I have shot with both wide opened in strret lights.

I have noticed Tri X catches more light at the same apertures and speed than 5+.

HP5+ gives sharper focused images.

Tri X has more grain and look courser.

TriX has more even and pleasing tonality.

Tri X is slightly cheaper.

any comments?

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), February 21, 2002

Answers

Like everything else in photography, it's a trade-off. Which set of virtues is more important to you? Which drawbacks are hardest for you to live with? You pays yer money and takes yer choice. :o)

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), February 21, 2002.

TriX has more even and pleasing tonality

That all depends on the exposure, processing and printing...

Use what works for you and you are familiar with, and furthermore check Barry Thornton's site for some useful info on B/W exposure and processing.

But I think you're right on about the price.

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@cox.net), February 21, 2002.

Travis-

What developer are you using? Also what is your development time, temperature, dilution and agitation? I'm curious. Are you using any filters on your lens?

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), February 21, 2002.

Jeff, I send to a pro lab for hand developing.

I use skyliht filters most of the time.

what were u curious about?

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), February 21, 2002.

TriX every time for me. Rate it from 200 to 3200....

-- Stewart Weir (weirs99@aol.com), February 21, 2002.

Travis-

I know its a subjective thing: choice of film, chemistry, paper, etc. Over the years I have shot I don't how many rolls of Tri-X processed in D-76, 1:1. I use HP5+ most of the time now and have settled on a film, developer, processing techinique that gets me the negs I like. But I am still curious about how others work, maybe I'll learn something.

I don't mean to imply that Tri-X is inferior to HP5 or vice versa, just that with so many possible combinations of film and developers, it can make your head spin.

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), February 21, 2002.

tri-x for me, too

i used HP5, but i liked tri-x more. plus it's cheaper which is a bonus.

-- ken kwok (kk353@yahoo.com), February 21, 2002.

I like Tri-X for people portraits by far but HP5 is much better for architectural, landscape, and cubist shots in my Leica... Nothing beats Fuji color however :) except Portra occasionally.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), February 21, 2002.

Alfie, what's a cubist shot? (I have a feeling I shouldn't be asking.) I though of Picasso, but I think it takes more than HP-5 to turn a photo into a Picasso. Can you elaborate?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 21, 2002.

Travis - I mostly shoot Pan F, but in trying out 400-speed films I think my experience matches yours pretty closely. Although I might substitute "more resolution" for "sharper focused images" - the film you use doesn't affect the accuracy of your rangefinder 8^)

Price varies with location - In "old Blighty" (the UK) Ilford may be cheaper - any enlightment from you folks on the sceptered Isle?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 22, 2002.

I like Tri-X for people portraits by far but HP5 is much better for architectural, landscape, and cubist shots in my Leica...

Bob, I don't know about Alfred but my cubist shots are the 90+ % that make it into a cubic trash bin. On a related note (and on par with the original query of this thread) my favorite low light 100/400 film is the lowest priced. For now its Agfa APX 400, or Tri-X for 100. I'm now of the opinion that you can work with the inherent weaknesses/strengths of whatever film you are using (or are forced to be using) BUT there is very little you can do with poor subject matter on your exposed film.

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 23, 2002.