Great video. Thank you. One piece of advice for people located in Germany: Rollei RPX 400 tends to be much cheaper here in Germany than comparable films so it's definitely worth trying if you're into the Ilford HP5+ look.
Looks like the Tri-X was underexposed (almost no shadow details) and then overdeveloped. When shooting Tri-X at box speed ISO400, this usually happens. You can easily make it look like the other films by giving it more light (ISO 200 - 250) and less development. You can also make the other films look more like your example of Tri-X (less light and more development). I think that any comment saying that this film is more or less contrasty than that film is wrong. BW films do not have a constant contrast level but contrast is always depending on exposure and development. You can shoot every film so that it becomes as flat as Iowa (or the Netherlands) and you can shoot every film so that it turns into a true black and white contrast monster without any grey tones at all, it is only a question how much light you give to the film and how long you soup it in your developer. I understand of cause that you shoot all these films at box speed and at box speed Tri-X will look more contrasty, because it is a much slower film than the others and therefore looses all that detail in the shadows. And to compensate this, you need to give it more development and this leads to this terribly high contrast. But practically you just have to find out, what real film speed you need to work with and everything becomes nice again. I made a test of HP5 and Tri-X with a densitometer. I was going for an average gradient of 0.5 resulting in a negative with good shadow detail and good highlight presevation and obtained that with Tri-X at ISO 250 and 9min of development while HP5 gave me the same gradient at ISO400 and 8min development time. I don't like Tri-X very much, curly after development requires it to be rolled up again for a day or two to flatten, which I find quite annoying and it is considerably slower than HP5. A bit overexposure usually does not hurt the film and I tend to rather underdevelop than overdevelop it. Bringing the contrast up either on a computer or in a darkroom print is easy, reducing the contrast can be quite difficult. So I shoot either FP4 at ISO64 to ISO100 or HP5 at ISO250 to ISO400.
Oh yes, RPX. Tried it, in Germany it actually is exactly as expensive as HP5. When RPX came out it was considerably cheaper than HP5 and I tried it a few times but I decided against using relabeled films if they do not come with a great redution in price. You never know if they get changed in the future without anyone telling you. And as it is not even cheaper anymore than HP5, no reason at all to play with this stuff. The Kodak films are much more expensive in Germany and - as I explained - Tri-X, although actually NOT more contrasty than HP5 - is actually considerably slower. A big NO-NO-NO from me towards Kodak and a big thumbs up for Ilford. (RPX 4,20EUR, HP5 4,25EUR, Tri-X 5,65EUR, Delta 400 4,90EUR and T-Max 5,65EUR at Fotoimpex).
I'd be fascinated to read how you choose breakfast. at the end of the day, it's your images, your story. play in the sandbox as long as you want, but let's see some cash in that pie hole speak for itself.
Great video and thanks for all the hard work. If you ever decide to do another one you could shoot the same films but develop them in the chemicals that were designed specifically for them, ID11/D76 for TriX and HP5+, Tmax 400 in T-max dev. etc..
Loved the comparison, nice job. Would love to see D76 used as developer, and box dev times used for comparison. Also I second a color film comparison with 400 iso for Kodak Portra, gold, Fuji superia, 400h. Thanks!
As a film shooter I've been thinking about what film is better between Tmax and TriX. And I don't think you can say I only shoot one or the other. In your test their was only one lighting condition. What I have found is that different film works for different light. TriX is great in overcast conditions or open shade. It gives nice contrast to the image and a vintage look. Great for street photography. I also find it works nicely indoors or even with direct flash. Tmax is much better for high contrast scenes when the sun is out. I love its smooth tonality. I would use this more for portrait work. So basically I'm saying they are both great depending what you are shooting, the light conditions and the look you are going for.
Cool video! I’m switching over to B&W film and I’ve heard about the use of filters (yellow for example). Am I overthinking this? Any recommendations or should I just go out there with no filter? Thanks!
Great information you provided. I always had trouble deciding which b&w film to get, color too, until I tried Portra 160. So, now I can narrow the b&w film to two - HP5 or TMax. Thanks for posting.
thanx for comparison!! this is the first one I actually found to really show a good side by side compairson. Only problem is I just ordered a bunch of TriX (before watching this) since everyone seems to love it lol
Thanks for the comparison. Of course, so much depends on developing and scanning. I personally go for Ilford Delta. Great film that's very workable in developing and post, to my mind deserves consideration.
My results are quite different. Yesterday I browsed through the negatives of last year. The medium format ones especially. Just to mention, my rpx 400 are definitely not like yours, which are extremely flat . These are more like mine of the rollei 400s! But also my hp5+ as well as the Tmax look much different from yours! Do you develop Rodinal 1:25? I use (d) Rodinal 1:50 or 1:100 for films with more speed than 200. And the best outcomes I reach when I use fx39 with those films.
I've never understood the attraction of Rodinal - it produces a negative way too grainy for me. As far as Tri-X is concerned, the proper way to expose it is to divide your exposure into three ranges. In shade or other soft light, read the scene with an incident meter and set the camera to match. For medium contrast with soft shadows, read a shadow and set the camera to match. In bright sunlight, read a shadow and subtract one-half stop exposure. Develop in XTOL 1 + 3 and it will lay down for you. If your camera is set on autoexposure at ISO 400, it will underexpose Tri-X by almost two stops in high contrast lighting, and produce exactly the look that you got. The manufacturers rate film based on a standard exposure of a calibrated light source, not in a camera. Because Tri-X has much lower shadow response than other films, you have to base your exposure on shadows. After testing all of the films above except for Rollei RPX, I came to exactly the opposite conclusions. T-Max prints ugly. I could find nothing good to say about it. HP5 is excellent and produces silvery looking highlights which are pleasing on subjects such as animals with white fur. Delta 400 is good, but it's rendition of skin lacks feeling (an orange filter will bring it around, but imposes a two-stop penalty.) Tri-X works in almost every situation, especially when photographing people in uncontrolled situations.
