I have to say from personal experience shooting HP5 at 800 is a real hidden gem, I accidentally pushed it 1 stop and just fell in love with the look. And with TRI-X I only shoot it at box speed or 1600. With those three looks its everything I would ever need from black & White. Thanks for the video.
Since it was changed in the 80s Tri X was never the same. It's still the best of the bunch nowadays. I was an apprentice photographer in the 1960s UK and fell out with my employer over films. He used Ilford HP3 and I preferred Tri X because it had a better response to electronic flash. So I resigned. I was 20. I bought 2 Yashica Mat cameras and started my own wedding, press and portrait photography business. I developed in Johnsons Unitol developer at that time. I use Rodinal at 1 to 25 for 7 minutes nowadays. My friend is a portrait photographer as of 2019 and uses a Mamiya Rb67 with HP5. To each his own.
I prefer Tri-X. I was a press photographer in the early 80's and was issued Tri-X. If you can't get a printable photo with Tri-X, get out of the business. I now use it almost exclusively in my street photography.
KingJvpes 😂😂 inhave loaded trix400 last shot for this morning and back to tmax400 love both trix400, hp5, but my daily film is TMax maybe because it’s chippest 6.60$ per 120roll 🇨🇦 $ rest I do home
Another first class video. I'm just going back to B&W after a few years. Starting with Tri-X but planning to run some HP5 through later as well. Keep up the great work!
Like inevitable crafts referenced, choice of developer and method will dramatically change how each film reacts. In something like Rodinol, HP5 will have much more shadow detail than tri-x but tri-x will have more shadow detail in Xtol. Also, HP5 is more tolerant of different methods from constant agitation to stand development. For Tri-x, you really want to stick to conventional (10 seconds per minute) agitation for best results though stand development isn't the end of the world for it.
You should really develop your own B&W film. Unlike color, with B&W there are many different developers, and you can get many different effects just by using a different developer. Leaving the development to a 'lab' to do is cutting off much of your creative control of your images. TriX and HP5 each react differently to different developers, but you can find the film/developer combos that best suit your vision if you do your own film processing (at least for B&W, I don't think there's much difference in color chemistry).
I agree. HP5+ has deeper black according to the video, but it might have been when developed in the chemical of that particular lab (I wonder which developer they use). Different developers bring to you different results.
I concur. I’m an ex-lab manager. We dumped all B&W in the same HC-110 developer for the same time and temp. Maybe you’re lucky and found a custom lab that used developers, times, temps, and agitation you specified, but from the look of your images, I doubt it. Try doing your own. You’ll be amazed at the control you have! With different film developers, you can get many different looks!
Thanks Richard! Yeah I'm trying to share my love of film photography with the world. I do other types of photography videos on my channel as well, but analog photography is the main focus :) Thanks for watching
Great comparison and the photos are great. I used to shoot HP5 as that's what I was told was the best when I got started but since trying TRI-X I haven't looked back. I love to push it to 1600 in 120 format.
Dan Bullman Photography try pushing Kodak tri-x 400 ISO to 3200 ISO. I have done it quite a few times and it came out very nicely. I'm thinking of pushing Kodak tri-x 400 to 6400 ISO. have you pushed a roll of Kodak tri-x 400 ISO to 6400 ISO
One thing that I have noticed is that I can get Ilford 35mm b/w film in 24 or 36 exposures with FP4 125 ISO and HP5 400 and Delta 100 and 400 ISO and tri-x 400 only in 36 exposures. Have you seen tri-x 400 in 24 exposure rolls in 35mm.
We literally just wrapped up shooting on this very same subject! Too funny. Should be up in a few days. What a coincidence! Great comparison Dan, thanks for sharing. :) Great vid as always.
Would love to see a comparison that actually compares. You mention you used different cameras for the 120 shots so that destroys that comparison. You also mention you may have bumped the contrast in one of the 35mm shots. Again, not a good comparison. Could use a comparison where everything is exactly the same but the film.
Great comparison, really interesting to see these films compared. I recently shot a roll of hp5 at ISO 100, by mistake, and got some great images with it. Very flexible film.
I just shot and developed hp5+ at 3200 and home developed it in id-11. All shots where indoor in a museum. Out of the the roll 36 i got like 20 that look good.
Yeah, it's always interesting to see your city through the perspective of different photographers. Lots of vastly different images in the same locations :)
I'm starting to shift from Tri-X to HP5 because it's slightly cheaper for me and I love how it looks at 800. However, I still love the moodiness of Tri-X at 1600
I've shot way more hp5 then Tri but it's because I tend to find it on sale more often. I like them both but if I had to choose one it would hp5 I just find it's more versatile in my work.
great video, I've had good results with both films, and like the comment below you can do so much when printing, is it good to have a favourite, keep up the good work, cheers
Sorry but the only way you can compare two films is the same photo taken on the same camera and lens, developed exactly the same and then wet printed both at contrast 2.5 on the same paper in fresh developer
I'm going to have to try pushing Acros and FP4. I've only shot them at box speed so far. I plan to do a comparison of Acros and FP4 in the future. Thanks for watching, David.
The first one is ISO 200 and right off the scanner and the next one is ISO 400 and right off the scanner while the last one is 6400 which a lot of post work.
