Tmax 400 VS HP5, Am I too set in my ways?

[Matthew W Hoelscher]

I work for the Iowa State Daily (campus newspaper) and we have used Tmax
400 film for as long and I have worked there and now they are switching
to HP5. I didn't think any film could work as well under the abuse Tmax
can take. Pushing to 3200, cheap developers and so on. I don't look
for quality, just performance. I can use that film to shoot bright
sunny days, bar bands, and sports. Will I be able to do the same things
with the HP5? I found out that it is $7 dollars cheaper per baulk roll
than Tmax. Is it a better deal?

Thanks for the insight

Matthew Hoelscher
--
It is better to be luckey than smart!

-anonymous

---Hoelstein

[Marc Small]

All of the TMax films are controversial due to their demand of strict
processing. I like 100, have no time for 400, but I do admit to knowing
poor helpless folk who feel the reverse. Nonetheless, HP-5+ is my
standard breed of film and I love it. It pushes more easily than T-Max
400, it is scads easier in the darkroom, and the negatives won't quit in
terms of quality. I'm not knocking T-Max, I simply prefer HP-5+. And, if
you want a really superlative film, try 400 Delta!
Best,
Marc James Small aka marc...@aol.com or FAX +703/343-7315

[Daniel J. Stern]

I couldn't agree more! Ilford's B/W products stomp Kodak's since the
latter dropped Panatomic-X

SL6 Daniel

[Michael Covington]

Kodak isn't doing badly, either. I recently switched back to Tri-X Pan
after years away from it and found it apparently finer-grained than before.
I really like it -- it takes abuse in a way that T-Max 400 doesn't.

(Slight exaggeration: With T-Max 400 there is no way to expose it _right_;
with Tri-X there is no way to expose it _wrong_!)

--
< Michael A. Covington, Assc Rsch Scientist, Artificial Intelligence Center >
< The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7415 USA mcov...@ai.uga.edu >
< Unless specifically indicated, I am not speaking for the University. > <><

[bill almond]

Dear Matthew
From the shooting conditions/processing conditions that you describe
then by all means use the lower priced film HP5 is an excellent
emulsion, can take a lot of processing abuse and still deliver. Go for
it.
Bill Almond, Pizzazz Images, Vancouver, B.C. piz...@cyberstore.ca

Bill

[Shooter2]

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950210194024.10300A-100000@gladstone>,

when i first started out in photography, i used hp5+, and i would
sometimes shoot it at asa 1600. i processed the film, not knowing i had
to push process, and the pix came out excellent. a little grainy, but
contrast was good. i still have these pix, and i am impressed.

i shot hp5 and blew it up to 11x14 using nikon 105/2.5. incredible.
i wouldn't touch tmax 400, unless it was free.

--
thank you and have a nice dinner

james

[Timothy D. Shoppa x4256]

In article <mhoelsch....@las1.iastate.edu>, mhoe...@iastate.edu (Matthew W Hoelscher) writes...

>I work for the Iowa State Daily (campus newspaper) and we have used Tmax
>400 film for as long and I have worked there and now they are switching
>to HP5. I didn't think any film could work as well under the abuse Tmax
>can take. Pushing to 3200, cheap developers and so on. I don't look
>for quality, just performance. I can use that film to shoot bright
>sunny days, bar bands, and sports. Will I be able to do the same things
>with the HP5? I found out that it is $7 dollars cheaper per baulk roll
>than Tmax. Is it a better deal?
>
>Thanks for the insight
>
>Matthew Hoelscher

Hi Matthew,
I think there are really two issues here:

1. Is HP5 good enough? I think so. It's my preferred film, as a matter
of fact. I like it better than Tmax 400; with my enlarger (condenser) and
developers, Tmax 400 often blocks up in the highlights, something that
I don't have a problem with in HP5. With other enlargers (espcecially
diffusion) Tmax 400 may not be nearly so fussy. HP5, again with my equipment
and usage, is also a faster film than Tmax 400. (I'd rate HP5 around 400-500,
while Tmax comes in around 200, in my ringaround tests with standard
developers.) All that said, I think either film could do just fine for
the applications you want to use it for.

This brings us to the more important question:

2. Is it a good idea to switch? I wouldn't think so. I'm very happy with my
HP5, and I'd fight tooth and nail if someone tried to make me switch to
Tmax 400. I realize that with some changes in my technique and maybe
a diffusion head enlarger, I could be able to do just as well, or
even better, with Tmax 400.
But it'd take me years to get as comfortable with Tmax 400 as I currently
am with HP5. In addition, there are a *lot* of costs other than the
price of the film and developer; you have to take into account the time
it'll take for the staff to adjust to the new film and its characteristics.
This would probably come in at a lot more than a few bucks per roll.

So, if everybody is quite happy with Tmax 400, why switch? The few
bucks per roll can't be that big a cost, compared to all the other costs
involved.

Tim. (sho...@altair.krl.caltech.edu)

[Henry Posner]

Matthew:
T-Max400 and HP5+ are apples and oranges. The Ilford film to
compare to T-Max is their Delta 400. HP5+ can be compared to
Tri-X. The HP5+ will be simpler to process with less highlight
blocking and for your purposes are more than suitable tonal
range, grain structure and resolution.

--
regards, Henry Posner -- B&H Photo-Video, USA
70550...@compuserve.com
800 947-9960; 212 444-6660
fax 800 947-7008; 212 242-1400