Nice video, it's really helpful to see these films side by side. I've just ordered some Tri-X for the first time and some HP5 again. Delta 400 didn't convince me but my developing might have been quite a bit off so I'll give it another try.
Thanks a ton! Exactly what I was looking for. Over here in Germany RPX400 is almost exactly the price of HP5: 3.88 EUR for RPX400 vs. 3.99 EUR for HP5. (Medium Format if you buy a 10-pack)
I shoot Tri-X as my main b/w stock, and I've never seen such extreme lack of latitude. I'm thinking you're right about it just not agreeing with Rodinal, and it not being the easiest film to scan. I've used D-76, when I haven't sent it to a lab, and I'm able to print for all the detail I need. The scans I get from the lab (Indie Film Lab) have all the detail I wanted, even in tricky scenarios like backlighting. Sometimes you just gotta be going for that dark and moody look when you shoot Tri-X. It does well in really dramatic lighting. Shoot for highlight retention (make sure the bright areas that you want to keep in full detail are in zone 7) and let your shadows fall off. Or just shoot HP5 and worry about none of this.
Brennan here, I shoot Tri-X as well and didn't have the same issues Brett did in the video either. I have been stand developing my stuff with Rodinal and I'm about to switch over to DDX and regular developing but I've used XTOL in the past too and never had these results. I'd attribute it to using Rodinal on a box speed film. Mostly I think Rodinal was made for slower films like Pan-F, FP4, TMAX 100, etc. Of course your mileage may vary but that's the cool thing about film is you can get totally different looks out of the same film by adjusting any number of controllable variables.
I haven't used Rodinal myself, but I've spoken to a few photographers who do, and what I hear is that Rodinal is a speed-reducing developer, meant to maximize sharpness in low speed films while preserving highlights, so I guess it just isn't proper to use it with such a grainy film as Tri-X. Some say that if you use Rodinal, you should compensate by overexposing the film a bit. Either that or mix a higher dilution of Rodinal and it'll act as a compensating developer, arresting the highlights while bringing up the shadows. I've also heard that it can be very easy to over-agitate Rodinal, so stand development is probably best.
Very well said! I have nice memories of shooting Tri-X in college photography classes, but now that I've started scanning and digitally processing my negatives, and moved to a more consistently bright and sunny part of the country, its high contrast just isn't what I need at this time in my life, I can add all the contrast I want digitally but I can't bring back details that never made it onto the negative to begin with. I haven't shot much HP5 yet but I've liked it every time I did, and I'm also curious to try TMAX 400 again for the first time since high school. Do you have any experience with Kentmere 400? That's what I've mostly bought so far because it's cheaper than Ilford or Kodak but doesn't scratch as easily as Foma. Definitely more forgiving contrast than Tri-X, but I haven't used enough HP5 to make a fair comparison yet.
+MadsJaeger Hey, it's Brennan here. I agree, I think you can make a lot of different films looks more or less the same by adjusting developers and times and agitations, etc. I shoot Tri-X and stand develop everything and didn't get the shadow loss Brett did in this example but kept the contrast and grain.
To be honest I never really looked into Tmax that much but the images you showed here with tmax are so lovely, by far my favorite ones of the shown comparison. I'll buy a few roles next time. :)
Great vid mate, I've always shot Tmax and HP5, the rollie here in NZ is quite a bit cheaper than my preferences so I might give it a go. Liked and subbed cheers
Great comparison thank you! I recently did this with my own workflow and found that I favor TMAX in XTOL 1:1 with my jobo. I miss that HP5 grain though!
Granted I haven't been shooting film for very long but I have been extremely happy shooting Tri-X and developing with Ilford DDX. You get a speed boost, fantastic grain structure (fine but still grainy if that makes sense, 120-like) and still get a bump in contrast while keeping nice tones and range. I was considering using Rodinal but with tri-x it's a very specific, rough look.
Interesting that you use Rodinal. I would suggest trying Tri-x in HC110, gives a really good result, but i'm going to assume you want to stick with Rodinal. If that is the case, then HP5 will be your best bet. Just as a side note, I usually shoot Tri-x at 1600 iso in HC110, and it gives pretty amazing negatives. Nice video.
Cool pictures! I actually kinda dig the Tri-X pictures the most. It's a moodier look. Just a matter of taste, I suppose. I also love the sharp, clean look of T-Max 100 but have never taken to T-Max 400 for some reason.... Have you ever tried Ilford Pan F 50?
Great video- I have done similar tests between HP5 and TX and got much more similar results, however this was with Ilfosol 3 as opposed to Rodinal. From the scanner I prefer TX, however I print in the darkroom and can easily increase contrast there, so the increased shadow detail in HP5 wins out for me.
Great video... Thanks for the effort! I'm a Tri-X shooter, and I def want to try some HP5 now. However, my developed-scanned Tri-X / Tmax 400 film looks nothing like your results. My film gets developed with Xtol at a pro lab at box speed. For me, my Tri-X has strong mid tones, with deep blacks, and a lot more tonal range than your example. Tmax typically has a bit more contrast, and less midtones than Tri-X. From what I would expect, your Tri-X example looks closer to Tmax. It would be great to see another test, with tri-x/Tmax developed with Xtol or d76.
