Great comparison video. I recently bought a few rolls of Tri-X since Kodak dropped the price. So far I shot it 800 and souped in Adox D76 - next will be to shoot at box speed and soup in Clayton F76 and see how it fairs to HP5, RPX400 and Fomapan 400 which I shot quite a bit of previously.
Thanks! I didn't know Kodak dropped their prices on Tri-X. Still it would be hard to tear me away from HP5! I subbed to your channel, by the way. I think you and I have a lot in common! Cheers!🙂
Yes, Kodak has changed the formulation of the ' new ' Tri-x. It is now a a Hybrid emulsion with less silver. It is finer grained than tne o!der Tri-X but this is higjly developer dependent now. Iso 250 to 320 seems to betne swedt spot.HP5 is still the film to go for in difficult lighting conditions.
Very informative, I gave up on hp5 in my younger years. Tri-x is definitely better at ISO 250 and N- processing (pulled). I use HC110 dilution H when I use TX, mostly because I haven't experimented with any other developer.
I have always been attracted to HP5's shadow rendition, over Tri-X's. Tri-X does appear to be a more flexible film, when it comes to N processing. The most I can get out of HP5 is about N+1. After that, the B+F just builds up too much density, making it challenging to print in Alt. processes. N+1, combined with Selenium intensification, will get me to N+2 and a bit. Selenium does not effect the B+F. I would probably shoot more Tri-X, if I could afford it 😁 Cheers!
I, like you Andy, tried Tri-X very early in my own career (1998), ran three 120 rolls through 3 developers, and just couldn’t fall in love with it. The closest I got to a connection to it was developed in Ilfosol. HP5 and the Delta’s quickly became my go-to’s, especially after the demise of Agfa Across 100, and HP5 in Rodinal STILL gets me out of bed early in the morning for sunrises - or natural light portraits. I am curious though: how much do you shoot for pleasure, vs testing? I know we’re likely only seeing a snippet here on YT, but I happen to know some photog’s that are far more in to the science vs the aesthetic.
Even though I feel that testing of materials is essential, I'm way more into the art side of photography. My formal training is in drawing, painting, printmaking. It's all about the image.🙂
I use to shoot tri-x all the time, all there was. But especially in 2-1/4 and 4x5, in D-76, I'd rate it at 200 - sometimes 300 asap. I rarely pushed it. In the studio, always 200 and developed accordingly to zone system testing. Cant remember N times, but got goog highlight and shadow details plus contrast. Now use all sorts of film just in 4x5 black and white. Development times more intuitive. I wont be going back to tri-x anytime soon. Better stuff out there.
There was Kodak Trix pan (until ~2007), there is Kodak 320TXP and Kodak 400TX. I suppose you are using 400TX? And your experience might be related to any of three mentioned films in 120 format?
I shot a lot of Tri-X when I was younger for street and urbex (abandoned building exploration) now I don’t know it’s lost its appeal also I’m only shooting nature. If I’m using Kodak it’s Tmax. Liking a lot of the others more so.
You'll have noticed Tri-X has more contrast, as your results show. That's why I always felt HP5 looked flat to me. Yes back in around 2005 they reformulated TriX to have slightly finer grain. This is probably what you noticed in your current roll. Grain is much more crunchy on 35mm with TriX. Are you sure you shot Tri -X 400 and not 320 back in the early 90s? I'm not sure the 400 version was available in 120 back in that time period.
It was 400. I shot 320 in sheet film back then. Still prefer HP5, even though Tri-X has greatly improved. Kodak film prices as you know, are for the rich. 😁
@@braxus351WI will until I run out of the 10 rolls that I have. If its price were more like HP5's then I would shoot it more often but, HP5 will remain my main B/W film. I prefer to support Ilford. They've stuck by us through the tough years.
@@analogueandy8x10 I've always found that film/developer combos seem to have a symbiotic relationship. I've used HC-110 for over 40 years with Tri-X but, like you, didn't care for it with HP-5 and many other films. The only thing I'm aware of with the recent formulation of HC-110 is that it lacks the keeping properties of the old stock. I wouldn't know because I bought several bottles of the old stock years ago hoping it would last me through my "Tri-X days."
Tri X is more expensive. Why change a winning team. The way I develop film I somehow don not like tot more "light look" of HP5 plus I rather use FP4 plus. But that is lower ISO film.
I finally realized why your voice feels both enjoyable and familiar. It's like a calm version of Steve Martin. 😊
😄
The sound of an RB67 is just so satisfying.
Great comparison video. I recently bought a few rolls of Tri-X since Kodak dropped the price. So far I shot it 800 and souped in Adox D76 - next will be to shoot at box speed and soup in Clayton F76 and see how it fairs to HP5, RPX400 and Fomapan 400 which I shot quite a bit of previously.
Thanks! I didn't know Kodak dropped their prices on Tri-X. Still it would be hard to tear me away from HP5! I subbed to your channel, by the way. I think you and I have a lot in common! Cheers!🙂
@@analogueandy8x10 Thanks, I also subbed to you also 😊 Looking forward to more of you content.
@@fasphoto likewise! Thanks!
