Ilford HP5 as a replacement for Tri X
Stephen M. Gluck
and their "vile" ways of increasing profits by removing some of the
silver in their film ie Tri X and how it is impossible to get good
detail in shadow areas He mentioned Ilford HP 5 as a replacement for
Tri X. I shot a roll yesterday and will be in the darkroom tomorrow
developing it. He is trying an experiment by shooting one exposure on
the indicated f- stop and another of the same subject +1 and then +2
f-tops. Anybody oiutthere care to comment on HP-5 and or the "new"
Tri X.
Chris Birkett
news:uh5vlvsg0aonfjq5p...@4ax.com...
I've used quite a lot of HP5 Plus, and I've been quite pleased with the
results. At normal EIs (320-800ish), I prefer HP5 Plus, but when pushing it
further, I have problems controlling the highlights. I've been
experimenting a bit, and I would like to continue using HP5 Plus, but I'm
afraid it may not suit my purposes. I would like to use it anwhere between
about 320-1600, and I'm not sure it's up to that sort of pushing. I
recently bought a few rolls of Tri-X, and I'm going to give them a go in the
next week or two. I've heard good things about how Tri-X pushes past 800 in
Diafine.
- Chris
Hickster0711
much contrast I want. I'm sure there are other combinations that work just
fine, but how many can you try? Tri-X just doesn't impress me much any more.
Years ago, I liked it a lot, but no more. Bob Hickey
Michael Scarpitti
I cannot believe the stupidity of anyone who would believe this
constantly circulating myth. Who is the instructor? Let me talk to
him! There is no more or less silver in a film than is necessary for
image quality, and it has not changed. This is absolute bullshit!
If they wanted to make more money, it would be easier just to raise
the price by $0.03 a roll. Changing the amount of silver would cost
more than it's worth, and the silver is not the most costly thing in
the price of the film. There are wages, benefits, marketing and
shipping costs. The silver amounts to probably 1/20th of the entire
cost.
Michael Scarpitti
Anyway, I forgot to mention, both Tri-X and HP5 are good films, and
the issue your 'instructor' brought up has nothing to do with
reality, and should not affect your choice of film.
Bandicoot
news:20030910202402...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Same experience as Bob - I used to love Tri-X and use HP5 only ocasionally.
Now I use HP5 as my main B&W film (Ilford XP2 is the one I use second most,
but mostly as 120, not 35mm) and Tri-X very seldom.
Shame about Tri-X - but HP5 is so good I don't miss it for other than
nostalgic reasons.
(I also like Fuji Acros - but that is a completely different sort of
animal.)
Peter
Gordon Moat
> After hearing a 15 Minute rant by a photography instructor about Kodak
> and their "vile" ways of increasing profits by removing some of the
> silver in their film ie Tri X and how it is impossible to get good
> detail in shadow areas
Not a true assumption. The changes in TriX mostly effect the processing
times, and the consistency of the emulsion layer. Several independent
magazines have already tested new TriX against old TriX, and found little
to no difference in the images. If you liked it in the past, keep using
it.
> He mentioned Ilford HP 5 as a replacement for
> Tri X. I shot a roll yesterday and will be in the darkroom tomorrow
> developing it.
I just used some recently at a jazz concert paid shoot. It was mostly a
test for me, since my order of TMX did not arrive quickly enough. While
my expectations were not that high, I would place HP5+ on a level near
TMX in results, though less grain than TriX.
> He is trying an experiment by shooting one exposure on
> the indicated f- stop and another of the same subject +1 and then +2
> f-tops. Anybody oiutthere care to comment on HP-5 and or the "new"
> Tri X.
Going on the two rolls I shoot recently, HP5+ seems to do okay with
slight overexposure. The couple shots slightly underexposed did not turn
out as good. There is a little more bias towards highlight details than I
find compared to TriX. I still think that the grain of TriX does enhance
the mood of some subjects, though the cleaner look of HP5+ can be used to
good effect too.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
bill martin
anything with 'Kodak' written on it -- film, paper, developer, anything.
I prefer to use what I like, no matter whose name is on the wrapper/box.
Kodak makes some fine materials, and there ain't a damn thing inferior
about Tri X, plus x, tmax, or most anything else they make. I use it and
Hp 5, and they both do a great job. P.S., I don't work for or get paid
by Kodak, just get a little tired of reading all the BS probably written
mostly by people who wouldn't recognize good film if a roll of it bit'em
in the *ss.