Thanks for putting this together. It's very informative for sure. I kinda like the practical, "not reading out of the data sheet" approach. That is good for people's own trials and gives a great starting point. It seems that the issue/feature of HP5+ losing detail in the shadows is also a question of the developer used. In my case it's the other way around. I use a German developer made for push/pull development controlling contrast and grain. Pushing TriX isn't good for the shadow detail at all while HP5+ does well but is a bit flat overall.
Another great video Dan. It's never occurred to me to push film in medium format because medium format is usually about reducing grain. I'll give it a go. I've only been doing it for forty five years. :D
You should check the ligh seals on your Zenith, you are getting lots of light leaks on top and the bottom of the frames ir the form of film perforation. Otherwise, great video, thanks for creating amazing content!
Films developed by a lab under "who knows" circumstances, then scanned, then images maybe adjusted "post-production'. Pictures shot by a number of cameras, which may or may not be in adjustment. Having maintained no standards and controls, and spending most of the time yaking about contrast, which can be adjusted in development for each film, he really has no basis for a comparison of these films in this video - just a subjective comparison of likes and dislikes for these particular images. (No, I'm not put off by his conclusion preferring HP-5+; it's been my primary film for many years.) By the way, the 2007 modifications to Tri-X were not to make it "better"; they were made to make it cheaper to produce by incorporating some of the T-Max technology, reducing its silver content.
Randall Stewart you are correct, but still thanks to this guy for trying 👍 Edit) btw my go to film tmax maybe because it cost 1$ less then trix I’m very comfy with tmax specially long exposures don’t have any failure sometimes it’s good to have to double time, but still tmax so strong 💪
I have tested these two films in 120 and I prefer the more grain and snap in contrast that TRI-X gives me. If I want finer grain I go with Tmax 400. I develop everything in 1x1 D76.
Hi Dan-I think that this is a well presented video, you have great speaking skills. There are technical issues with your analyses as others have mentioned such as no control of developer type/times (unless you asked lab to do that) as well as different lenses used in comparisons. So, you may well be attributing characteristics to the films that are in fact due to other factors. There is one other issue you may not be aware of and that is lens flare. In this video you present a number of photos where you have shot a portrait into the light, such as your subject in the foreground and a bright light source surrounding the subject such as the sky. This will produce significant flare with almost all lenses which significantly degrades the image quality. A good example in this video is the portrait at 8:15. You attributed the lack of shadow detail and lack of sharpness to the film but it is clearly due to veiling flair. Thanks Steve
HP5 plus just because it’s the film I learned to shoot with but never considered shooting it at 1600 I develop my own film and I develop normally for 10 minutes at 20 degrees celsius how much is my development time if I’m shooting HP5 plus at 1600?
Hi Dan, Thanks a lot for your video. To my opinion the Kodak is a little bit better regarding the contrast. The HP5 is a little bit better in the lights. I use a Canon A1. Looking forward to your next video. Take care, Thomas
I haven’t shot TriX yet but I like it’s look sometimes. I have been shooting HP5 plus and some Acros. I like the hp look and at the moment I’m pushing some at 800 . When researching film stocks I was seeing a bit extra shadow detail in the HP5 photos when not pushed too hard . And I guess when pushed hard the loss of detail with an old fashioned look to it . It probably has many variables of how it’s developed and I don’t do my own either.
Good video. Thanks. I like both films but never pushed to 1600. Will definitely do now. Also, I really like Fujifilm Acros 100. I shoot it at box speed and push to 400.
I have shot quite a few rolls of Ilford HP5Plus (at box speed) and it was my first roll of film shot through an interchangeable lens camera. I haven’t developed it myself yet (I have just picked up a kit to do so) but I have found quite reliable and I like the aesthetic. I have shot only one roll of Kodak TriX. I really need to shoot a couple more rolls before commenting on it.
Nearly every picture (except fot the1600 pushed ones) you like more with Tri-X 400 and then your choice at the end is HP5? I don't understand that. Strange.
Nice balanced and researched vid. I have read a lot posts on various forums from Tri-X fans that have been derogatory about HP5+, but almost as many comments from HP5+ fans who swear by it and haven't taken to Tri-X. I think the point is the two films are both excellent but they are just not the same. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Getting familiar with either and it grows on you - and changing to the other film just doesn't seem right, at first.
Brilliant video, presented perfectly as usual. I first starting shooting HP5 because my brother told me to use it in the mid 70s, and he was 4 years older, still is in fact, and I didn't argue with him. I think because it was a look I was used to I didn't think anything looked as good, I must admit that I now prefer HP5 as I find you have a broader range to work with in the dark room. However, this is a purely subjective opinion and both films are phenomenal and people should shoot whatever they enjoy shooting with. I don't shoot either at 120 as I've totally fallen in love with Delta 100, but that again is a yet another look.
Haha, you just can't catch up to your brother's age, can you? Yeah I ended up preferring HP5 when I shot these two films side-by-side. For me, aesthetic is more important than base cost. I just love the look of HP5. Thanks for watching Mark
Dan, would you ever rate your HP5 at 300 for shooting and try to preserve some details in the shadows? Would this create kind of a hybrid effect between the open shadows of Tri-X and the deep blacks of HP5 shot at box speed? Thanks.
