Is good to see a second try on HP5. There are other films that turned out over or under developed that deserve a second chance... eventually... I'm sure they take a lot of time and money. Thanks for your work!
I used to use HP5+ in large format work, but I gave it up because the high values don’t separate as well as I like. Your test shows the same result as I got from HP5+. Because of this trait, it makes an excellent portrait film (smoothes out lighter skin tones = more flattering) but it’s not as good for landscape work, which benefits from good separation of the bright values.
The results "on paper" match the curves: with HP5+, the highlights are flattening out. But what the curves also show: technically, the HP5+ has a higher sensitivity in the shadow areas. Both aspects of the HP5+ make it so responsive to and useful for pushing. This matches my own experience with HP5+. What did surprise me was the (slightly) finer grain of the Tri-X - but one has to keep in mind that this is the *modern* version of Tri-X, which was re-formulated sometime at the beginning of this century, while the HP5+ is a much older formulation. And it does keep up astonishingly well.
Interesting! I do a lot of large format portraiture, almost exclusively with HP5+, and my experience has been similar. I've thought of HP5+ as "high global contrast, low local contrast" but it's nice to be able to add some nuance to that. Thanks for doing the legwork
Hi Greg. These videos are really great. The care you have taken to make the conditions reproducible across all the films is invaluable. In this video, unlike the others, you did not discuss the H&D curves. Is there nothing to see there?
All the other curves were made years ago in a few days and the voice overs recorded over a couple hours. I didn’t do the HP5 one then for some reason. I dug out the film today and measured the curve while editing the video. I have a bout of COVID right now and just didn’t feel like talking. Nothing I say would provide more information than the curves themselves.
The HP5 highlights seem a little brighter and a little hotter than the Tri-X highlights. Also, the HP5 grain seems a little more obvious, especially on the background material.
Interesting. I used HP5+ previously and thought it didn’t have as much contrast as Tri-X with far more “grays”. I’ll have to get a few rolls again for another try.
I just jumped back into film this year. HP5 was the first b&w film I tried. I have to say I'm not a big fan. There's too much grain for my liking. Maybe it was the way I shot it. That may have been the roll I had forgot to change the ISO from 100 to 400. So far my favorite is Tmax 100. I like the time grain. But you need a sunny day for that.
Five minutes in and if this were a blind test I would have failed because I would have bet yo money that your image on the left was Tri-X and the right was HP5. Does this suggest I have been doing something wrong? I've used published times and temps for a couple different developers. Thanks for sharing.
Never under-develop HP5+, better go over-developing (not quite into pushing territory, but even that will help). I never liked HP5+ in the past, then started to use it for 4x5, then made the error to pull it (because I thought it would give me better shadows) - this was when I learned that HP5+ has a very long curve that massively flattens out at the highlights, which does better react to regular exposure and over-development (or under-exposure and push-development).
Having shot both quite a bit and developed them in the same developers, (all most all in XTOL 1:1) I’d say comparing them is almost splitting hairs: Tri-X is a tat finer and tighter grain with a tat more sharpness. HP5 is a tat more sensitive with slightly rougher, softer grain. HP5 tends to be a bit hotter and flatter in certain conditions.
I do appreciate that you tried to keep this comparison as "dry" as possible, but I also like that extra opinion on top that you usually have :) For me, Ilford films have a lot going for them compared to Kodak: Straight curve most of the way = more realistic. Slightly more yellow sensitive = slightly more pleasing skin tones and blue skies, you don't need to carry a yellow filter. Honestly, in this comparison in particular, Kodak looks a bit orthochromatic, which is not so flattering. Slight taper to the top of the curve = easier to retain a more pleasing transition between almost white to full blown white in the print. It's also more pleasing for skin tones, and is of course the "standard" adjustment/feature to go for with this in digital photography as well. Going the opposite way (ie increasing the separation in the brightest highlights) is usually not what you want except in some niche fashion photography where you want that metallic skin look, which I don't think most people otherwise appreciate. Overall I feel that Tri-X is more distracting than HP5. If you want more distortion but in a somewhat pleasing way (as opposed to Kodak), I'd say look at Fomapan 100 (EI 50 imo).