Great video, well explained! I must agree on the Tri-X, although I haven't reached my threshold yet in terms of contrast :). But I'll definitely try the T-Max :). Hope you guys will otherwise do either a standalone review of the M-A or alongside the M-D! Think it'd be very interesting! :)
Wow - great video, love the analysis. Gotta try em all ! Thank you very much for the content, you have inspired me to take a day off this week, leave the phone at home, and just go out and shoot some BW film. Just discovered this channel - its a goldmine for enthusiasts who love the art. You should have 10,000 subs before too long. Gotta try me some Rollei - its the best value film available in Australia, and both Ilford and Kodak are getting a bit pricey. My favorite 400 is fomapan in caffenol semi-stand (20mins). Partly because of the price + zero cost development, and partly due to it being technically inferior on almost all counts. Some shots (with the foma 400) look like they have been printed on a sort of soft velvet material, which may or may not suit the story you are trying to tell with your images. When Im out shooting with BW, Im usually looking to create an emotive propaganda piece, rather than an accurate document, so that works for me. Oh - and old surveillance films, also great for propaganda shots. Every shot looks so damn serious, and everything in the frame appears to be guilty of something ... awesome film, I shoot it whenever I can get my hands on it.
Max Lamdin kentmere is made by Harman (Ilford). Kentmere was a long established company in the North of England which made photographic paper, but I don’t think they made film. Kentmere was bought by Ilford some years ago, and Ilford now sell 100 and 400 speed films under the Kentmere name as cheaper alternatives to FP4 and HP5, aimed mainly at students; I don’t know how they differ from the main Ilford branded films. Ilford make no less than nine films under their own names three traditional, three T grain deltas and three ‘specials’, XP2 a C41 process chromogenic film, SFX 200 with extended red sensitivity, and an orthochromatic film which was previously only available in sheet form, but which has recently been introduced in 35 mm and 120 roll film as well.
Great stuff. I experienced the same thing with Tri-X. It's a bit too harsh, but if you like that look, you simply go with it. There's actually little you can do to change that in post-processing. HP5 gives you a negative that you can work with more. For instance by simply increasing the contrast in post-processing, you're going to get a look very similar look to Tri-X, with the same grain type.
D76 was a better choice for this test. Rodinal is easier, cheap and fast mix.. but in my experience it is not a good developer with high speed film. Thank you for this interesting video!
my #1 BW film is delta 400 and a close second is Tri x which I never shoot at 400 only at 200 and that way I lift a lot of that extreme shadow while retaining the classic coarse gran of it
I shoot Tri-X (35mm) and stand dev 1:100 in Rodinal for 60 minutes and have never got close to what it looks like in this video (eg shadows blocked up) unless I really pulled things around in Lightroom. I use a Fuji Frontier for scanning and the scans come out with plenty of shadow detail but perhaps that is the stand dev working on the shadows. I might have to try a roll with standard dev at 1:50 and see what I get.
Damn that tri-x print looks really weird. Anyway, I've developed with Rodinal before, and it does have that effect on tri x, especially when it starts to get pushed. Because rodinal is a high acutance developer, and you get fine grains and high contrast. It looks great depending on what you are shooting. If you aren't a fan of that look, have you ever tried xtol? I really like the look of tri x in xtol, and I also hear great things about hc110 as well for tri x. DDX and T-MAX also gives great shadow details.
great video. im surprised with your tri-x results as ive never seen any of my roles have such a limited dynamic range. ddx is legendary for pushing film while controlling contrast and shadow detail.
Where are you buying your film from so cheap, bulk roll a roll of 120 under $5.00? Can you direct me where you get it from, also for colour roll as well. I live in Canada but if possible I'd order from US
Zauważ ze żaden z tych filmów nie jest przeznaczonym orginalnie do skanowania tylko do powiększania pod powiekszalnikiem. Note that there films intended not for scanning only for zooming under the enlarger.
Nice video :) ( just from the experience of editing digital images in Silver FX pro , it doesn't have RPX. I doubt if it has delta... ) I guess I like the looks as per the video for the films.. HP5 , TMY & DELTA . :) Thanks :)
Very interesting video. Perhaps the Rodinal developer was not the best choice with 400 iso films. I think would be better a D76 in stock solution. Thank you very much about your video. For example in landscape photography I had bad results with rodinal/rollei 400 retro... The grain was like meteors. With the D76 no grain!.. So I think that with the modern films is very important the developer choice. In my opinion, Rodinal is very useful and cheap... but it is not good for all.
I just shot my first roll of it. It was pretty contrasty. I liked it. I also shot it on a new rollie 35 which I haven't shot much. I'm curious how the next few rolls will come out on the M6. Here are a couple shots. www.flickr.com/photos/markroudebush/30500987763/in/album-72157678520737176/ www.flickr.com/photos/markroudebush/31307000841/in/album-72157678520737176/
There's another guy here on youtube that has reviewed 1 roll of JCH 400 film. Just youtube it and you'll find it. I agree that this film is contrasty and not so forgiving as other BW films. The blacks get crushed easily so depending on your final output, one must be careful to think ahead. That said, I've found that by overexposing and underdeveloping, this film has good potential. I can only hope they bring it out in 120 format so that I can really see the tonal range capabilities of this aerial film.
At box speed, Tri-X and HP5 should look similar enough that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The metering/exposure is off, but development looks fine if the developer was suitable for Tri-X...that I wouldn't know. The darks will only get as dark as they ever will during the first few minutes of development and any additional developing time only makes the lights come in more (those CAN be overdeveloped!) Since the shirt has loss of detail in the lights, we can assume that it is not a development issue (unless it's the developer type) since darks can't be overdeveloped. That's why we say "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" Shooting Tri-X at box speed should make it look like HP5 at 400.
i dont think rodinal is a good match for t-grain films. as per my experience, rodinal extracts more grain from the two latter films. i would suggest try using kodak's hc110, d76 or ilford's hc developers. from what i read in different forums rodinal lacks a catalyst, causing longer dev times and more prounouced grain in t-grain films. great video though, very informative. i hope you can make other videos for 100 speed, 800 and higher. this one of best b/w film comparison videos.