My experience regarding loss of detail in shadows is quite opposite. I find tri-x loose it bit faster and having deeper blacks. Maybe its cause by the way I develop it. I prefer HP5 and I shot hundreds of rolls worh :) Exposing it anywhere from 100 to 3200 ISO. Always worked for me :)
Great video and photos. As for the shadows, it depends on the film development. I thought the true sos for the HP5 were 350 and 200 for the trix. Then your results are interesting.
The film developer you use determines the characteristics of the film. This is the disadvantage of choosing commercial labs versus processing the film yourself. You also don't know how many batches of film was run through the chemistry at a commercial lab versus doing these films yourself as you have total control over what you're doing.
First, nice vid Dan. So far I have used more often HP5 and later HP5 plus than Tri-X. I believe it was more about market situation. In my country Ilford was more available than Kodak. The rest is personal preference. BTW...photographers of my generation and older did not pursue GG (gritty/grainy) look for itself. But if one likes that it can be produced even with FP4 or once existing Plus-X. Just push them on 400 ASA or develop them on higher temperature. Cheers
Thanks for watching. Yeah I didn't mean to imply that your generation of photographers pursued the gritty look, just mainly that classic street photographs like Winogrand, Gilden, etc have celebrated that look. I personally prefer the "sharper look" but I'm always down to experiment with films to see what different results I can get. It's something I really enjoy about analog photography.
no clue why everyone says tri-x has more grain... then looking at the photos there is hardly any grain visible... film developing cookbook also mentions that hp5 has more of classic film look vs tri-x but for some reason every blogger keeps repeating the reverse
The developer used is very important. Fuji Neopan 400 beats both Tri-X and HP5+ but getting hard to find now. You will have to start developing your own B&W soon Dan.
There is no info about a develop process. I mostly used Kodak D76 in 1:1 proportion and TriX looks much better than HP5+. Otherwise in Rodinal 1:9 and even in FX39 the HP5+ had an advantage. But honestly, if I had to pick something like 400, I would have taken the Fuji Neopan 400, but unfortunately it passed away a few years ago. Thanks anyway for the comparison.
Those photographie posters you have on the wall, whered you get them from? I have one but I found it in some of my parents' old stuff and I wondered where they got it from
Believe it or not, but I worked with Ilford HP5 and HP5 plus professionally back in the day. Fitst of all, 20 years ago newspapers was still in black and white. And when all the labs closed after 10 PM, the only way to develop film was if you do it yourself, and time was crucial. Digital cameras was out of option course they had cost like Mercedes or BMW. Thath said, HP5 was far flexible to develop and scan...
Interesting video. How do you think TRI-X compares to T-MAX? Have tried T-MAX once (400ISO) and after developing the images felt “bland” or even “haunting” but I also heard that T-MAX is very developer finicky, what is your experience?
+T.B.Photo I'm actually going to be doing a video on this as well. But I will say I'm a huge fan of TMax. I love it's super punchy, contrasty look while still being fine grain.
Ok, cool. I have heard so much positive about T-MAX, so I became very surprised when my negatives came out “dull” (followed the recommended development time). I used Tetenal Ultrafine developer, and I have heard from some that T-MAX is “developer sensitive”. Wonder if it is the same for TRI-X?
I prefer HP5. However, beware there have been some bad batches of Ilford last few years. Bought 5 rolls of 120 PanF and they all had serious emulsion issues. Ilford did not refund my money even though they acknowledged the problem. Wrote them five times and provided all documentation.....
Hi Dan, I really like to watch this video and the photographs you have taken . Probably you have been asked before, but do you know any digital camera which can really produce the effect of the above films , especially from that Tri X ? Thanks in advance !
Hello! With digital, the results will be achieved in editing. So you can really do it with any camera. Search for film emulation presets online. I know the VSCO presets for Lightroom are very popular
A really good review, Both great films but I have always preferred Tri-X I find HP5 is best shot at 200/800/1600 . I don't like HP5 at box speed and I find the dark blacks not to my liking but they are great films and I am being picky. I like Kentmere 400 a lot and is a lot cheaper price than Tri-X but offers great results it only comes in 35mm and it is made by Ilford.
I know Im way behind on watching this but I have to say, I think you just developed the HP5 wrong if you wanted shadow detail. Try it in X-Tol 1:1 Shadow detail is ridiculously good.
One big advantage for me is that Tri-X works better with Rodinal. I don't care for the other developers for the health risks hydroquinone proposes, since I do not have a proper lab. I have just shot HP5 (lab developed) and liked it, but since it is the same price as Tri-X here I think I will hang on to the latter.
Yeah it's definitely good to match your film stock to the developing chemicals you use. I send all my films out for development so this isn't as big a concern for me. I think the HP5 vs Tri-X debate all comes down to personal taste. Thanks for watching, Max :)
Ilford films are not cheaper versions of anything, they're more than able to stand on their own. Now, Fomapan 400 (repackaged in the US as Arista.edu), yes, that could be seen as a cheaper (and grainier, and softer) version of Tri-X.
Nice comparison. I recently got back into film photography. I really like Tri-X for close up or portrait shots. I seem to get better fine detail. For outdoor shooting, I found that HP5+ gives better contrast for distant objects. This is more just my experience though. There could be a lot of other factors at play (old camera, different lenses, home developing, etc).
Nikkor vs Helios????!!!! If you're comparing films, you MUST use the same lenses!!! Shoot TRIX on a Nikon FM and a Zenith and you'll see a huge difference without changing film stock.