Great write up. I recently got into 4x5 and from using hp5 and fp4, I bought a box of fomapan 100. Wow I’ve struggled. I went through 20 sheets and the exposure wasn’t what my metering for strobes was saying. I decided to get a roll of Foma 100 and bracket ei’s up to -3 and +3 as I have a roll back film holder so can use the same camera and lens. I just scanned the negs. In the frame I have the talent hold a 18% grey card. The meter read f11 1/15th in open shade (ei100). The +3 stops shot was rendering the grey card middle perfect 18% grey?!?!? The picture looked a more wash out grey. I developed in hc110 dilation H for 10mins. I do feel foma has potential but wow it’s a struggle to find that sweat spot
@@soulstart89 I would recommend diving into the zone system. I think you've ostensibly reached the point where NOT using the zone system is much more pain than just doing it. The zone system is not just for nerds, it's there because it's actually quite necessary once you reach a certain level. If you make sure you meter different parts of the scene carefully (take a shot with your phone and write the measurements right there in the picture), you'll be able to tell how you need to rate your film in order to get the results that you expect. No more guesswork. Tweak your EI (through testing different exposure settings) until you get your thinnest part of the negative at zone II (which is the same as -3 stops). Even better if you get a step wedge but what I just explained will get you close. I find that Fomapan 100 = EI 50, Fomapan 400 = EI 200. Ilford Delta 400 = EI 400, for example. Bracketing is for amateurs ;) The zone system is Zen.
@ hey thanks for the response. I actually use the zone system. For example when I first got the fomapan 100 I place talent into n zone 6 as she has light skin. My strobe lighting was a ratio of 2:1 with background being 1 stop lower than the key. I then tried rating fomapan 100 ei50 and then reducing developing by 20%. And placing talent in zone 6. Still weird. I only bracketed a roll on 120 foma to get a better understanding and only have to develop once. I was on a photo job today and my tried and trusted sekonic L558 died. I’ve never dropped it and also kept it in the case it came in. When I was metering light for the gig it peaced out. They now go for around 400-500 🤮. I couldn’t agree more that the zone system is essential. It’s a great way to visualise how a negative will come out. When I bought a box of HP5 and did the exact set up on the foma the lighting ratios was how I metered them. I will say I switched from Developer ID11 to HC110 as it would be much more expensive to develop with ID11 1+2 compared to HC110 dilution H (1+63). Can I ask what developer you use with fomapan 100 and the times you use? Again really appreciate you sharing
@@soulstart89 Regarding the zone system, that's great! What I'd like to point towards is determining your zone II, as that will help in determining the exact latitude in your shadows, and your proper EI. That way you will know that you pulled your zones as thin as possible, not just maximizing the film speed, but crucially controlling the strong knee in the highlights. It's often the knee that will mess with you, if it places itself where you didn't want it. Yes I decided to go for the 858 a while back, because the price for used ones is so high. Seconic is still clueless about the zone system, which is baffling to me since that should be the most important use case for a spot meter. It's still a hassle to use fully with the zone system. I appreciate the light sensitivity, and I hope that it will last longer since it's newly manufactured. We'll see. That bright color display is a bit obnoxious at night though. And it takes forever to power up. Etc... For Fomapan 100 I use TMAX developer, currently for 5 minutes at 20C; 4 minutes 18 seconds at 22C; 4 minutes 12 seconds at 24C. Not sure what that is in F if that's what you prefer, sorry. Note that these times are for rotary development/continuous agitation. If you agitate manually then you should add a bit to the times, perhaps 15%? The reason I use TMAX developer is its keeping properties, film capacity, ease of handling/mixing. As well as (as far as I know) not being surpassed by any other developer when it comes to performance (grain size, shadow detail, resolution without adding artificial accutance/ringing, etc). It was basically Kodak's last big effort into coming up with their best general purpose b/w developer. There was some later work into more environmentally friendly alternatives, but not for improving performance. The naming was unfortunate, I think they intended it to mean "the next big thing". Instead people seem to mistake it for some specialty developer, which it's absolutely not. I know I should do a comparison between developers some day. What makes me avoid it is that I'd throw away large quantities of the developers that I didn't prefer.
