ILFORD HP5 PLUS vs Kodak TRI-X | Hasselblad 503 CW

Thanks for the comparison. I was given some HP5 and was wondering how contrasty it was. I'll be popping a yellow filter for sure.

HP5 always. More detail. No doubt.

In your vid I like HP5 better, the gray scale is richer, the tonality is wider. The Tri-X came a bit too contrasty, lit looses details both in the highlights and the shadows. Tri-X is lacking in the mid tones compared to HP5.

That's not the way to do a film comparison. You have to shoot poorly exposed negatives in entirely different scenes and different light and then draw conclusions while adding scratchy movie effects and a crap hipster pseudo jazz soundtrack. Everyone knows that 😉

It's interesting to see the hi-resolution camera scanning. Do you use the essential film holder? Valoi?

Great video!! I really enjoyed the method you use to compare the films. Thank you for doing this 😀

Tri-x all week long

It doesn't show on scans, but HP-5 will have a much richer palette of tones, but Tri-X is somewhat sharper.

A number of alterations have been made to the Tri-X formulation over the years, which Kodak never disclosed to the public. This led to irregular results in development following just about every change.

I really like HP5 so much more

I shoot and print 35mm B&W for the luscious mid-tones and grain on the print. Therefore, HP5 is my film of choice.

HP5 has better shadow details- TX reminds me of Acros

Great video. I want a Hassy so bad. I have a Bronica ETR with three different Zenzanon lenses and for what I do, I’m pretty sure the shots will be pretty darned close to the Hassy. But I still want one! The film I like is Ilford Delta. Interested in trying other films as well. Fomapan, Ultrafine, Kentmore, and others might be fun. Also I’m lazy and I have been using stand development for my negatives. Not sure which developer is best. Been using DD-X. Might order some Rodinol.

I love the video I myself will get me that Hasselblad with Kodak. 1980s or 1990s

I have a few rolls of Tmax from 1996 and the package is already different, so for sure these are older. How much older? No idea....
Good luck shooting it and post the results!

i love the kodak logo, and i like the films, but i HATE this company and how it behaves, so for me it is and always will be Ilford.
Also i like the shadow tones way better from the Ilford, i can always darken the shadows after scanning, not so much bring it back though

I keep looking for film other than TRI-X, just becasue I want to, I don't know, find a better favorite. Yet every time I shoot TRI-X - I love it. Rated at 200 developed in Rodinal it is lovely. Great video. Thanks Darryl.

Hmm, saying that Tri-x is a more versatile film would be objectively not true. Yes, you migh prefer Tri-X it's aesthetic over HP5's, which I do as well. But HP5 you can pull up to 5 stops without big problems and push up to 4. Tri-X doesn't come close to those numbers.

My camera says Tri-x , but my wallet says Hp5

Both of these films are great! I was kind of cought in the middle with your examples. Some images looked better in HP5 and some looked better with Tri-X. I guess it boils down to the look you're aiming for.

Darryl did you get the new digital back?

onWithout meaning to denigrate anyone allow me to say something. Your accent for an American is somewhat difficult, combined with your quick way of speaking. So I am unsure but, it seems to me you are comparing new HP5 with quite old Tri-X. It is good you mention the effects of different developers, to a degree. personally I use both, but have not as far as I remember ever had a problem or been disappointed with Tri-S whereas with Ilford (any) in general, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I have-not yet figured out exactly what it does that causes my wondering about Ilford films. And as I prefer to feel confident I more often than not grab the Kodaks.

Great comparison. The Tri-X is quite punchy. I think you should have rather developed both separately with their own development times to get the best comparison. I'm quite pleased with the HP5 due to its beatiful gray tonalities and how it renders clouds. I also find it pretty sharp when developing it in FX-39II and using Carl Zeiss Jena lenses on my Hartblei. But definitely I have to try Tri-X on my own. Think I buy some rolls next time I visit the lab for C-41 dev and scanning.

Always used and loved HP5 back in the day, also used Tmax 40 and loved that film. Never used TriX tho. I'm ordering two rolls of each see which I prefer.