Thank you Malvina! Yeah, I just switched up my whole backdrop and lighting setup so I'm still working out the right settings to get a proper exposure. Hopefully upcoming videos will look better. Thanks for watching
Great Video Dan. I mainly use HP5+ that I get in bulk 30m rolls. Very easy to do. I can only highly recommend loading your own cartridges and do the development yourself. Not very difficult to do and very satisfying.
Odd that you thought HP5 blocks up quickly in the shadows with heavy looking blacks! HP5, is well known to do exactly the opposite! Ok, fair enough, if you go pushing it to 1600 then yes you will get heavy looking blacks and more contrast generally. I'll assume that's what you were talking about. Keep up the film stuff!
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I have to say from personal experience shooting HP5 at 800 is a real hidden gem, I accidentally pushed it 1 stop and just fell in love with the look. And with TRI-X I only shoot it at box speed or 1600. With those three looks its everything I would ever need from black & White. Thanks for the video.
Thanks for watching! I will have to try pushing HP5 to 800. I loved the way it looked when I shot it at 1600
Those HP5 pushed photos at the end are absolutely superb. Thanks for putting in the hard work to bring this to us! Many thanks
+Robin May Thanks Robin! Glad you enjoyed it :)
Since it was changed in the 80s Tri X was never the same. It's still the best of the bunch nowadays.
I was an apprentice photographer in the 1960s UK and fell out with my employer over films. He used Ilford HP3 and I preferred Tri X because it had a better response to electronic flash. So I resigned.
I was 20. I bought 2 Yashica Mat cameras and started my own wedding, press and portrait photography business.
I developed in Johnsons Unitol developer at that time.
I use Rodinal at 1 to 25 for 7 minutes nowadays.
My friend is a portrait photographer as of 2019 and uses a Mamiya Rb67 with HP5.
To each his own.
I prefer Tri-X. I was a press photographer in the early 80's and was issued Tri-X. If you can't get a printable photo with Tri-X, get out of the business. I now use it almost exclusively in my street photography.
Taking my first roll of BW TRI-X tomorrow downtown!
Same here. No contest.
Thanks Dan! After watching this just ordered a couple rolls of tri-x! Really appreciate your videos!!! Keep it up haha
+KingJvpes Thanks dude! Appreciate the support! Enjoy your Tri-X :)
KingJvpes 😂😂 inhave loaded trix400 last shot for this morning and back to tmax400 love both trix400, hp5, but my daily film is TMax maybe because it’s chippest 6.60$ per 120roll 🇨🇦 $ rest I do home
Another first class video. I'm just going back to B&W after a few years. Starting with Tri-X but planning to run some HP5 through later as well. Keep up the great work!
+Colin Bradbury Thanks Colin! I really appreciate it :)
Blaming HP5 for its lack of shadow detail just makes me laugh. It is exactly the opposite.
he gave the films to a lab :) pro-style :)
Like inevitable crafts referenced, choice of developer and method will dramatically change how each film reacts. In something like Rodinol, HP5 will have much more shadow detail than tri-x but tri-x will have more shadow detail in Xtol.
Also, HP5 is more tolerant of different methods from constant agitation to stand development. For Tri-x, you really want to stick to conventional (10 seconds per minute) agitation for best results though stand development isn't the end of the world for it.
I actually questioned myself if he hasn't mixed up the results.
Both films are great when you expose @ 200 and pull develop process. HC110, Dil B.
Awesome b&w Dan! You know I love that...and I also LOVE the blue painter's tape holding up your lighting. Seriously. I don't know why, but I love it!
Hahahaha something's gotta hold it up ;)
You should really develop your own B&W film. Unlike color, with B&W there are many different developers, and you can get many different effects just by using a different developer. Leaving the development to a 'lab' to do is cutting off much of your creative control of your images. TriX and HP5 each react differently to different developers, but you can find the film/developer combos that best suit your vision if you do your own film processing (at least for B&W, I don't think there's much difference in color chemistry).
Indeed! Try it, it is not difficult nor expensive. Use D-76 developer for example or adox fx-39II or even r09/rodinal and you will be happy!
I agree. HP5+ has deeper black according to the video, but it might have been when developed in the chemical of that particular lab (I wonder which developer they use). Different developers bring to you different results.
I concur. I’m an ex-lab manager. We dumped all B&W in the same HC-110 developer for the same time and temp. Maybe you’re lucky and found a custom lab that used developers, times, temps, and agitation you specified, but from the look of your images, I doubt it.
Try doing your own. You’ll be amazed at the control you have! With different film developers, you can get many different looks!
Really solid channel! I just got my first film camera and your channel is gold to me right now
Great video, glad I stumbled on it.
Well done comparision. Nice seeing film photography dedicated RUclips channels out there.
Thanks Richard! Yeah I'm trying to share my love of film photography with the world. I do other types of photography videos on my channel as well, but analog photography is the main focus :) Thanks for watching
Great comparison and the photos are great. I used to shoot HP5 as that's what I was told was the best when I got started but since trying TRI-X I haven't looked back. I love to push it to 1600 in 120 format.
I'll have to try pushing Tri-X to 1600 in medium format. I loved the look of it when I shot it on my Mamiya C330.