@ metering natural light seems so much more logical to me compared to metering strobes. You meter the light (key light compared to the shadows). 💡 whatever my incident light meter reads as exposure is “middle grey”. So in fact I could test what zone 2 is. Three stops down from key light (which is zone 5 )Would be zone 2 for fill light. So I can test with strobes. Thanks!! I called manfrotto this morning due to in the uk they handle repairs. They don’t have anymore spares😤. I really am not a fan of the new touchscreen sekonic light meters. They feel so much long winded to achieve what I can from the 558 or 758. I agree the zone system was always a hassle to use. The 558 is convenient as it has a very good incident/flash option as well as a spot meter. Helps with bag space lol. I’m based in the UK so I use Celsius,normal for me. I never looked into tmax due to exactly what you said “I thought it was made for tmax film” lol. I presume it’s similar to ilford ddx? I use the mod54 to develop 6 sheets of 4x5. That requires 1 litre to develop so tmax 1+4 means 200ml of developer. 30 sheets per bottle. I will Have to give it a try. I’ve HC110, rodinal and a pack of unmixed ID11. Comparing can be a LONGWINDED process. I would love to compare many developers for example pyro developers and diafine but it’s long.
I think it would be interesting if/when you'd do a comparison between developers as well. Not just for looking at any differences in aspects of image quality, but also user friendliness, keeping properties, etc. When I started out in the 90:s my first few films were with D76. I then switched to the latest hottest thing: TMAX-developer. I've stuck with it since, even though I stopped using TMAX films in the early 00's. I appreciate that it keeps forever compared to the others, and that you don't have to wait for it to cool down. I know that it's supposed to "retain full speed in the shadows", fine grain etc which is important to me, but I haven't challenged that myself. While I've compared film stocks, I haven't gotten myself to actually compare developer performance properly.
I guess I am missing something. Why the do over? Went back to the original video and comments looked reasonable. Still Thanks for doing this I use both of these film regularly. So yellow a little brighter.
D-76 is a Kodak developer. A comparison would be interesting if both films are developed in an Ilford developer. But the difference between the films is really very sought after and both films will have minimal variations in mass production. I buy Ilford because the Kodak Tri-X are far too expensive in my country.
I understand that D76 is used for comparison purposes and you have done a really good job of achieving that; but it makes me wonder about the premise of a comparison like this. IMHO…. HP5 yields better results when processed in DD-X, and TriX yields better results when developed in XTOL. So i’m questioning, what is the value of comparing TriX and HP5 when are both developed in D76 because it’s not the best film/developer pairing for either. Just to be clear, i’m not criticising. i’m just questioning if comparing best in class film/developer combinations would be more meaningful?
Scientific methodology. You change only one parameter at a time (films here) if you want to make a meaningful comparison. Changing several parameters is useless, you won't know what's causing the differences. The film? The developer? The combination of both? Also D76 is one of the classic developers that everyone knows and can use to reproduce the same experience and expect the same results.
Mostly, DD-X is great with Delta 400 - and (very) good for porbably everything else. Xtol (i've only tried it "stock") is a great developper but I found that if you use it with Tri-X you might shoot HP5 instead, you'll save money. With Tri-X 400 my best results were with HC110 and Tmax Dev. But overall with black and white more than the pair film/developper what makes the difference is the contrast ratios of what your are shooting.
It’s hard to make a direct comparison when contrast and exposure don’t match, which is not easy to achieve. Both films are very popular for good reason.
Is good to see a second try on HP5. There are other films that turned out over or under developed that deserve a second chance... eventually... I'm sure they take a lot of time and money.
Thanks for your work!
I used to use HP5+ in large format work, but I gave it up because the high values don’t separate as well as I like. Your test shows the same result as I got from HP5+. Because of this trait, it makes an excellent portrait film (smoothes out lighter skin tones = more flattering) but it’s not as good for landscape work, which benefits from good separation of the bright values.
