Thanks so much , now I know that HP5 is my choice . I do not like how strong is contrast in 400 TX - which I ordered just before I started to watch your video ! Quick question, what would you say would be most suitable for portraits - i will use small soft boxes as I want to do head shots mainly - school type photos.
I know that each film has special something, but most of the differences shown here are to be mitigated, either by different developers / developing techniques, or even better, in the post processing. WET post processing. BTW, all those cameras used are OLD, and different, made by different camera makers, so there's a possibility that some exposure times on some of those cameras are not accurate. Not all the time. Just saying... In regards to films, I'm a bit biased. I've never used Tri-X, ever. When I've started in photography, and later professionally while using film, Tri-X wasn't available in my country. Unlike Ilford's HP5. And later when Kentmere showed up I didn't care anymore. Course for me, HP5 was always a king...
Interesting comparison! There is so much you can do in digitising and post processing, I think K400 is perfectly adequate for me. But one could also argue that it's false economy trying to save a few bucks and risk losing the highlight/shadow details in some cases compared to HP5. Hmm..
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Such a great comparison! Thank you! The Tri-X remains my favourite.
very intertesting. thank you
Thanks so much , now I know that HP5 is my choice . I do not like how strong is contrast in 400 TX - which I ordered just before I started to watch your video ! Quick question, what would you say would be most suitable for portraits - i will use small soft boxes as I want to do head shots mainly - school type photos.
I know that each film has special something, but most of the differences shown here are to be mitigated, either by different developers / developing techniques, or even better, in the post processing. WET post processing.
BTW, all those cameras used are OLD, and different, made by different camera makers, so there's a possibility that some exposure times on some of those cameras are not accurate. Not all the time. Just saying...
In regards to films, I'm a bit biased. I've never used Tri-X, ever. When I've started in photography, and later professionally while using film, Tri-X wasn't available in my country. Unlike Ilford's HP5. And later when Kentmere showed up I didn't care anymore. Course for me, HP5 was always a king...
Contrast and sharpness also depends on the lens so if you want to be objective you have to compare images taken with the same lens.
This is true. Guess i need to by two more Nikon F4's
Nice Video! Which one has the finest Grain?
Interesting comparison! There is so much you can do in digitising and post processing, I think K400 is perfectly adequate for me. But one could also argue that it's false economy trying to save a few bucks and risk losing the highlight/shadow details in some cases compared to HP5. Hmm..
Truth all across the board.
The K400 seems to be nice for portrait. Hp5 is my actual favorite. Nice for architecture
Yeah agreed. HP5 does great for architecture.
Overall, I like HP5 best. Have you ever tried Cinestill BwXX? My absolute favorite!
Not yet! I definitely need to check it out.
Your Canon overexposes! It is quite common with the A-Series. They usually have about +1 to +1.5 stops.
I had no idea that was something with the A series. I’m happy I know that now. Thanks so much.