Dan Bullman Photography try pushing Kodak tri-x 400 ISO to 3200 ISO. I have done it quite a few times and it came out very nicely. I'm thinking of pushing Kodak tri-x 400 to 6400 ISO. have you pushed a roll of Kodak tri-x 400 ISO to 6400 ISO
+Sean Zappulla No I'll have to try that. Living on the edge there Sean ;)
One thing that I have noticed is that I can get Ilford 35mm b/w film in 24 or 36 exposures with FP4 125 ISO and HP5 400 and Delta 100 and 400 ISO and tri-x 400 only in 36 exposures. Have you seen tri-x 400 in 24 exposure rolls in 35mm.
+Sean Zappulla I haven't. Only 36
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29168-USA/Kodak_1590652_TX_135_24_Tri_X_Pan.html
We literally just wrapped up shooting on this very same subject! Too funny. Should be up in a few days. What a coincidence! Great comparison Dan, thanks for sharing. :) Great vid as always.
Haha, cool! I'll keep an eye out for your new video. Thanks for the support :)
Would love to see a comparison that actually compares. You mention you used different cameras for the 120 shots so that destroys that comparison. You also mention you may have bumped the contrast in one of the 35mm shots. Again, not a good comparison. Could use a comparison where everything is exactly the same but the film.
YES! There is no way to compare apples to oranges here. RUclipsr Andrew & Denae does an awesome black and white 400 speed 35mm film comparison video.
Some excellent photos, thanks for the comparisons, I have looking into switching to film, this video helped me out a lot.
+artemorbid Thanks dude!
Great comparison, really interesting to see these films compared. I recently shot a roll of hp5 at ISO 100, by mistake, and got some great images with it. Very flexible film.
Yeah, I really like HP5. Both films are very flexible and able to be over/underexposed. Thanks for watching Geoff
I just recently tried both TriX and HP5. I prefer HP5 over TriX. The grain in TriX is a little too much for me. Thank you for sharing.
Hey! Great video! Thanks for this info. My first SLR was a Zenit 12 XP. You made me remember that camera. Cheers
+Juan Pablo Bialade Thanks Juan!
I used to shoot HP5 years ago and developed it in HC110. I never thought about pushing it to 1600. I switched to XP1/XP2 and really liked it.
I just shot and developed hp5+ at 3200 and home developed it in id-11. All shots where indoor in a museum. Out of the the roll 36 i got like 20 that look good.
I am also from the Boston area. I love being able to compare how I see and photograph the city with how other people from the area do.
Yeah, it's always interesting to see your city through the perspective of different photographers. Lots of vastly different images in the same locations :)
Try Ilford Delta 400 and 100 ISO films. I have used the Ilford FP4 125 and pushed it to 800 ISO and it came out very nicely.
+Sean Zappulla I'm definitely going to try that :) I've shot with both films and like them both 👍 Haven't pushed them yet though
I'm starting to shift from Tri-X to HP5 because it's slightly cheaper for me and I love how it looks at 800. However, I still love the moodiness of Tri-X at 1600
Panchromatic Kentmere 400ASA : )
Next should be Portra 400 vs Fuji pro 400H.
That's actually on my list. Expect that episode to be up in the next few weeks :)
Portra never failed me.
Can I ask is Fuji pro 400 is that different to xtra 400 ?
Loved the comparison! I've been thinking about doing a portra 160 review on my channel & you've inspired me to do it!
I shot a TON of Tri-X and HP5 last year in my own experiment, and also decided HP5 was the film stock I preferred.
+Mike Zilla Yeah I'm hearing that from quite a few people. HP5 FTW
I've shot way more hp5 then Tri but it's because I tend to find it on sale more often. I like them both but if I had to choose one it would hp5 I just find it's more versatile in my work.
Yeah that HP5 is hard to resist. I love the look of it.
great video, I've had good results with both films, and like the comment below you can do so much when printing, is it good to have a favourite, keep up the good work, cheers
Looks like Tri-X really comes into its own in medium format.
great video, love your channel!
Thank you so much!! :)
Sorry but the only way you can compare two films is the same photo taken on the same camera and lens, developed exactly the same and then wet printed both at contrast 2.5 on the same paper in fresh developer
The 400 film the was shot at 1600. Was it also developed at 1600? Did you tell the lab you pushed it?
I had the total opposite impression on grain. And i also think hp5 retains shadow details very well. But maybe its just me.
you probably also dont shoot portraits into the sun and judge flairs as shadow detail :)
I like the tonality of HP5 over Tri-X but I've pushed FP4 and Acros to 400 with good results.
I'm going to have to try pushing Acros and FP4. I've only shot them at box speed so far. I plan to do a comparison of Acros and FP4 in the future. Thanks for watching, David.
I love FP4 but never pushed it would be nice to see your results.
500px.com/photo/184761639/post-halloween-blues-by-david-mccaskill?ctx_page=3&from=user&user_id=11397563
500px.com/photo/201497267/urban-angles-iii-by-david-mccaskill?ctx_page=2&from=user&user_id=11397563
500px.com/photo/177848231/fp4-6400-by-david-mccaskill?ctx_page=3&from=user&user_id=11397563
The first one is ISO 200 and right off the scanner and the next one is ISO 400 and right off the scanner while the last one is 6400 which a lot of post work.