Yes, Kodak has changed the formulation of the ' new ' Tri-x. It is now a a Hybrid emulsion with less silver. It is finer grained than tne o!der Tri-X but this is higjly developer dependent now. Iso 250 to 320 seems to betne swedt spot.HP5 is still the film to go for in difficult lighting conditions.
Very informative, I gave up on hp5 in my younger years. Tri-x is definitely better at ISO 250 and N- processing (pulled). I use HC110 dilution H when I use TX, mostly because I haven't experimented with any other developer.
I have always been attracted to HP5's shadow rendition, over Tri-X's. Tri-X does appear to be a more flexible film, when it comes to N processing. The most I can get out of HP5 is about N+1. After that, the B+F just builds up too much density, making it challenging to print in Alt. processes. N+1, combined with Selenium intensification, will get me to N+2 and a bit. Selenium does not effect the B+F. I would probably shoot more Tri-X, if I could afford it 😁 Cheers!
I, like you Andy, tried Tri-X very early in my own career (1998), ran three 120 rolls through 3 developers, and just couldn’t fall in love with it. The closest I got to a connection to it was developed in Ilfosol. HP5 and the Delta’s quickly became my go-to’s, especially after the demise of Agfa Across 100, and HP5 in Rodinal STILL gets me out of bed early in the morning for sunrises - or natural light portraits. I am curious though: how much do you shoot for pleasure, vs testing? I know we’re likely only seeing a snippet here on YT, but I happen to know some photog’s that are far more in to the science vs the aesthetic.
Even though I feel that testing of materials is essential, I'm way more into the art side of photography. My formal training is in drawing, painting, printmaking. It's all about the image.🙂
What differences are there in the images between what we see on RUclips and what you see in person?
There differences on youtube are pretty much the same in person.
I use to shoot tri-x all the time, all there was. But especially in 2-1/4 and 4x5, in D-76, I'd rate it at 200 - sometimes 300 asap. I rarely pushed it. In the studio, always 200 and developed accordingly to zone system testing. Cant remember N times, but got goog highlight and shadow details plus contrast. Now use all sorts of film just in 4x5 black and white. Development times more intuitive. I wont be going back to tri-x anytime soon. Better stuff out there.
This was interesting! I've never shot Tri-X but I've shot plenty of HP5. Given the price I'm not too worried about what I might be missing.
I would have to agree with you. I'll use up the rolls that have.
There was Kodak Trix pan (until ~2007), there is Kodak 320TXP and Kodak 400TX. I suppose you are using 400TX?
And your experience might be related to any of three mentioned films in 120 format?
hmm...when was that? I was there a couple of days ago and it seemed to look way different with foliage
Couple months ago.
ahh, that would explain it ;)
I shot a lot of Tri-X when I was younger for street and urbex (abandoned building exploration) now I don’t know it’s lost its appeal also I’m only shooting nature. If I’m using Kodak it’s Tmax.
Liking a lot of the others more so.
Andy, what brought you to Japan in the early nineties ?
An interest in the art, culture, and my wife! She from there.
When her mother says `wet.`
You'll have noticed Tri-X has more contrast, as your results show. That's why I always felt HP5 looked flat to me. Yes back in around 2005 they reformulated TriX to have slightly finer grain. This is probably what you noticed in your current roll. Grain is much more crunchy on 35mm with TriX. Are you sure you shot Tri -X 400 and not 320 back in the early 90s? I'm not sure the 400 version was available in 120 back in that time period.
It was 400. I shot 320 in sheet film back then. Still prefer HP5, even though Tri-X has greatly improved. Kodak film prices as you know, are for the rich. 😁
Or for the people who only shoot once in a while like myself. So would you now shoot this film again, based on your results?
@@braxus351WI will until I run out of the 10 rolls that I have. If its price were more like HP5's then I would shoot it more often but, HP5 will remain my main B/W film. I prefer to support Ilford. They've stuck by us through the tough years.
A- I swear by TX at 200 in HC110 “B” 5 minutes at 20c - “mother’s milk” since 1976 (mother’s donut?). But HP5 4x5 sheet same deal is no slouch.
I'll have to give it a go. Need to find some HC-110!
Try the Tri-X in HC-110(B).
That was the first developer I used when I tried HP5 for the first time. Didn't care for it. I heard that recent HC-110 is a bit suspect?
@@analogueandy8x10 I've always found that film/developer combos seem to have a symbiotic relationship. I've used HC-110 for over 40 years with Tri-X but, like you, didn't care for it with HP-5 and many other films. The only thing I'm aware of with the recent formulation of HC-110 is that it lacks the keeping properties of the old stock. I wouldn't know because I bought several bottles of the old stock years ago hoping it would last me through my "Tri-X days."
@@alanhuntley55 I'll have to pick me up a bottle. Thanks!
Meter. Not mother. Maybe spell check not far off.
Tri X is more expensive. Why change a winning team. The way I develop film I somehow don not like tot more "light look" of HP5 plus I rather use FP4 plus. But that is lower ISO film.
Not changing. Staying with HP5. It's been my main black and white film for 30 years!
Dyes dies TriX