Plus X and Tri X compared to FP4 and HP5

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

This question is not strictly Leica, but as Leica is inextricably linked to B&W film there is some association.

I am about to make a foray into B&W and had selected the above four films as those I would most likely use.

Is there much difference between Plus X and FP4 and likewise what are the differences,if any between HP5 and Tri X.

Regards,

Tony Salce

-- Tony Salce (NadinaTony@bigpond.com), January 07, 2002

Answers

If I remember correctly, the Ilford films have a slightly thinner base.

These are very similiar films (Plus-x and FP4+; Tri-x and HP-5), I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time testing back and forth. Sticking to a Film/Dev combo will yield more progress IMO.

If you plan on standardizing a single B+W film and use it exclusively for monochrome, all four are a very good choice. I might toss in a vote for Neopan 400- appears a tad sharper than the TRix and HP5+.

Neopan 400 in Photographer's Formulary Developer FX-2 is my standard. Very happy, too, might I add.

-- Mike DeVoe (karma77@att.net), January 07, 2002.


Ditto everything Mike said. I've settled on Tri-X for most of my shooting, but what is important to remember is that if you spend all your time testing and comparing different films you'll never really get to know what any of them is truly capable of. In the past Fuji 400 was also my film of choice. It is as forgiving as Tri-X but with smoother contrast and slightly finer grain. I'd probably use it exclusively but for the fact that in Canada the only places you can find it are the major cameras stores. If you run out of film in outer Deadwood your SOL.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 07, 2002.

Ilford XP2 Super is my favoured B+W film - easy C41 processing, wonderful exposure latitude, no grain and beautiful creamy mid-tones!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 07, 2002.

IMO development being equal, hp5+ is marginally faster than tri-x but Tri-x is sharper. Fuji Neopan is a very nice alternative but doesn't quite have the smokey quality of tri-x - it's a bit "cleaner" and more modern. All 3 of these 400 speed films are so good it's difficult to decide on just one. Delta 400 (latest version) is nice too, though has quite a different feel. The sharpness of tri-x means it works well in quite soft developers like Stockler's 2 bath. In the UK plus x is very hard to get hold of in 35mm format. Don't know if any of that is any help...

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 07, 2002.

Yes, XP-2 is a favored film by many, esp. for the "lack" of grain, but this characteristic of no "grain" and using dye cloud particles leads to a loss of acutance- the appearance of sharpness. Might not be exaclty what you want, after all, in photography you gain nothing until you give up something. Sharpness was what I was looking for, so I steered clear of c-41 black and white, along with that T-max Film and Developer- Wasn't my idea of progress.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), January 07, 2002.


regarding the fact, that tri-x ist the most forgiving film amongst the above named four, you should not forget it also do not let you down, when it conmes to pushing it up to even + 3 stops !! none of the other films ( and shure not the t-max 400 ) hold the sharpness and eye-flattering tone of the tri-x. plus , you get it almost everywhere in this world. one last tip : try tri-x with diluted 1:4 rodinal ( tetenal ). take care dirk kampa

-- dirk kampa (dirkkampa@aol.com), January 07, 2002.

Dirk; Rodinal 1:4 or 1:40?

-- Hans Berkhout (berkhout@cadvision.com), January 07, 2002.

"Is there much difference between Plus X and FP4 and likewise what are the differences,if any between HP5 and Tri X?"

Much difference? No. Subtle differences? Yes.

HP5 has a slightly higher inherent contrast (Ilford likes to call it 'sparkle') compared with Tri-X. I find HP5 to be sort of 'in between' Tri-X and the Delta/Tmax crystal films, with more snap than Tri-X in flat lighting (given equivalent exposure/development) but not quite as easy to use in all lighting. Grain and overall tonality vary so much with exposure and development that the films themselves are essentially equal in this regard.

At one point FP4 was unique in that it had TWO superimposed emulsion layers - a slow one to capture highlight details and a fast one to hold shadow detail. But I don't know whether the other films you mentioned have adopted that technology (or even if FP4 still uses it).

An apocryphal story: Ansel Adams is supposed to have said: "If Plus-X became the only film available, I would stop taking pictures." But that story also dates from at least 20 years ago and Plus-X has outlived Ansel, FWIW. I always found it a wishy-washy film - not outstanding in speed OR grain OR tonal rendering. I always preferred HP5/Tri-X for low light and FP4 (and now Pan F) for bright light.

Ultimately, I think you'll need to get (at least) one roll of each film and shoot them together, and process according the manufacturer's recommendations and get a feel for their basic characteristics and how they differ IN YOUR EYES!

2 further points: The C-41-processed "B&W" films (TMax 400 CN, Portra 400, XP2, etc.) are fine films with their own look - but part of the fun and 'aura' of silver films lies in being able to process them yourself in chemicals not very far removed from what Matthew Brady was using during the Civil War. And 4x6 drugstore prints, even if B&W, just aren't the same as what you get from the silver process.

I would also add Pan F (ISO 50) to your mix, esp. if you are using Leicas outdoors. Pan F really does give a quantum leap in tonal rendition and smooth grain over the other 4 films you listed, and allows you to use the 'sharpest' middle apertures in daylight withou bumping up against the 1/1000 end of the shutter speed dial.

Come back once you've exposed your film, and we can address the question, "Which developer should I use?" 8^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 08, 2002.


I take your point Andy, but for me the fun comes from producing my own prints - this after a professional lab has done the messy and laborious processing to the exact standards required.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 08, 2002.

Thanks for all your responses. I think I'll opt for Tri X. It has been tried and tested for many years and it appears that it is difficult to mess it up.

Thanks again for your time.

Regards,

Tony Salce

-- Tony Salce (NadinaTony@bigpond.com), January 08, 2002.



The film base on HP5 IS considerably thinner than Tri-X. If you are developing you own film you will notice that it is a bit trickier to feed onto the reel, especially if you are using a stainless steel reel. If you are just starting out processing your own film, I would stick with Tri-x.

-- Peter Schauss (schauss@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 2002.

Like many other answers to photo questions this one has many "correct" answers. Being an owner of a custom photolab for twenty years has given me a little different opinion however. Of all my customers the ones who consistantly come up with the good images are those who have standardized on a few combinations of film and attendant chemistry. All of the mentioned films are very good at sharpness, all are very good at tonality, etc. The differences in the truely good photos and those which are just average lies in the eyes and "heart" of the person who commands the magic box. Get out there and start shooting. Pick a film and use it for a year, or two ! When the images start looking good it will be because your photography has improved, not due to some quirk film/developer combination....Good Shooting.

-- Scott Hayden (fulldome51@cs.com), January 10, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