+David McCaskill Very cool! Thanks for sharing those examples 🙌
Tri-X has always been my go-to film. I love the contrast that Tri-X provides. HP5 always seems too grey almost like Arista Edu.
why not try push hp5?
Thanks for putting this together. It's very informative for sure. I kinda like the practical, "not reading out of the data sheet" approach. That is good for people's own trials and gives a great starting point. It seems that the issue/feature of HP5+ losing detail in the shadows is also a question of the developer used. In my case it's the other way around. I use a German developer made for push/pull development controlling contrast and grain. Pushing TriX isn't good for the shadow detail at all while HP5+ does well but is a bit flat overall.
Acros 100 for the win! Thanks for the awesome vid Dan!
+William Ortiz Thanks for watching William! I'm also a big fan of Acros :)
William Ortiz You spelled FP4+ ot PANF+ wrong , but thats ok :)
Another great video Dan.
It's never occurred to me to push film in medium format because medium format is usually about reducing grain.
I'll give it a go.
I've only been doing it for forty five years. :D
+Jon Janson Haha yeah I never thought about it like that
You should check the ligh seals on your Zenith, you are getting lots of light leaks on top and the bottom of the frames ir the form of film perforation. Otherwise, great video, thanks for creating amazing content!
Isn’t HP5 known for being less contrasty with lots of detail in the shadows?
The photo at 7:24 almost looks like a sketch to me, which is really cool and stylised.
Films developed by a lab under "who knows" circumstances, then scanned, then images maybe adjusted "post-production'. Pictures shot by a number of cameras, which may or may not be in adjustment. Having maintained no standards and controls, and spending most of the time yaking about contrast, which can be adjusted in development for each film, he really has no basis for a comparison of these films in this video - just a subjective comparison of likes and dislikes for these particular images. (No, I'm not put off by his conclusion preferring HP-5+; it's been my primary film for many years.) By the way, the 2007 modifications to Tri-X were not to make it "better"; they were made to make it cheaper to produce by incorporating some of the T-Max technology, reducing its silver content.
Randall Stewart you are correct, but still thanks to this guy for trying 👍
Edit) btw my go to film tmax maybe because it cost 1$ less then trix
I’m very comfy with tmax specially long exposures don’t have any failure sometimes it’s good to have to double time, but still tmax so strong 💪
Great video, very helpful comparison, nice photos, but I'm distracted by the fact that you hung string lights with big blue painters tape...
Thanks! Hahaha the lights are my thang. I guess it comes from growing up in a rural area lol
I have tested these two films in 120 and I prefer the more grain and snap in contrast that TRI-X gives me. If I want finer grain I go with Tmax 400. I develop everything in 1x1 D76.
Hi Dan-I think that this is a well presented video, you have great speaking skills. There are technical issues with your analyses as others have mentioned such as no control of developer type/times (unless you asked lab to do that) as well as different lenses used in comparisons. So, you may well be attributing characteristics to the films that are in fact due to other factors.
There is one other issue you may not be aware of and that is lens flare. In this video you present a number of photos where you have shot a portrait into the light, such as your subject in the foreground and a bright light source surrounding the subject such as the sky. This will produce significant flare with almost all lenses which significantly degrades the image quality. A good example in this video is the portrait at 8:15. You attributed the lack of shadow detail and lack of sharpness to the film but it is clearly due to veiling flair.
Thanks
Steve
Steve Rosenblum THANK YOU!
HP5 plus just because it’s the film I learned to shoot with but never considered shooting it at 1600 I develop my own film and I develop normally for 10 minutes at 20 degrees celsius how much is my development time if I’m shooting HP5 plus at 1600?
Hi Dan, Thanks a lot for your video. To my opinion the Kodak is a little bit better regarding the contrast. The HP5 is a little bit better in the lights. I use a Canon A1. Looking forward to your next video. Take care, Thomas
I haven’t shot TriX yet but I like it’s look sometimes. I have been shooting HP5 plus and some Acros. I like the hp look and at the moment I’m pushing some at 800 . When researching film stocks I was seeing a bit extra shadow detail in the HP5 photos when not pushed too hard . And I guess when pushed hard the loss of detail with an old fashioned look to it . It probably has many variables of how it’s developed and I don’t do my own either.
so if you use hp5,you have to push,at least one stop to increase contrast.
Good video. Thanks. I like both films but never pushed to 1600. Will definitely do now. Also, I really like Fujifilm Acros 100. I shoot it at box speed and push to 400.
I have shot quite a few rolls of Ilford HP5Plus (at box speed) and it was my first roll of film shot through an interchangeable lens camera. I haven’t developed it myself yet (I have just picked up a kit to do so) but I have found quite reliable and I like the aesthetic.
I have shot only one roll of Kodak TriX. I really need to shoot a couple more rolls before commenting on it.
Nearly every picture (except fot the1600 pushed ones) you like more with Tri-X 400 and then your choice at the end is HP5? I don't understand that. Strange.
Nice balanced and researched vid.
I have read a lot posts on various forums from Tri-X fans that have been derogatory about HP5+, but almost as many comments from HP5+ fans who swear by it and haven't taken to Tri-X. I think the point is the two films are both excellent but they are just not the same. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Getting familiar with either and it grows on you - and changing to the other film just doesn't seem right, at first.
