price of Kodak 8x10 Tri-x just went out 10%....pissed me off... last month in B&H box of 50sheets of Tri-x costed me $114...now $132.. HP5 is still $51 for box of 25 sheets......compare the cost of 50 sheets ....30 dollars is a lot...if i buy 10 box at once... anyone know where can i get better price? or any replacement of Tri-x? i am thinking to give HP5 a try...any suggestion? compare about the ton, contrast, grain and look....

thanks

-- Jeff Liao (jliao66@aol.com), February 23, 2002

Answers

HP-5 is great stuff. I use both it and Tri-X. I develop HP-5 in either HC-110 or Ilford ID-11. Both developers give beautiful negs. I use Tri-X at asa 160, HP-5 at 250. Not much difference, but a little more shadow detail with HP-5. The shadows are great with both films, with good brilliance and contrast in shadows. I have shot more HP-5 than Tri-X in the last couple of years.

Regards,

-- Doug Paramore (Dougmary@alaweb.com), February 23, 2002.

I agree with the previous post. IMHO HP5 has a better tonality range and gradation especially in 8x10. Have not shot TriX since I started using HP5. Ilford also is more committed to B&W these days so I tend to throw more business that way. Only Kodak B&W I use now is Tmax 100.

-- J Chinn (JChinn@DellEpro.com), February 23, 2002.

Jeff, FWIW, Freestyle Sales has Aristo 8x10 for about $40/25 sheets. I've used it and if its not repackaged HP5+ Its very close. Gordon Hutchings wrote a review on it in View Camera awhile back. I like tri- X..in fact I like the 50 sheet boxes-very useful when empty-but the 25 sheet boxes are more within my budget. I don't want to subscribe to a conspiracy theory but it seems like EK is just hammering another nail in sheet films coffin. In the past, when Kodak pulled a film, they always replaced it with something else, hopefully better. Now it seems as if they aren't interested at all. Yet, they brought back tri-X in 5x7! Maybe they just want to get rid existing stock? I think my next box will be Bergger, just to see what it's like, but thats rated at 200 ISO. For the 320-400 ISO range Ilford is looking better and better. Good Luck!

-- John Kasaian (www.kasai9@aol.com), February 23, 2002.

There is a difference in the base density of the two films. One may not be suitable for some processes compared to the other, depending on how you expose & shoot the film. As for the price increase... Ilford does make some nice films.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), February 23, 2002.

Dan, are you refering to the Tri-x versus HP-5 + comparison or the HP- 5+/ Arista comparison? If there is a difference(HP-5+/Arista) its the first I've heard of it and I'd like to know more. I agree that Tri-X and HP-5+ are different films. I like Tri-X better, but I've been wondering if I feel that way just because I'm just more comfortable with it---a zone of comfort thing---rather than a"lets see what this stuff can do" kind of thing. Given the current market conditions I'd like to get "comfortable" with a different color box of film-----John

-- John Kasaian (www.kasai9@aol.com), February 23, 2002.