No roasting here. Thank you for this. Very much appreciated.
My subjective opinion is that Tri-X was muddy and HP5 is more contrasty and more pleasing to my eye. I’m glad your results mirror my own.
@dexon555 The Tri-X image seems a little veiled, which surprises me.
Thanks for this re-review of HP5!
The results "on paper" match the curves: with HP5+, the highlights are flattening out. But what the curves also show: technically, the HP5+ has a higher sensitivity in the shadow areas. Both aspects of the HP5+ make it so responsive to and useful for pushing. This matches my own experience with HP5+. What did surprise me was the (slightly) finer grain of the Tri-X - but one has to keep in mind that this is the *modern* version of Tri-X, which was re-formulated sometime at the beginning of this century, while the HP5+ is a much older formulation. And it does keep up astonishingly well.
Interesting! I do a lot of large format portraiture, almost exclusively with HP5+, and my experience has been similar. I've thought of HP5+ as "high global contrast, low local contrast" but it's nice to be able to add some nuance to that. Thanks for doing the legwork
what an effort. Very well made. Thank you. Inspires me for doing more in the lab. 👍👍👍
Hi Greg. These videos are really great. The care you have taken to make the conditions reproducible across all the films is invaluable. In this video, unlike the others, you did not discuss the H&D curves. Is there nothing to see there?
All the other curves were made years ago in a few days and the voice overs recorded over a couple hours. I didn’t do the HP5 one then for some reason. I dug out the film today and measured the curve while editing the video. I have a bout of COVID right now and just didn’t feel like talking. Nothing I say would provide more information than the curves themselves.
The HP5 highlights seem a little brighter and a little hotter than the Tri-X highlights. Also, the HP5 grain seems a little more obvious, especially on the background material.
Yes that’s what I’ve found too.
Interesting. I used HP5+ previously and thought it didn’t have as much contrast as Tri-X with far more “grays”. I’ll have to get a few rolls again for another try.
So when do we get a colour film comparison series?
I just jumped back into film this year. HP5 was the first b&w film I tried. I have to say I'm not a big fan. There's too much grain for my liking. Maybe it was the way I shot it. That may have been the roll I had forgot to change the ISO from 100 to 400. So far my favorite is Tmax 100. I like the time grain. But you need a sunny day for that.
Thanks you for doing this ✨
Five minutes in and if this were a blind test I would have failed because I would have bet yo money that your image on the left was Tri-X and the right was HP5. Does this suggest I have been doing something wrong? I've used published times and temps for a couple different developers. Thanks for sharing.
*bet you
Never under-develop HP5+, better go over-developing (not quite into pushing territory, but even that will help). I never liked HP5+ in the past, then started to use it for 4x5, then made the error to pull it (because I thought it would give me better shadows) - this was when I learned that HP5+ has a very long curve that massively flattens out at the highlights, which does better react to regular exposure and over-development (or under-exposure and push-development).
Having shot both quite a bit and developed them in the same developers, (all most all in XTOL 1:1) I’d say comparing them is almost splitting hairs:
Tri-X is a tat finer and tighter grain with a tat more sharpness. HP5 is a tat more sensitive with slightly rougher, softer grain.
HP5 tends to be a bit hotter and flatter in certain conditions.
How many of those film stocks are re-spools or re-badged film from the same stock ?
Lots
I do appreciate that you tried to keep this comparison as "dry" as possible, but I also like that extra opinion on top that you usually have :) For me, Ilford films have a lot going for them compared to Kodak: Straight curve most of the way = more realistic. Slightly more yellow sensitive = slightly more pleasing skin tones and blue skies, you don't need to carry a yellow filter. Honestly, in this comparison in particular, Kodak looks a bit orthochromatic, which is not so flattering. Slight taper to the top of the curve = easier to retain a more pleasing transition between almost white to full blown white in the print. It's also more pleasing for skin tones, and is of course the "standard" adjustment/feature to go for with this in digital photography as well. Going the opposite way (ie increasing the separation in the brightest highlights) is usually not what you want except in some niche fashion photography where you want that metallic skin look, which I don't think most people otherwise appreciate. Overall I feel that Tri-X is more distracting than HP5. If you want more distortion but in a somewhat pleasing way (as opposed to Kodak), I'd say look at Fomapan 100 (EI 50 imo).