Rodinal is great, but it is horrible in rotary tube processors. Do the same thing by hand or with xtol in the jobo for more accurate and optimal results
I've used it in both. The jobo is always set for very low speed with any B&W films I've done and I've found it to be similar in result to hand developing.
I appreciate how much effort you put into this. However, to a degree you can tweak the look of a film by changing development times and agitation. I believe that the development time for Kodak Trix on the massive dev chart is too high, which makes negatives come out too contrasty...
+Torben Last Exactly what I thought. Simply by decreasing dev time, you could probably get hp5 and tri-x looking very comparable. Your Tri-x definitely looks a bit overdeveloped (which isn't a bad thing if that's the look you want!)
As a general rule of thumb, not to say that you have to, but I would never develop a 400ASA film with Rodinal. Though the fact that this is a medium format film helps. It jst adds to much grain.
The reason that slow developing films are preferable to faster developing films is that you have far more control in processing N+/-. For this reason, I would take Delta over any Kodak film.
Comparisons like this are seductive, but I think in this case, limited in value for these reasons. The TX is clearly over developed. It may have been processed per the Massive ..Chart, but that data must be wrong if so. TX is simply not that contrasty when properly developed. Also, at most this demonstrates how the films process in Rodinal. Rodinal is not an optimal devleoper for any of these films [or any modern films; use it to finish off your Panatomic-X]. If you do the same comparison using D-76 (1:2) you'll get a different comparative result as to contrast, density and grain structure. So, if you use Rodinal and do not calibrate your film processing to your chemistry and process technique, here you go. Otherwise, not much value here. And only lazy people compomise their negative quality by processing B&W in a continuous action rotary processor; Virginia, there really is a reason B&W film makers don't recommend it. [No, "slow" versus "fast" rotation speed doesn't solve the problem. "Just say NO".] I use HP-5+, I used to rotary process it; I stopped. My process Time/Temp are calibrated to negative denisty standards. [Did he say Zone System?] I've spent 35 years doing these same tests, so take my word for it (or not if you have reason otherwise.}.
For beginners watching this, take note that unless you expose and develop EXACTLY like him you will get very different results. My results using D76 with the same films are polar opposite.
Interesting test but really does not say much about each film’s capabilities. Some film/developer combinations just don’t work well, or create results that are not usable for comparisons. Unfair to process Tri-X in Rodinal.
Michael Kenna shoots medium format Kodak Tri-X, develops it in Rodinal 1:25, and then prints it on Ilford Gallery using Kodak Dektol diluted 1:3. His images look great.
I don't think you used the right developer for 400 asa films.If using Rodinal I would be rating 400asa films at 200asa. Different developers yield different results so I am not convinced this is a fair test.I have never had blocked shadows from either Tri X or TMax like that.
I've used many gallons of Rodinal over the years (Diluted 1+50 or more - that is a lot!!) It has been my go to developer, but for all the wrong reasons. It is easy to use, it lasts forever and it is versatile. It is always there on the shelf, ready to go and quick to mix. But, although it has took me a long time to admit it to myself, it isn't really a very good developer in my humble opinion. OK, but not particularly 'good' in a lot of situations. I don't think it is works as good as it's reputation suggests for compensation or acutance compared with other high acutance developers, even though that is supposed to be one of it's strengths. It isn't good for fast films, HP5+ does better in almost anything else. Ilfosol is a better choice even though it is supposed to be for slower films, it does a better job than Rodinal for 400 ISO films. The big issue was it would go off too quickly, but the latest version, Ilfosol 3, is better.
Tri x to me looks how black and white is meant to look, hp5 always looks too flat and the grain looks odd. I use Delta 100 and Tri x, Delta when I’m doing landscape stuff or portraits, Tri x for when I want that gritty street look.
Great video. Thank you. One piece of advice for people located in Germany: Rollei RPX 400 tends to be much cheaper here in Germany than comparable films so it's definitely worth trying if you're into the Ilford HP5+ look.
Looks like the Tri-X was underexposed (almost no shadow details) and then overdeveloped. When shooting Tri-X at box speed ISO400, this usually happens. You can easily make it look like the other films by giving it more light (ISO 200 - 250) and less development. You can also make the other films look more like your example of Tri-X (less light and more development). I think that any comment saying that this film is more or less contrasty than that film is wrong. BW films do not have a constant contrast level but contrast is always depending on exposure and development. You can shoot every film so that it becomes as flat as Iowa (or the Netherlands) and you can shoot every film so that it turns into a true black and white contrast monster without any grey tones at all, it is only a question how much light you give to the film and how long you soup it in your developer.
I understand of cause that you shoot all these films at box speed and at box speed Tri-X will look more contrasty, because it is a much slower film than the others and therefore looses all that detail in the shadows. And to compensate this, you need to give it more development and this leads to this terribly high contrast. But practically you just have to find out, what real film speed you need to work with and everything becomes nice again.
I made a test of HP5 and Tri-X with a densitometer. I was going for an average gradient of 0.5 resulting in a negative with good shadow detail and good highlight presevation and obtained that with Tri-X at ISO 250 and 9min of development while HP5 gave me the same gradient at ISO400 and 8min development time.
I don't like Tri-X very much, curly after development requires it to be rolled up again for a day or two to flatten, which I find quite annoying and it is considerably slower than HP5. A bit overexposure usually does not hurt the film and I tend to rather underdevelop than overdevelop it. Bringing the contrast up either on a computer or in a darkroom print is easy, reducing the contrast can be quite difficult.
