PDA

View Full Version : Ilford HP5-Plus...


LeicaVirgin1
12-19-2010, 20:26
Dear Sir-

I had read in another forum/thread that you happened to prefer Ilford HP5-Plus over Kodak Tri-X...Sadly my memory has failed at what you wrote regarding the above statement.

Could you please elaborate as to why you prefer HP5-Plus over Tri-X?

In addition, could please provide what developer you prefer to develop HP5-Plus?

I have a book of yours titled, "Quality Photography"... Great book.

I look forward to reading back from you.


Cheers,

LV1

Brian Legge
12-19-2010, 20:51
I'd love to hear this as well. I've been shooting primarily Tri X 400 for a while. Now that I'm going to add 4x5 to the fix, I'll definitely be shooting HP5 since there no 4x5 Tri X 400.

I just need to get a good starting point for development before I start tweaking it. I haven't figured out an approach with HC110 that gave me the tonality I was getting with Tri X. I liked the DDX results but that is a bit pricey for me as a primary developer.

Roger Hicks
12-20-2010, 00:02
Dear LV1,

It's not fully rational. I prefer the tonality, and it pushes slightly better. But my wife prefers Tri-X (and has just got another 20 rolls). The previous generation of Tri-X was sometimes prone to reticulation but they cured that with the last revision.

Another advantage of HP5 is that it is (to quote an armourer friend) "the AK47 of film -- you can abuse it any way you can think of and it's hard to screw up." I use DD-X (true ISO around 650) but I've yet to find a dev it doesn't work well with. Paterson FX39 was good... and Microphen... and ID-11...

Sorry I can't be more objective. Oh: and thanks for the kind words about the book.

Cheers,

R.

Doug
12-20-2010, 00:06
I like HP5. Tri-X is certainly a classic, but there's something attractive about HP5. One thing is its fine tonality when developed in Diafine, which I've standardized on.

maddoc
12-20-2010, 00:41
There is TXP320 in 4x5, as close to TX400 as it goes.

I'd love to hear this as well. I've been shooting primarily Tri X 400 for a while. Now that I'm going to add 4x5 to the fix, I'll definitely be shooting HP5 since there no 4x5 Tri X 400.

LeicaVirgin1
12-20-2010, 12:46
To Everyone who contributed to my question in regards to HP5+... Thank you Mr. Hicks & all who answered & chimed in. Again, Thank you

Happy Holidays,

LV1

lxmike
12-20-2010, 12:55
I cut my teeth on Ilford products in the mid 1980's and I find HP5 a very forgiving film and itsb a big favourite of mine

Roger Hicks
12-20-2010, 13:02
I've been using HP 5 in D76 1:1 with great results. Tri-X is good film, but I find I prefer HP 5 for it's good grain and speed when I use ASA eating filters.

Roger, did Kodak change the grain structure in TX with the re-formula? My older TX negs from the 70-80s show much finer grain than any current stuff. Same developer etc. (Temp. control to 1 Deg.) ?? p.

Not deliberately. But gelatine changes (necessary for reticulation control) can have an apparently disproportionately large effect. Or have you moved? Or has your local water supply changed character? Short stop? Fixer? Even washing? Anyone else seen the same effect?

"The science of colour... The alchemy of black and white..."

Cheers,

R.

Sam N
12-20-2010, 13:38
I use HP5+ in 4x5 with F76+. I expose at ISO320 and still find myself getting thin negatives with the times stated on the F76 bottle. Now I add about another 1/2 stop to the dev time and the results are excellent.

I like HP5. Tri-X is certainly a classic, but there's something attractive about HP5. One thing is its fine tonality when developed in Diafine, which I've standardized on.

Doug,
What EI are you shooting at for use with Diafine? Also, what format are you using?