP5+ for portrait work, for the soft contrast which helps with skin so much. Mostly I shoot slow films like Rollei 25 Ortho, it’s just a fantastic film. But may get some Tri-X out of the freezer and load it in the Mamiya M645 Pro. Usually I’d just use it in Rodinal 1:100 semi stand. Will be interesting to see the results.
That E series lens is a beast for sub $100 ..... great vid .... I prefer Tri X but will use HP5 without hesitation
I can never make up my mind between the two.
I prefer TriX. I like the more classic look of it. The classic out of the camera look is one of many reasons I love film photography. The flatter look of HP5 looks a little more modern and updated. I love both stocks but give the edge to TriX. Pushing film sent me here. Gotta do some binge watching now.
Great video, it confirmed my thoughts. As much as I love trix as my go to film for general street shooting or more careful zone system applications, hp5 retains more shadows, I believe there are 1 to 2 thirds of a stop in speed difference depending on the developer. That being said I find hp5's mid tones way too flat so I think it's perfect for pushing. As long as one takes care of the shadows my opinion is that trix gives nicer tones due to the higher separation and midtones contrast.
By the way could you do a comparison between delta 3200 and t max p3200?
What bag do you use? It looks great!
Anthony Teague no idea, my fiancée found it for me at a thrift store
Perth! Two trips there in the 1980s. I loved it there.
Thanks for the review !;-)
Nice video. Kodak TMax p3200 is coming. Would you make a video to compare tmax 3200 and delta 3200? at box speed, push to 6400, 12800, or pull to 800 or 1600? I think that must be very interesting.
Zhijia WANG sounds like a really good video idea
new here from pushing film! i like and subscribe
Is that a Nikon EM? Lovely!!
So, same aperture, shutter speed, developer, dev times, but completely different lenses? Not quite a match, then, might as well develop both in different developers
Nice comparison! I prefer HP 5! I push the film to 1600 all the time!
Hp5 at box speed is so flat and lifeless, I really only like using it for pushing to 1600 and higher. Tri-X always gives me a look that I like either at 400 or pushed, yea you can add contrast but Tri-X does it in a special way. I feel like Hp5 has a really fat middle grey and trix is more linear but the way it renders things transitioning into shadow is so nice, I can never get the same look adjusting contrast/shadow sliders in LR or in the darkroom. That said, my favorite is FP4+!
Jup, HP5 almost has a digital camera kind of rendering.
I like hp5 more I think it’s more forgiving in the developing stage esp with temperatures being off but I do like tri x too it just never comes out good when I developed it
I was and always will be in the HP5 camp, maybe because I grown up with it, in the time without any digital camera around. That being said, Jospeh said HP5 appeares flat. From my experience that might be true, but that depends on developer - HP5 really shines if developed in Ilford's Microphen developer.
I know, many people don't like to use it cause you have to cook / disolve it first.
In my mind developer is much more important than the lens used, all do the test would be more fair that way 😁
I like pushed film but most of the time I have to go shoot tends to be during bright daylight.
First, get a refund for your scans. There was a lot of dust and scratches on them for being professional scans. Then, save a bunch of money by learning to scan your film yourself with your digital camera. B&W film is especially easy to scan because all you need to do to convert to a positive is to flip the tone curve in post and do some minor adjusting to the blacks and whites. Super easy to do and renders sharper images than film scanners. Doing it his way allows you to be in control of your own scans. Shooting them RAW allows you to extract the shadows because you have a RAW file to deal with so the whole contrast thing is a non-issue. Personally, I think HP5 has a brown wash to the shadows that I don't really like, Tri-X seems a little more neutral in that regard
I can see why Henri Cartier-Bresson loved the HP series.
How do you know this?
@@azzalos He said in one of his interviews that he used Ilford's hp series heavily. In his era, it was the HP3
You cannot really be comparing sharpness and detail when using a leica lens next to a nikon one. Even if the nikons can be amazing, I don't think it is that fair, also scans don't look that good, so I don't think it is accurate to look at these to use for your comparison. Anyways, still loved the video! Thanks!
Oscar Lallier scanned with a Fuji fronteria. Don't know how much better of a scan your going to get
oh, ok, thought they looked a bit weird...