So I shoot either FP4 at ISO64 to ISO100 or HP5 at ISO250 to ISO400.
Oh yes, RPX. Tried it, in Germany it actually is exactly as expensive as HP5. When RPX came out it was considerably cheaper than HP5 and I tried it a few times but I decided against using relabeled films if they do not come with a great redution in price. You never know if they get changed in the future without anyone telling you. And as it is not even cheaper anymore than HP5, no reason at all to play with this stuff. The Kodak films are much more expensive in Germany and - as I explained - Tri-X, although actually NOT more contrasty than HP5 - is actually considerably slower. A big NO-NO-NO from me towards Kodak and a big thumbs up for Ilford.
(RPX 4,20EUR, HP5 4,25EUR, Tri-X 5,65EUR, Delta 400 4,90EUR and T-Max 5,65EUR at Fotoimpex).
Thorsten Latz ... this dude should have done the test examples.... this was what should have been learned in photo 101
Not to mention .... all these are in 1:50 ordinal too
I'd be fascinated to read how you choose breakfast.
at the end of the day, it's your images, your story. play in the sandbox as long as you want, but let's see some cash in that pie hole speak for itself.
What a huge hate on one of the most favorite film ever made..
Great video and thanks for all the hard work. If you ever decide to do another one you could shoot the same films but develop them in the chemicals that were designed specifically for them, ID11/D76 for TriX and HP5+, Tmax 400 in T-max dev. etc..
Great video! The Rollei RPX 400 in Germany costs less than the Ilford HP5
Loved the comparison, nice job. Would love to see D76 used as developer, and box dev times used for comparison. Also I second a color film comparison with 400 iso for Kodak Portra, gold, Fuji superia, 400h. Thanks!
As a film shooter I've been thinking about what film is better between Tmax and TriX. And I don't think you can say I only shoot one or the other. In your test their was only one lighting condition. What I have found is that different film works for different light. TriX is great in overcast conditions or open shade. It gives nice contrast to the image and a vintage look. Great for street photography. I also find it works nicely indoors or even with direct flash. Tmax is much better for high contrast scenes when the sun is out. I love its smooth tonality. I would use this more for portrait work. So basically I'm saying they are both great depending what you are shooting, the light conditions and the look you are going for.
I did a similar test many years ago and Delta captured my heart. You've just reminded my why me and Delta get along so well =)
This is fantastic. Thank you for the time it took to put this together. Much appreciated!
This is what I was looking for because it's difficult to read this type of comparaison in French photo magazines or another websites, so thank you !
Ce n'est pas du tout difficile quand on est francophone :-)
Cool video! I’m switching over to B&W film and I’ve heard about the use of filters (yellow for example). Am I overthinking this? Any recommendations or should I just go out there with no filter? Thanks!
Great information you provided. I always had trouble deciding which b&w film to get, color too, until I tried Portra 160. So, now I can narrow the b&w film to two - HP5 or TMax. Thanks for posting.
thanx for comparison!! this is the first one I actually found to really show a good side by side compairson. Only problem is I just ordered a bunch of TriX (before watching this) since everyone seems to love it lol
5 months later, how did those Tri-X Films turn out? Please share.
Thanks for the comparison. Of course, so much depends on developing and scanning.
I personally go for Ilford Delta. Great film that's very workable in developing and post, to my mind deserves consideration.
My results are quite different. Yesterday I browsed through the negatives of last year. The medium format ones especially. Just to mention, my rpx 400 are definitely not like yours, which are extremely flat . These are more like mine of the rollei 400s! But also my hp5+ as well as the Tmax look much different from yours! Do you develop Rodinal 1:25? I use (d) Rodinal 1:50 or 1:100 for films with more speed than 200. And the best outcomes I reach when I use fx39 with those films.
I've never understood the attraction of Rodinal - it produces a negative way too grainy for me. As far as Tri-X is concerned, the proper way to expose it is to divide your exposure into three ranges. In shade or other soft light, read the scene with an incident meter and set the camera to match. For medium contrast with soft shadows, read a shadow and set the camera to match. In bright sunlight, read a shadow and subtract one-half stop exposure. Develop in XTOL 1 + 3 and it will lay down for you. If your camera is set on autoexposure at ISO 400, it will underexpose Tri-X by almost two stops in high contrast lighting, and produce exactly the look that you got. The manufacturers rate film based on a standard exposure of a calibrated light source, not in a camera. Because Tri-X has much lower shadow response than other films, you have to base your exposure on shadows. After testing all of the films above except for Rollei RPX, I came to exactly the opposite conclusions. T-Max prints ugly. I could find nothing good to say about it. HP5 is excellent and produces silvery looking highlights which are pleasing on subjects such as animals with white fur. Delta 400 is good, but it's rendition of skin lacks feeling (an orange filter will bring it around, but imposes a two-stop penalty.) Tri-X works in almost every situation, especially when photographing people in uncontrolled situations.
Nice video, it's really helpful to see these films side by side. I've just ordered some Tri-X for the first time and some HP5 again. Delta 400 didn't convince me but my developing might have been quite a bit off so I'll give it another try.
Thanks a ton! Exactly what I was looking for.
Over here in Germany RPX400 is almost exactly the price of HP5: 3.88 EUR for RPX400 vs. 3.99 EUR for HP5.
(Medium Format if you buy a 10-pack)
Great video. Would love a similar one for slow black and white films and for color! Great channel
I shoot Tri-X as my main b/w stock, and I've never seen such extreme lack of latitude. I'm thinking you're right about it just not agreeing with Rodinal, and it not being the easiest film to scan. I've used D-76, when I haven't sent it to a lab, and I'm able to print for all the detail I need. The scans I get from the lab (Indie Film Lab) have all the detail I wanted, even in tricky scenarios like backlighting.
