tri-x

[Moto-Uno]

I'm interested in trying Kodak Tri-x(320) in 4x5.I've been using HP5 and enjoying it,but,with all the lore surrounding the tri-x,I'd love to see what it's all about.However(there's always a catch) here in the lower mainland of B.C,it's only available in boxes of 50 and that comes with a price tag over
$125.00!!! The Ilford product come in smaller packs,but you can try any of them for under $40.00 a box.Are there any properties of tri-x that would drive one to say" who cares about the price" 'cuz it just that great a product? I'm lucky if a shoot more than 5 sheets a month.
Hope anyone that's used both films in large format
can shed their personal experiences.
Regards,Peter

[FrankS]

TriX is just as good as HP5, and vice versa, IMO.

[redisburning]

I suggest a trade thread or a want to buy add in the classifieds. Maybe you can get your hands on something smaller.

Tri-x is a FANTASTIC film in larger formats (or even 35 if it's a print) in my opinion. Worth trying, but like most things it's better to try before you buy (so to speak).

[cjbecker]

I was a tri-x 320 fan but I started shooting hp5 at 640 and developing in d76 for 13 min and gives me the feel of tri-x 320 but easer on my wallet. I alse really enjoy shooting ilford and the final results are wonderful.

[Trius]

I have some Tri-X in 4x5 that I might sell or trade; need to see how many sheets I have left. I haven't shot HP5+ in 4x5, but from what I've seen on the web, it has a different character. Not necessarily better, worse, etc., just different. I'm probably going to move to all Ilford for large format, just cuz Kodak has been butz.

Edit: I can ship and receive from GTA, so cross-border issues are avoided.

[Nokton48]

I'll use either, but the HP5+ is a tad faster, and that's what I have much more of.