I'm looking for experience from people who have used both in sheets. How does FP4 compare to Tri-X? Mainly, how do the curves, "look," etc. compare?

-- Erik Asgeirsson (erik2@mediaone.net), January 27, 2001

Answers

I have shot both films, quality wise I will take Tri-X any day, cost wise FP4 wins out, being interested in photography I never got into curves, the only thing I needed to know was my PIE for my equipment. Sorry, can't help with the curves, but Tri-X has a tonal quality when developed with Pyro developers which Ilford has never matched for me. Pat

-- pat krentz (patwandakrentz@aol.com), January 28, 2001.

I think the comparison Tri-X and HP5+ would be a "fairer" comparison, both of the films being ASA400. I like both of them but use the HP5+ because it is more readily available in 8X10 and the price (here in Europe) is about 35% less than Tri-X. Instead of comparing curves, wouldn't it be more interesting to compare results? Doing a test shot using both films will provide you with "real world" answers, and not the hypothetical ones than curves indicate.

-- William Levitt (Light-Zone@web.de), January 28, 2001.

Being that they are different speed films, I can see using both of them depending on the situation. And as far as i am concerned, curves-smerves, excellent photographs have been made with both. You just have to learn them, and learn which to use to get your photographic vision across.

-- Wayne Crider (waynec@apt.net), January 28, 2001.

You cannot judge the curve of a film on its own. Each film/developing combination has its own curve. I have used different developers with the same film to obtain various curve shapes.

-- William Marderness (wmarderness@hotmail.com), February 04, 2001.