Nikon 50 1.8 Series E is an amazing lens, don't let the plastic construction mislead you, but both lenses will exhibit completely different characteristics that render comparisons moot
these are differents grade lenses. the 50e can be cool, its not the same.
alvareo92 Please! The lack of multi-coating on all of the Series E lenses would by itself account for a significant part, if not all, of the contrast differences shown here.
I do like using the HP5 in my film projects but I am trying the Ilford ISO 125 to see how it works in day light and night photography. Cheers, Flood!
thx mate, well done!
You could have cropped the scanned files so they would actually show the same spot, so it would be easier to see the potential difference in tonality and contrast. As for sharpness, you would need to crop much closer.
Also leica and nikon glass behaves somewhat (maybe marginally) differently, so here, now you have a reason why you need another leica. (or nikon for that matter)
Great video, appreciate your work mate! HP5 and TRIX are both versatile films, on the 35mm camera, it does seem that HP5 outperforms TRIX when being pushed. However, I'm not sure this is true for medium format cameras, especially large negative size like 6X7. Since the larger negative may allow the film to capture the details and maintain the shadow at the same time.
韩乔宇 not true. Exposure is per area unit and not dependant on the total area. Have you ever seen a lightmeter that has a format setting on it?
Why does everyone push film nowadays? We never used to do this unless it was too dark. And then we used tmax3200 and rated it around 1250-1600 for more speed.
Remember a negative is your template, not a final image. The more information on your template, usually the better.
Also an slr will generally be more focus accurate over a rangefinder. That is why you think the Tri x was sharper.
What does @ 1600 mean? ¼ the shutter speed?
Just subbed because of your help!
I’ve never really enjoyed shooting HP5 at box speed. Like it pushed more because I’m a contrast boi. Tri-X for life👌
Good video. The Nikon and Leica are different on their own though.
Thanks for the post.
"You cab always add contrast". Yes, you could put green filter in front of the lens of the HP5 and / or develop it faster in the warmer developer to add contrast for example. Or you could lower the contrast of the TriX by developing it with less contrasty developer and maybe longer in 18C like Kodak's D-23 or Ilford's Microphen. Skip editing, do it rightly straight out of camera ;-)
I don't think using either of these films at 1600 would be my idea of going out and shooting in bright sunlight. But if you can, why not? , I suppose. Seems to me the TriX just looks nicer generally and the "scooped shadows in sunlight" issue could easily be addressed by giving, in camera, a stop more exposure than you normally would and then printing the final negative out at a flatter contrast, or whatever the equivalent is using the scanning->digital route. But since 1600 shooting will mostly be done in relatively diffuse light (overcast or indoors) that's where you really want to concentrate the comparison between the two, and I think you'll find TriX wins that one - Hp5 just looks too darned 'grey'.
But this test was shot with different cameras and lenses... so that means the contrast and sharpness will be affected...
Excellent video! I preferred HP5.
Cant go wrong with either. I may have to try hp5 for night time shooting.
Tri-X all the way for me. I like the extra grain and sharp contrast that is why I shoot it. When I don’t want that I am shooting a fine grain 100 film. I work in the darkroom and there is a huge difference between a wet print and a scan.
I find Tri-X unworkable in the darkroom. HP-5's acutance can be increased by shooting at your exact personal speed (as opposed to box speed) and with the precise development time. HC-110 also gives it more punch.
Want to do this again but with only a push to 800?
Too many uncontrolled variables to here to make a meaningful comparison, although I appreciate the effort: shutter speeds, lens contrast, and degree of development are all assumed to be of equal effect, which they are probably not. To do this carefully, use the same camera and lens. Determine development times by equalizing a test highlight subject, which will require a densitometer to measure negative highlight densities. Then shoot your field tests for apparent performance differences. Anything short of that effort is just kidding around. I've never seen a YT video seriously present this type of comparison, but they sure bring out the fanboys for one film or another.
Nikon EM for the win :D
20 seconds telling us what the video is about when the title says it already 🤷♂️. Ok then.
Probably easier just to shoot at box speed in those conditions lol
Tom :/ that wasn’t the point of the video
HP5 every time.
Im camp krusty
HP5
Please do not talk with your hand over your mouth. Your voice is muffled verses clear.