Great write up. I recently got into 4x5 and from using hp5 and fp4, I bought a box of fomapan 100. Wow I’ve struggled. I went through 20 sheets and the exposure wasn’t what my metering for strobes was saying.
I decided to get a roll of Foma 100 and bracket ei’s up to -3 and +3 as I have a roll back film holder so can use the same camera and lens.
I just scanned the negs. In the frame I have the talent hold a 18% grey card. The meter read f11 1/15th in open shade (ei100). The +3 stops shot was rendering the grey card middle perfect 18% grey?!?!? The picture looked a more wash out grey. I developed in hc110 dilation H for 10mins.
I do feel foma has potential but wow it’s a struggle to find that sweat spot
@@soulstart89 I would recommend diving into the zone system. I think you've ostensibly reached the point where NOT using the zone system is much more pain than just doing it. The zone system is not just for nerds, it's there because it's actually quite necessary once you reach a certain level.
If you make sure you meter different parts of the scene carefully (take a shot with your phone and write the measurements right there in the picture), you'll be able to tell how you need to rate your film in order to get the results that you expect. No more guesswork. Tweak your EI (through testing different exposure settings) until you get your thinnest part of the negative at zone II (which is the same as -3 stops). Even better if you get a step wedge but what I just explained will get you close.
I find that Fomapan 100 = EI 50, Fomapan 400 = EI 200. Ilford Delta 400 = EI 400, for example.
Bracketing is for amateurs ;) The zone system is Zen.
@ hey thanks for the response. I actually use the zone system. For example when I first got the fomapan 100 I place talent into n zone 6 as she has light skin. My strobe lighting was a ratio of 2:1 with background being 1 stop lower than the key.
I then tried rating fomapan 100 ei50 and then reducing developing by 20%. And placing talent in zone 6. Still weird. I only bracketed a roll on 120 foma to get a better understanding and only have to develop once.
I was on a photo job today and my tried and trusted sekonic L558 died. I’ve never dropped it and also kept it in the case it came in. When I was metering light for the gig it peaced out. They now go for around 400-500 🤮.
I couldn’t agree more that the zone system is essential. It’s a great way to visualise how a negative will come out. When I bought a box of HP5 and did the exact set up on the foma the lighting ratios was how I metered them. I will say I switched from Developer ID11 to HC110 as it would be much more expensive to develop with ID11 1+2 compared to HC110 dilution H (1+63).
Can I ask what developer you use with fomapan 100 and the times you use?
Again really appreciate you sharing
@@soulstart89 Regarding the zone system, that's great! What I'd like to point towards is determining your zone II, as that will help in determining the exact latitude in your shadows, and your proper EI. That way you will know that you pulled your zones as thin as possible, not just maximizing the film speed, but crucially controlling the strong knee in the highlights. It's often the knee that will mess with you, if it places itself where you didn't want it.
Yes I decided to go for the 858 a while back, because the price for used ones is so high. Seconic is still clueless about the zone system, which is baffling to me since that should be the most important use case for a spot meter. It's still a hassle to use fully with the zone system. I appreciate the light sensitivity, and I hope that it will last longer since it's newly manufactured. We'll see. That bright color display is a bit obnoxious at night though. And it takes forever to power up. Etc...
For Fomapan 100 I use TMAX developer, currently for 5 minutes at 20C; 4 minutes 18 seconds at 22C; 4 minutes 12 seconds at 24C. Not sure what that is in F if that's what you prefer, sorry. Note that these times are for rotary development/continuous agitation. If you agitate manually then you should add a bit to the times, perhaps 15%?
The reason I use TMAX developer is its keeping properties, film capacity, ease of handling/mixing. As well as (as far as I know) not being surpassed by any other developer when it comes to performance (grain size, shadow detail, resolution without adding artificial accutance/ringing, etc). It was basically Kodak's last big effort into coming up with their best general purpose b/w developer. There was some later work into more environmentally friendly alternatives, but not for improving performance. The naming was unfortunate, I think they intended it to mean "the next big thing". Instead people seem to mistake it for some specialty developer, which it's absolutely not.