Sometimes you just gotta be going for that dark and moody look when you shoot Tri-X. It does well in really dramatic lighting. Shoot for highlight retention (make sure the bright areas that you want to keep in full detail are in zone 7) and let your shadows fall off.
Or just shoot HP5 and worry about none of this.
Brennan here, I shoot Tri-X as well and didn't have the same issues Brett did in the video either. I have been stand developing my stuff with Rodinal and I'm about to switch over to DDX and regular developing but I've used XTOL in the past too and never had these results. I'd attribute it to using Rodinal on a box speed film. Mostly I think Rodinal was made for slower films like Pan-F, FP4, TMAX 100, etc. Of course your mileage may vary but that's the cool thing about film is you can get totally different looks out of the same film by adjusting any number of controllable variables.
HP5 provides way better negatives for darkroom work, than tri-x. You can easily add in the contrast, but raising black shadows is a pain in the ass.
I haven't used Rodinal myself, but I've spoken to a few photographers who do, and what I hear is that Rodinal is a speed-reducing developer, meant to maximize sharpness in low speed films while preserving highlights, so I guess it just isn't proper to use it with such a grainy film as Tri-X. Some say that if you use Rodinal, you should compensate by overexposing the film a bit. Either that or mix a higher dilution of Rodinal and it'll act as a compensating developer, arresting the highlights while bringing up the shadows.
I've also heard that it can be very easy to over-agitate Rodinal, so stand development is probably best.
what kind of workflow to get that dreamy hair, m8
Zenger I don’t really think you can call how you style your hair a workflow...lol
Very well said! I have nice memories of shooting Tri-X in college photography classes, but now that I've started scanning and digitally processing my negatives, and moved to a more consistently bright and sunny part of the country, its high contrast just isn't what I need at this time in my life, I can add all the contrast I want digitally but I can't bring back details that never made it onto the negative to begin with. I haven't shot much HP5 yet but I've liked it every time I did, and I'm also curious to try TMAX 400 again for the first time since high school. Do you have any experience with Kentmere 400? That's what I've mostly bought so far because it's cheaper than Ilford or Kodak but doesn't scratch as easily as Foma. Definitely more forgiving contrast than Tri-X, but I haven't used enough HP5 to make a fair comparison yet.
Very helpful for me getting back into film after so long, thanks
You just gotta love T-max 400. Great videos, keep up the good work!
Great video! For me it's a mood thing: Tri-X if you want pop and Tmax if you go for a softer look. Never liked RPX much
+MadsJaeger Hey, it's Brennan here. I agree, I think you can make a lot of different films looks more or less the same by adjusting developers and times and agitations, etc. I shoot Tri-X and stand develop everything and didn't get the shadow loss Brett did in this example but kept the contrast and grain.
To be honest I never really looked into Tmax that much but the images you showed here with tmax are so lovely, by far my favorite ones of the shown comparison. I'll buy a few roles next time. :)
Great vid mate, I've always shot Tmax and HP5, the rollie here in NZ is quite a bit cheaper than my preferences so I might give it a go. Liked and subbed cheers
A couple of the images weren't really in focus of the guy with the beard, but all in all a very valuable comparison. Thanks!
a very useful comparison.. good work, thanks guys
I must admit my favorite has always been the Ilford delta 400 I love grains.
Great comparison thank you! I recently did this with my own workflow and found that I favor TMAX in XTOL 1:1 with my jobo. I miss that HP5 grain though!
Great comparison. I would love to see a comparison of all these films with different popular developers.
Granted I haven't been shooting film for very long but I have been extremely happy shooting Tri-X and developing with Ilford DDX. You get a speed boost, fantastic grain structure (fine but still grainy if that makes sense, 120-like) and still get a bump in contrast while keeping nice tones and range. I was considering using Rodinal but with tri-x it's a very specific, rough look.
Interesting that you use Rodinal. I would suggest trying Tri-x in HC110, gives a really good result, but i'm going to assume you want to stick with Rodinal. If that is the case, then HP5 will be your best bet. Just as a side note, I usually shoot Tri-x at 1600 iso in HC110, and it gives pretty amazing negatives. Nice video.
Cool pictures! I actually kinda dig the Tri-X pictures the most. It's a moodier look. Just a matter of taste, I suppose. I also love the sharp, clean look of T-Max 100 but have never taken to T-Max 400 for some reason.... Have you ever tried Ilford Pan F 50?
I remember TriX shot at 320 ASA and developed in Microdol-X. Silky smooth.
Great video- I have done similar tests between HP5 and TX and got much more similar results, however this was with Ilfosol 3 as opposed to Rodinal. From the scanner I prefer TX, however I print in the darkroom and can easily increase contrast there, so the increased shadow detail in HP5 wins out for me.
I'm a huge fan of HP5. Just the right amount of contrast for my taste, and it's easy to work with.
Great video... Thanks for the effort!
I'm a Tri-X shooter, and I def want to try some HP5 now. However, my developed-scanned Tri-X / Tmax 400 film looks nothing like your results. My film gets developed with Xtol at a pro lab at box speed. For me, my Tri-X has strong mid tones, with deep blacks, and a lot more tonal range than your example. Tmax typically has a bit more contrast, and less midtones than Tri-X. From what I would expect, your Tri-X example looks closer to Tmax.
It would be great to see another test, with tri-x/Tmax developed with Xtol or d76.
Great video, well explained! I must agree on the Tri-X, although I haven't reached my threshold yet in terms of contrast :). But I'll definitely try the T-Max :). Hope you guys will otherwise do either a standalone review of the M-A or alongside the M-D! Think it'd be very interesting! :)
Wow - great video, love the analysis. Gotta try em all !