I used the Kodak Tri-X untill the Kodak Tmax 400 came, the Tmax are much better than the Tri-X, I shot the Tmax 400 (and Tri-X) at 200 ASA/ISO, used a thinner Tmax devoloper and agitated where gently a few times each half minutte, the devioloping time was about two and a alf time longer because of the thinner devolper, it gave much finer grain and a larger/wider greyscala, fine details in both highligt and shadoes but still with plenty of contrast, so together with Ilford Multigrade paper this was the best enlargement prints you could get ;) I think that the Ilford Delta might be a bit like the Kodak Tmax ? I would not have devoloped the Ilford and the Kodak film in the same tank/developer.

You video states both rolls (HP5 and TRIX) were placed in the tank and developed for the same time. But a quick look at D76 20C Stock 400 on Massive Development Chart indicates different development times HP5: 7.5 min and TRIX: 6.75 min. Based on the aforementioned, I would expect different results. Could you comment on the developer and temp please?

I think you may have some very old Tmax there. My guess is at least late 80s to mid 90s. The roll wrapper looks like the Paper/foil wrapper, not the new all plastic wrapper. Just a guess though.

IMHO, nothing compares to Tri-X! A Hasselblad + 100/3.5 + TriX is just as good as it gets!!

The Kodak Trix has more contrast
But the ilford has more bright . The thing is that in Light Room we can adjust all in black and white
Even manipulate the grain .
But they differ in portraits vs. land scape or street photography
In street photography and portraits I like more contrast . But I’m new into black and white I have being using Fujifilm velvia 50 for the past 20 years with some Fuji black and white neupan cn has moderate contrast which I like in land scape . And recently I have being using ilford fp4 , and the Rolli Ortho super 25
I like the rolo on women close up portraits and using wide opening f2 and less 1.2 .and . 95 like the canon Dream lens and some land scape of. Long exposure of the sand and the water at the beach in certain conditions. I have not tried the delta or any 400 iso film because I like shooting day time and use ND filters

Not such a great difference between the fresh and the expired one in my opinion....

I agree with your preference for Tri-X. From my own experience and my expired film collection Id say your roll of T-max 100 expired in the early to mid 90's ('90-'95), based on the colors and branding on the packaging.

For me Tri X has always been king. It is the epitome of black and white film. Its dark its contrasty and its moody, to me this is how black and white film should look.

I prefer the HP5. Not only because you can easier control it in the post but also because the Tri-X is pretty curly when developed. I also would never develop both films in the same tank - HP5 requires more development time compared to Tri-X

FP-100c video is coming when

great video

I find black and white film loses sensitivity slower than colour neg. My rule of thumb is:
Slide - box speed
B&W - over expose half a stop every ten years
Colour Neg - over expose one stop every ten years

you developed them with the same times? As far as I remember, the time recommendations are not the same.

Hey i would not bother that much about overexposing the old roll. The difference isn’t that big like it would be with color films. I always develope my films a bit longer if I want to play safe. But of course this is not the accurate way.

from the 400 ISO films I would also pick trix, it's more contrasty and I love it.

Hello Darryl, finished moving ? Hope everything went smoothly. About the 2 filmstocks... I use them both and like both of them. I'd probably use the TX in outdoor situations and the HP5 indoors (maybe even with flash). Very reliable stocks. Cheers !

I love tri-x more but most of the time I shoot with hp5 because it’s cheaper especially for 100’ bulk load film and versatile enough. Cheers

I'm a long time HP5 shooter but I will have to try Tri-X.

Excellent ♡

Great video. I also prefer Tri-X for its contrast.

neither. Rollei rpx 400 :)

Very nice comparison. I like both films and use them whenever I shoot ISO 400 film. Maybe do a comparison of Kodak Tmax 100 and Ilford Delta 100. Thanks!

I really like the Kodak, but I have been shooting a lot of Ilford mainly to make sure I really want to stick with Tri-X. Thanks

both films are excellent, but I like HP5 more, I think it's more velvety

I LOVE HP5... but only when I push it to 800, 1600 too. Box speed doesn’t do it for me at all. I never shoot it at box speed. I love trix too but in my country (America) I get a roll of hp5 120 for 5.15 and a roll of trix for about 7.50