I know I should do a comparison between developers some day. What makes me avoid it is that I'd throw away large quantities of the developers that I didn't prefer.
@ metering natural light seems so much more logical to me compared to metering strobes. You meter the light (key light compared to the shadows). 💡 whatever my incident light meter reads as exposure is “middle grey”. So in fact I could test what zone 2 is. Three stops down from key light (which is zone 5 )Would be zone 2 for fill light. So I can test with strobes. Thanks!!
I called manfrotto this morning due to in the uk they handle repairs. They don’t have anymore spares😤. I really am not a fan of the new touchscreen sekonic light meters. They feel so much long winded to achieve what I can from the 558 or 758.
I agree the zone system was always a hassle to use. The 558 is convenient as it has a very good incident/flash option as well as a spot meter. Helps with bag space lol.
I’m based in the UK so I use Celsius,normal for me. I never looked into tmax due to exactly what you said “I thought it was made for tmax film” lol. I presume it’s similar to ilford ddx? I use the mod54 to develop 6 sheets of 4x5. That requires 1 litre to develop so tmax 1+4 means 200ml of developer. 30 sheets per bottle. I will
Have to give it a try. I’ve HC110, rodinal and a pack of unmixed ID11.
Comparing can be a LONGWINDED process. I would love to compare many developers for example pyro developers and diafine but it’s long.
Did you do Kodak Double X / 5222?
Twice
I think it would be interesting if/when you'd do a comparison between developers as well. Not just for looking at any differences in aspects of image quality, but also user friendliness, keeping properties, etc. When I started out in the 90:s my first few films were with D76. I then switched to the latest hottest thing: TMAX-developer. I've stuck with it since, even though I stopped using TMAX films in the early 00's. I appreciate that it keeps forever compared to the others, and that you don't have to wait for it to cool down. I know that it's supposed to "retain full speed in the shadows", fine grain etc which is important to me, but I haven't challenged that myself. While I've compared film stocks, I haven't gotten myself to actually compare developer performance properly.
I guess I am missing something. Why the do over? Went back to the original video and comments looked reasonable. Still Thanks for doing this I use both of these film regularly. So yellow a little brighter.
More consistent format more than anything else
D-76 is a Kodak developer. A comparison would be interesting if both films are developed in an Ilford developer. But the difference between the films is really very sought after and both films will have minimal variations in mass production. I buy Ilford because the Kodak Tri-X are far too expensive in my country.
Fine, I really developed it in Ilford ID-11
Good Shit
I just prefer the grain on the Hp5
There’s a film for everyone
2nd
I think you did your hair better for the HP5 😂
I understand that D76 is used for comparison purposes and you have done a really good job of achieving that; but it makes me wonder about the premise of a comparison like this. IMHO…. HP5 yields better results when processed in DD-X, and TriX yields better results when developed in XTOL. So i’m questioning, what is the value of comparing TriX and HP5 when are both developed in D76 because it’s not the best film/developer pairing for either. Just to be clear, i’m not criticising. i’m just questioning if comparing best in class film/developer combinations would be more meaningful?
Scientific methodology. You change only one parameter at a time (films here) if you want to make a meaningful comparison. Changing several parameters is useless, you won't know what's causing the differences. The film? The developer? The combination of both?
Also D76 is one of the classic developers that everyone knows and can use to reproduce the same experience and expect the same results.
Mostly, DD-X is great with Delta 400 - and (very) good for porbably everything else. Xtol (i've only tried it "stock") is a great developper but I found that if you use it with Tri-X you might shoot HP5 instead, you'll save money. With Tri-X 400 my best results were with HC110 and Tmax Dev. But overall with black and white more than the pair film/developper what makes the difference is the contrast ratios of what your are shooting.
It’s hard to make a direct comparison when contrast and exposure don’t match, which is not easy to achieve. Both films are very popular for good reason.
Ayooo I'm first
Tri x is very ethical