+SAHBfan Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it! :)
Brilliant video, presented perfectly as usual. I first starting shooting HP5 because my brother told me to use it in the mid 70s, and he was 4 years older, still is in fact, and I didn't argue with him. I think because it was a look I was used to I didn't think anything looked as good, I must admit that I now prefer HP5 as I find you have a broader range to work with in the dark room. However, this is a purely subjective opinion and both films are phenomenal and people should shoot whatever they enjoy shooting with. I don't shoot either at 120 as I've totally fallen in love with Delta 100, but that again is a yet another look.
Haha, you just can't catch up to your brother's age, can you? Yeah I ended up preferring HP5 when I shot these two films side-by-side. For me, aesthetic is more important than base cost. I just love the look of HP5. Thanks for watching Mark
Was looking for it “Delta100” 👍
Dan, would you ever rate your HP5 at 300 for shooting and try to preserve some details in the shadows? Would this create kind of a hybrid effect between the open shadows of Tri-X and the deep blacks of HP5 shot at box speed? Thanks.
I haven't tried that but it would be an interesting experiment
My experience regarding loss of detail in shadows is quite opposite. I find tri-x loose it bit faster and having deeper blacks. Maybe its cause by the way I develop it. I prefer HP5 and I shot hundreds of rolls worh :) Exposing it anywhere from 100 to 3200 ISO. Always worked for me :)
same
I have foundTRI-x has better h/L and HP5 has better shadows.
Tests made forty years ago shot on a 5x7 Linhof Kardan B
Great video and photos. As for the shadows, it depends on the film development. I thought the true sos for the HP5 were 350 and 200 for the trix. Then your results are interesting.
Dan you're the man bro. Good comparison review
Thanks dude!
At 400 I prefer Tri-X but pushing HP5 increases it's contrast and I prefer HP5 at 800 and 1600.
The film developer you use determines the characteristics of the film. This is the disadvantage of choosing commercial labs versus processing the film yourself. You also don't know how many batches of film was run through the chemistry at a commercial lab versus doing these films yourself as you have total control over what you're doing.
First, nice vid Dan.
So far I have used more often HP5 and later HP5 plus than Tri-X. I believe it was more about market situation. In my country Ilford was more available than Kodak. The rest is personal preference.
BTW...photographers of my generation and older did not pursue GG (gritty/grainy) look for itself. But if one likes that it can be produced even with FP4 or once existing Plus-X. Just push them on 400 ASA or develop them on higher temperature.
Cheers
Thanks for watching. Yeah I didn't mean to imply that your generation of photographers pursued the gritty look, just mainly that classic street photographs like Winogrand, Gilden, etc have celebrated that look. I personally prefer the "sharper look" but I'm always down to experiment with films to see what different results I can get. It's something I really enjoy about analog photography.
Excellent info man cheers
Thanks Robbie!
Doisneau used HP-5, or the earlier versions - hp-2+3.
I personally prefer TRI-X. The mood it creates is awesome.
HP5+ is my preferred B&W film in 35mm.
no clue why everyone says tri-x has more grain... then looking at the photos there is hardly any grain visible... film developing cookbook also mentions that hp5 has more of classic film look vs tri-x but for some reason every blogger keeps repeating the reverse
The developer used is very important. Fuji Neopan 400 beats both Tri-X and HP5+ but getting hard to find now. You will have to start developing your own B&W soon Dan.
+mamiyapress Ugh, yeah I wish Neopan was still in production. It's a gorgeous film. One day I'll get into home developing
There is no info about a develop process. I mostly used Kodak D76 in 1:1 proportion and TriX looks much better than HP5+. Otherwise in Rodinal 1:9 and even in FX39 the HP5+ had an advantage. But honestly, if I had to pick something like 400, I would have taken the Fuji Neopan 400, but unfortunately it passed away a few years ago. Thanks anyway for the comparison.
Rodian 1:9 ? I've never heard of such a proportion of the developer.
Those photographie posters you have on the wall, whered you get them from? I have one but I found it in some of my parents' old stuff and I wondered where they got it from
I got them at Blick Art store
I think I'm leaning towards HP5 plus. It's a lot flatter to scan compared to Kodak
Believe it or not, but I worked with Ilford HP5 and HP5 plus professionally back in the day. Fitst of all, 20 years ago newspapers was still in black and white. And when all the labs closed after 10 PM, the only way to develop film was if you do it yourself, and time was crucial. Digital cameras was out of option course they had cost like Mercedes or BMW. Thath said, HP5 was far flexible to develop and scan...
Yeah, HP5 is a beautiful film stock for sure. Definitely suitable for professional purposes :)
Interesting video.
How do you think TRI-X compares to T-MAX?
Have tried T-MAX once (400ISO) and after developing the images felt “bland” or even “haunting” but I also heard that T-MAX is very developer finicky, what is your experience?
+T.B.Photo I'm actually going to be doing a video on this as well. But I will say I'm a huge fan of TMax. I love it's super punchy, contrasty look while still being fine grain.
Ok, cool.
I have heard so much positive about T-MAX, so I became very surprised when my
negatives came out “dull” (followed the recommended development time).
I used Tetenal Ultrafine developer, and I have heard from some that T-MAX is “developer sensitive”.
Wonder if it is the same for TRI-X?