Thank you very much for the content, you have inspired me to take a day off this week, leave the phone at home, and just go out and shoot some BW film.
Just discovered this channel - its a goldmine for enthusiasts who love the art. You should have 10,000 subs before too long.
Gotta try me some Rollei - its the best value film available in Australia, and both Ilford and Kodak are getting a bit pricey.
My favorite 400 is fomapan in caffenol semi-stand (20mins). Partly because of the price + zero cost development, and partly due to it being technically inferior on almost all counts.
Some shots (with the foma 400) look like they have been printed on a sort of soft velvet material, which may or may not suit the story you are trying to tell with your images. When Im out shooting with BW, Im usually looking to create an emotive propaganda piece, rather than an accurate document, so that works for me.
Oh - and old surveillance films, also great for propaganda shots. Every shot looks so damn serious, and everything in the frame appears to be guilty of something ... awesome film, I shoot it whenever I can get my hands on it.
For avedon "american west" look. Which of these would you recommend ?
just some heads up: In germany rollei rpx 400 is the cheapest option. 3,29 for a roll of 36 shots.
Great comparison. Thanks very much!
i recommend trying Kentmere 400, not sure how readily available it is in the states but i personally love it
Yes, Freestyle Photo in Los Angeles sells it very cheap!
Max Lamdin kentmere is made by Harman (Ilford). Kentmere was a long established company in the North of England which made photographic paper, but I don’t think they made film. Kentmere was bought by Ilford some years ago, and Ilford now sell 100 and 400 speed films under the Kentmere name as cheaper alternatives to FP4 and HP5, aimed mainly at students; I don’t know how they differ from the main Ilford branded films.
Ilford make no less than nine films under their own names three traditional, three T grain deltas and three ‘specials’, XP2 a C41 process chromogenic film, SFX 200 with extended red sensitivity, and an orthochromatic film which was previously only available in sheet form, but which has recently been introduced in 35 mm and 120 roll film as well.
Great stuff. I experienced the same thing with Tri-X. It's a bit too harsh, but if you like that look, you simply go with it. There's actually little you can do to change that in post-processing. HP5 gives you a negative that you can work with more. For instance by simply increasing the contrast in post-processing, you're going to get a look very similar look to Tri-X, with the same grain type.
D76 was a better choice for this test. Rodinal is easier, cheap and fast mix.. but in my experience it is not a good developer with high speed film. Thank you for this interesting video!
did you shoot those in same camera?
Good info thanks... Somehow I like TX400 better than HP5 because it looks more contrasty and sharp
my #1 BW film is delta 400 and a close second is Tri x which I never shoot at 400 only at 200 and that way I lift a lot of that extreme shadow while retaining the classic coarse gran of it
I shoot Tri-X (35mm) and stand dev 1:100 in Rodinal for 60 minutes and have never got close to what it looks like in this video (eg shadows blocked up) unless I really pulled things around in Lightroom. I use a Fuji Frontier for scanning and the scans come out with plenty of shadow detail but perhaps that is the stand dev working on the shadows. I might have to try a roll with standard dev at 1:50 and see what I get.
Damn that tri-x print looks really weird. Anyway, I've developed with Rodinal before, and it does have that effect on tri x, especially when it starts to get pushed. Because rodinal is a high acutance developer, and you get fine grains and high contrast. It looks great depending on what you are shooting. If you aren't a fan of that look, have you ever tried xtol? I really like the look of tri x in xtol, and I also hear great things about hc110 as well for tri x. DDX and T-MAX also gives great shadow details.
great video. im surprised with your tri-x results as ive never seen any of my roles have such a limited dynamic range. ddx is legendary for pushing film while controlling contrast and shadow detail.
I've got a hunch your TriX results could look very different with different (probably fewer/less) agitation(s) in Rodinal / Adonal.
Where are you buying your film from so cheap, bulk roll a roll of 120 under $5.00? Can you direct me where you get it from, also for colour roll as well. I live in Canada but if possible I'd order from US
Zauważ ze żaden z tych filmów nie jest przeznaczonym orginalnie do skanowania tylko do powiększania pod powiekszalnikiem. Note that there films intended not for scanning only for zooming under the enlarger.
be good to see hp5 tested with different developers.
Nice video :) ( just from the experience of editing digital images in Silver FX pro , it doesn't have RPX. I doubt if it has delta... ) I guess I like the looks as per the video for the films.. HP5 , TMY & DELTA . :) Thanks :)
Very interesting video. Perhaps the Rodinal developer was not the best choice with 400 iso films. I think would be better a D76 in stock solution. Thank you very much about your video. For example in landscape photography I had bad results with rodinal/rollei 400 retro... The grain was like meteors. With the D76 no grain!.. So I think that with the modern films is very important the developer choice. In my opinion, Rodinal is very useful and cheap... but it is not good for all.
You guys have any experience with Japan Camera Hunter 400 ISO BW film?
I just shot my first roll of it. It was pretty contrasty. I liked it. I also shot it on a new rollie 35 which I haven't shot much. I'm curious how the next few rolls will come out on the M6. Here are a couple shots.
www.flickr.com/photos/markroudebush/30500987763/in/album-72157678520737176/
www.flickr.com/photos/markroudebush/31307000841/in/album-72157678520737176/
There's another guy here on youtube that has reviewed 1 roll of JCH 400 film. Just youtube it and you'll find it. I agree that this film is contrasty and not so forgiving as other BW films. The blacks get crushed easily so depending on your final output, one must be careful to think ahead. That said, I've found that by overexposing and underdeveloping, this film has good potential. I can only hope they bring it out in 120 format so that I can really see the tonal range capabilities of this aerial film.
Outstanding comparisons! Thank you! I prefer a lower contrast in B&W, even for street photography.