Thom
<"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
>"Hickster0711" <hickst...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030910202402...@mb-m25.aol.com...
>> HP-5 is my main film, @EI 200 in Rodinal either 50:1 or 25:1, depending on
>how
>> much contrast I want. I'm sure there are other combinations that work just
>> fine, but how many can you try? Tri-X just doesn't impress me much any
>more.
>> Years ago, I liked it a lot, but no more. Bob Hickey
>
>Same experience as Bob - I used to love Tri-X and use HP5 only ocasionally.
>Now I use HP5 as my main B&W film (Ilford XP2 is the one I use second most,
>but mostly as 120, not 35mm) and Tri-X very seldom.
>
>Shame about Tri-X - but HP5 is so good I don't miss it for other than
>nostalgic reasons.
some years back I was given a 100' roll of the Ilford ASA 50 B&W film
thats imported by Freestyle Sales under their Arista name. I was
amazed! Shot on a tripod I found that when I enlarged the negs they
were hard to tell from 120!!!
THOM
Bandicoot
news:kMOdnXv-Bdr...@ctc.net...
[SNIP]
> P.S., I don't work for or get paid
> by Kodak, just get a little tired of reading all the BS probably written
> mostly by people who wouldn't recognize good film if a roll of it bit'em
> in the *ss.
In my professional opinion, any film that bites you in the arse, or anywhere
else for that matter, is definitely _not_ a good film....
;-)
Peter
Michael Scarpitti
> anything with 'Kodak' written on it -- film, paper, developer, anything.
> I prefer to use what I like, no matter whose name is on the wrapper/box.
> Kodak makes some fine materials, and there ain't a damn thing inferior
> about Tri X, plus x, tmax, or most anything else they make. I use it and
> Hp 5, and they both do a great job. P.S., I don't work for or get paid
> by Kodak, just get a little tired of reading all the BS probably written
> mostly by people who wouldn't recognize good film if a roll of it bit'em
> in the *ss.
>
Too many academics are stupid Marxists or Democrats (what's the
difference anyway?) who hate American businesses. Tell 'em to shove
it!
Mike Sullivan
products. I remember him getting very upset with me because I showed
him some work that he praised highly until I told him that the shots
were exposed on TRI-X, developed in HC-110 and printed on Polyfiber
paper. I remember quitting the class in disgust shortly thereafter.
Mike Sullivan
bill martin <wcma...@vnet.net> wrote in message news:<kMOdnXv-Bdr...@ctc.net>...
stan
course;} ). There was no dogma just a lot of "show it". To get to the op's question I don't think there is anything
wrong with Tri-X. And in fact let the moron teacher shoot one roll of Tri-x and one roll of HP-5 and make a simple
contact print of the best negative. He won't find one inferior to the other. They are a bit different in tonality in
a print , but that's why they make more than one type of ice cream- not everyone has the same taste. I prefer HP-5
to Tri-x personally. Shot one of each for yourself and then decide. Never let a teacher (or a usenet poster) make up
your mind for you. I once made the stupid question of asking a professor I respected if I had what it took to become
a pro. He looked at me and said "It's not my place to say. Go for it and find out".". Or something close. So try
them both and find out.
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
Bandicoot
news:3f610733...@news.melbpc.org.au...
[SNIP]
> some years back I was given a 100' roll of the Ilford ASA 50 B&W film
> thats imported by Freestyle Sales under their Arista name. I was
> amazed! Shot on a tripod I found that when I enlarged the negs they
> were hard to tell from 120!!!
>
Yes, very good stuff: almost as fine grained as, and much easier to work
with than, Tech-Pan. I used it many years ago when I was an archaeological
photographer (I was an archaeologist before I became a photographer) and it
excelled for recording excavations and finds. I haven't used it for years,
but maybe I should try some just for old times' sake!
Peter
Ron Todd
Scarpitti) wrote:
AFTER you graduate. ;-)
Best Regards.
*****************************************
Boycott list:
Belgium, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, PRC, Iran, Syria,
Hollywood, San Francisco, Massachusetts, New York City, Sierra Club, ACLU,
Movies of the first blacklist, Turner, Madonna, S. Crowe, Dixie Chicks, Cher, U2, rapp,
Trudeau, W.Miller, Disney, ABC news, CBS news, NBC news, CNN, PBS, B&H Photo Video,
Sometimes the only influence you have is to say, "No, I'm not buying."
For those who are unclear about the situation, California is the Clinton - Davis model for the rest of the United States of America.