Per 35mm roll, at least via BH, Tri-X is actually cheeper, but it's no comparison if you bulk load. (which I don't do… yet)
Yeah I haven't gotten into the bulk loading thing either.
On the photos you pushed to 1600, are you developing them at 1600 or 400?
Fujifilm Neopan 100 is my b&w film of choice.
+Arm Head Definitely a good one!
I prefer HP5. However, beware there have been some bad batches of Ilford last few years. Bought 5 rolls of 120 PanF and they all had serious emulsion issues. Ilford did not refund my money even though they acknowledged the problem. Wrote them five times and provided all documentation.....
You should compare the legacy Kodak Tri-X to the HP-5, otherwise there is no comparison to the post reformulated Tri-X
Hi Dan, I really like to watch this video and the photographs you have taken . Probably you have been asked before, but do you know any digital camera which can really produce the effect of the above films , especially from that Tri X ? Thanks in advance !
Hello! With digital, the results will be achieved in editing. So you can really do it with any camera. Search for film emulation presets online. I know the VSCO presets for Lightroom are very popular
Dan Bullman Photography Thank you ! Have you ever used them personally ? How is the result ?
A really good review, Both great films but I have always preferred Tri-X I find HP5 is best shot at 200/800/1600 . I don't like HP5 at box speed and I find the dark blacks not to my liking but they are great films and I am being picky. I like Kentmere 400 a lot and is a lot cheaper price than Tri-X but offers great results it only comes in 35mm and it is made by Ilford.
+Harry Stevens Thanks for the feedback Harry! I'll have to check out Kentmere 400 👍
Great video Dan, so do you rate the films at 1600 on camera and when developing, how many stops do you ask the lab to push it?
+Hugo Alvarado Hi Hugo! Yes I rate it at 1600 and had the lab push it 2 stops
Awesome! thanks that's what i thought great video!
Thanks Hugo :D
I know Im way behind on watching this but I have to say, I think you just developed the HP5 wrong if you wanted shadow detail. Try it in X-Tol 1:1 Shadow detail is ridiculously good.
One big advantage for me is that Tri-X works better with Rodinal. I don't care for the other developers for the health risks hydroquinone proposes, since I do not have a proper lab. I have just shot HP5 (lab developed) and liked it, but since it is the same price as Tri-X here I think I will hang on to the latter.
Yeah it's definitely good to match your film stock to the developing chemicals you use. I send all my films out for development so this isn't as big a concern for me. I think the HP5 vs Tri-X debate all comes down to personal taste. Thanks for watching, Max :)
Yeah, totally personal. One can't say one is better than the other. You're making great videos, I really appreciate this! Keep on going :)
Ilford films are not cheaper versions of anything, they're more than able to stand on their own. Now, Fomapan 400 (repackaged in the US as Arista.edu), yes, that could be seen as a cheaper (and grainier, and softer) version of Tri-X.
Hello. I meant cheaper cost, not lower quality. Agree that Ilford stands on its own
Really a big fan of Tri-X. Though, I´ve never tried out the HP-5. Other Ilford´s, yes, but never that one. But I will.
Hope you have some fun with HP-5. It's a great film!
The grain depends on the processing. Is not the same in color.
Yes indeed :)
Nice comparison. I recently got back into film photography. I really like Tri-X for close up or portrait shots. I seem to get better fine detail. For outdoor shooting, I found that HP5+ gives better contrast for distant objects. This is more just my experience though. There could be a lot of other factors at play (old camera, different lenses, home developing, etc).
Yeah the experimentation is part of the fun of analog photography. Thanks for watching :)
Nikkor vs Helios????!!!! If you're comparing films, you MUST use the same lenses!!! Shoot TRIX on a Nikon FM and a Zenith and you'll see a huge difference without changing film stock.
Very nice vid . Your light setup is a little overexposing . Thank you . Subbed
Thank you Malvina! Yeah, I just switched up my whole backdrop and lighting setup so I'm still working out the right settings to get a proper exposure. Hopefully upcoming videos will look better. Thanks for watching
I think the Milford is cooler for portrait and the Kodak tri-X for landscape.
Great photo! @10:30
Hp5 has a kind of matte look to it while trix seems to look a bit glossier in my opinion.
I really don't like either film very much (I am a T-grain person) but that shot at 11:00 is stunning.
I also really like T-grain films. TMax is one of my favorites. Comparison vid with Tri-X coming soon :)
Nothing beats Tri-X! It's THE BEST ever.
@Aaron NoneYa Your mileage clearly differs. I haven't had the best experience with HP5 and still greatly prefer Tri-X for all B&W images I do.
Great video
Appreciate you bro, good vid
Thank you 🙏
Great Video Dan. I mainly use HP5+ that I get in bulk 30m rolls. Very easy to do. I can only highly recommend loading your own cartridges and do the development yourself. Not very difficult to do and very satisfying.
+Rob van Valkenburg Thank you Rob :)
Both films are great but for me, I prefer HP5 over Tri-X :)
Thanks for watching Howie. Yeah it comes down to personal preference. I like HP5 better as well :)
Odd that you thought HP5 blocks up quickly in the shadows with heavy looking blacks! HP5, is well known to do exactly the opposite! Ok, fair enough, if you go pushing it to 1600 then yes you will get heavy looking blacks and more contrast generally. I'll assume that's what you were talking about. Keep up the film stuff!