At box speed, Tri-X and HP5 should look similar enough that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The metering/exposure is off, but development looks fine if the developer was suitable for Tri-X...that I wouldn't know. The darks will only get as dark as they ever will during the first few minutes of development and any additional developing time only makes the lights come in more (those CAN be overdeveloped!) Since the shirt has loss of detail in the lights, we can assume that it is not a development issue (unless it's the developer type) since darks can't be overdeveloped. That's why we say "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" Shooting Tri-X at box speed should make it look like HP5 at 400.
i think the tri-x looked fantastic
What's with the vertical line in the Hp5?
Super helpful test.
Thanks
i dont think rodinal is a good match for t-grain films. as per my experience, rodinal extracts more grain from the two latter films. i would suggest try using kodak's hc110, d76 or ilford's hc developers. from what i read in different forums rodinal lacks a catalyst, causing longer dev times and more prounouced grain in t-grain films. great video though, very informative. i hope you can make other videos for 100 speed, 800 and higher. this one of best b/w film comparison videos.
Rodinal is great, but it is horrible in rotary tube processors. Do the same thing by hand or with xtol in the jobo for more accurate and optimal results
I've used it in both. The jobo is always set for very low speed with any B&W films I've done and I've found it to be similar in result to hand developing.
I appreciate how much effort you put into this. However, to a degree you can tweak the look of a film by changing development times and agitation.
I believe that the development time for Kodak Trix on the massive dev chart is too high, which makes negatives come out too contrasty...
+Torben Last Exactly what I thought. Simply by decreasing dev time, you could probably get hp5 and tri-x looking very comparable. Your Tri-x definitely looks a bit overdeveloped (which isn't a bad thing if that's the look you want!)
Awesome. Thanks for the vid! Can you do a video like this for color film?
I think T-Max is the way to go
great video. keep up the good work.
thank you so much for this video. It was very helpfull!!!
I'm really surprised of the Tri-X results, these results looked like I thought it looked at 1600.
RPX had the best shadow detail but for the price, HP5 seems the best overall.
tri-x hands down look at that contrast
nice for compare, thank you
As a general rule of thumb, not to say that you have to, but I would never develop a 400ASA film with Rodinal. Though the fact that this is a medium format film helps. It jst adds to much grain.
The reason that slow developing films are preferable to faster developing films is that you have far more control in processing N+/-. For this reason, I would take Delta over any Kodak film.
Comparisons like this are seductive, but I think in this case, limited in value for these reasons. The TX is clearly over developed. It may have been processed per the Massive ..Chart, but that data must be wrong if so. TX is simply not that contrasty when properly developed. Also, at most this demonstrates how the films process in Rodinal. Rodinal is not an optimal devleoper for any of these films [or any modern films; use it to finish off your Panatomic-X]. If you do the same comparison using D-76 (1:2) you'll get a different comparative result as to contrast, density and grain structure. So, if you use Rodinal and do not calibrate your film processing to your chemistry and process technique, here you go. Otherwise, not much value here. And only lazy people compomise their negative quality by processing B&W in a continuous action rotary processor; Virginia, there really is a reason B&W film makers don't recommend it. [No, "slow" versus "fast" rotation speed doesn't solve the problem. "Just say NO".] I use HP-5+, I used to rotary process it; I stopped. My process Time/Temp are calibrated to negative denisty standards. [Did he say Zone System?] I've spent 35 years doing these same tests, so take my word for it (or not if you have reason otherwise.}.
Great video
Thanks man! 👍
Fantastic video!! Thanks
For beginners watching this, take note that unless you expose and develop EXACTLY like him you will get very different results. My results using D76 with the same films are polar opposite.
I love your hair tho omg
Excellent thanks
Wow thank you for this video !
Fantastic! Thank you!
Tri-X forever!
Do color film next pleasee
Well done. Thank you!
Interesting test but really does not say much about each film’s capabilities. Some film/developer combinations just don’t work well, or create results that are not usable for comparisons. Unfair to process Tri-X in Rodinal.
Michael Kenna shoots medium format Kodak Tri-X, develops it in Rodinal 1:25, and then prints it on Ilford Gallery using Kodak Dektol diluted 1:3. His images look great.
Does he shoot comparison tests using this combo?
Thankyou so much very much appreciated
HP5 PLUS is the best b/w film!
great job!!
I don't think you used the right developer for 400 asa films.If using Rodinal I would be rating 400asa films at 200asa. Different developers yield different results so I am not convinced this is a fair test.I have never had blocked shadows from either Tri X or TMax like that.
4 years ago a roll of HP5 was 2,5 dollars. Right now it costs 5 to 6 euros i love the fucking free market
I've used many gallons of Rodinal over the years (Diluted 1+50 or more - that is a lot!!) It has been my go to developer, but for all the wrong reasons. It is easy to use, it lasts forever and it is versatile. It is always there on the shelf, ready to go and quick to mix. But, although it has took me a long time to admit it to myself, it isn't really a very good developer in my humble opinion. OK, but not particularly 'good' in a lot of situations. I don't think it is works as good as it's reputation suggests for compensation or acutance compared with other high acutance developers, even though that is supposed to be one of it's strengths. It isn't good for fast films, HP5+ does better in almost anything else. Ilfosol is a better choice even though it is supposed to be for slower films, it does a better job than Rodinal for 400 ISO films. The big issue was it would go off too quickly, but the latest version, Ilfosol 3, is better.
i want u to compare fomapan 400 too
~100 speed comparison?
Tri x to me looks how black and white is meant to look, hp5 always looks too flat and the grain looks odd. I use Delta 100 and Tri x, Delta when I’m doing landscape stuff or portraits, Tri x for when I want that gritty street look.