Black&White Ilford HP5 or the Kodak Tri X?

M

mr.spaceman

Messages
52
Edit My Images
No
Which one do you prefer?

The Tri X
KXhPKwP_sAcllHw_tuhdDvr5blOpBj1A5aQydV-LKOEN-CQ09a6KsYUDCxBwi1regUgtJrlm1sovhpEkUzmM6tPgpSSW3XOxY-Onw91PdAN8qaCA8Uv8adb2UKBqFUOdU0v34hcaEX6F9LC0rO5z704hRnAPMo0RDBTbzubhy9nFpB84qTcGpib-YGpcJF8jr0PX


ILFORD HP5
700646.jpg


Or do you have other suggestions for a great (vintage) black & white film?
 
Legacy Pro, gives a nice old-fashioned feel to the images.

Andy
 
I really like TRI-X 400 but I'm also a big fan of Pan F and Rollei 80s. I'm still yet to sink my teeth into Acros or Acros clones :D.
 
I usually shot FP4 for B & W, and TriX when I wanted more speed. I can't really remember why I preferred the Kodak 400 ASA to HP5, but I do recall pushing it to 1000 ASA and higher.
 
For landscapes, I love Ilford Pan F, FP4 and Delta 100, although the latter requires a little more care with exposure and development. For higher speed, I regularly shoot with HP5. To be honest, I haven't used Kodak black & white film for a while to make any valid comparisons with the Ilford equivalents.
 
Just ordered 15 Legacy Pro so can't wait for that, but out of the two you mentioned, I'll pretty much always go with Tri-x.
 
Panatomic-X was lovely film, haven't used it since student days. There are 4 x rolls of Agfapan 25 120 in the box, awaiting a camera to use it.
Asking someone in the know, film technology has reached the end of its development. The last research was ten years ago and new films are mainly ways to save silver or other production costs, flogged as 'improved'. PhD funding dried up about the same time.

So what we have now is 'it'. Conspiracy theorists reckon developments since the 90s were mainly penny pinching in new wrappings.
 
colpepper said:
Asking someone in the know, film technology has reached the end of its development. The last research was ten years ago and new films are mainly ways to save silver or other production costs, flogged as 'improved'. PhD funding dried up about the same time.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's entirely true, Kodak for instance has just introduced the new Portra to replace their NC and VC emulsions. It's an entirely new film supposedly with great grain characteristics and has been made easy to scan and print optically. It's possible that this is old research but at least it is reaching the consumer, it was only a year ago that Ektar was released too. There's still a little hope.
 
Mr_T said:
I don't think that's entirely true, Kodak for instance has just introduced the new Portra to replace their NC and VC emulsions. It's an entirely new film supposedly with great grain characteristics and has been made easy to scan and print optically. It's possible that this is old research but at least it is reaching the consumer, it was only a year ago that Ektar was released too. There's still a little hope.
Click to expand...
You may be right, and vested interests are talking film up but I asked a question recently and after a certain amount of propaganda, an industry insider contacted me anonymously to state what I said above. I suspect the new emulsions are old research designed to scan well rather than silver and dye rich films for pro and serious amateur markets. He may have been spinning me a line or a disgruntled employee but he sounded pretty neutral on the matter and stated it as one of those things.

My instinct is practical film delivery peaked in the 1970s and it's been more-for-less, or 'nu-size' marketing since. He did say Ilford may still be working on something but they stay pretty schtum on R&D.
 
In fairness, the film isn't the limiting factor for me - my problems all stem from the nut behind the shutter. As long as they keep producing some film, I'll keep shooting it. If it gets stupid expensive, or terrible quality, I'll stop and move on. It's not as if I've a massive amount of money in kit that's solely film related - most of my expensive glass was bought with an eye to forward compatibility - okay the FD glass is a bit of a dead end, but i've £80 tops invested in it...

If they can save costs of raw materials or minimise process losses, then the process will get cheaper - and our small and diminishing sector of the market may just have a chance of keeping going longer. If it costs money, they'll stop producing it :( (*cough*Kodachrome*cough*)
 
My guess is it'll be outsourced to China, India, Malaysia, etc, to keep prices down. Kodak will finish up as one large office in the States that 'designs' film and some guys in Delhi with plant will manufacture it. OTOH it may go the 'Impossible' route and be made by artisans, the Real Ale of photography with boutique films in a run of low thousands and prices to match.
 
The current situation is probably the nadir of film usage. It'll climb and settle at a level where there will be one or two producers; and a few films of each type. And films prices will be around the current levels.
(outsourcing of production is an obvious solution. I wonder why it hasn't happened yet - if indeed it hasn't)
And a few films cameras will still keep getting introduced every so often.

( So says my crystal ball :D :LOL:)
 
Last edited:
I think Ujjwal has it about right. There does seem to be a slow upturn in people using film again (or indeed for the first time). If you look on Flipr at the number of groups solely for film users you'll see that there are still a lot of people putting old kit to good use. And as long as companies still produce an occasional new model film will still be produced.

Andy
 
It's not all bad news, the film industry still uses film which helps fill Kodak's pockets.
 
Musicman said:
George Lucas is trying to change that state of affairs
Click to expand...

He was certain that he could digitally distribute the final instalment of Star Wars to most cinemas and he failed abysmally at that, "digital 3D" seems to be doing what he never could. With that said, big names still shoot on film, Inception is just one example of a recent film success story.
 
Tri-X all the way.
I really tried to like HP5+ after I read Herbie Knott used it, but I never got any decent results. Call me old fashioned but either are way better than Tmax and delta ;)
 
Andysnap said:
I think Ujjwal has it about right. There does seem to be a slow upturn in people using film again
Click to expand...

Indeed there is...I'm trying to buck the digital trend for magazine work in my area...I supply 2 magazines in Bristol/Bath at the moment with film work (due in part to their monthly issues and nice healthy deadlines) and they've loved the shots I've provided them with Velvia 50. I had the publisher asking how I'd got such good saturation :D :naughty:

When I told him, he had his little lightbulb moment of "oh yeah, I remember whole issues shot on transparency" and thats it...never looked back for him.

If I can pluck up the courage to give it a go on some tighter deadline material then I will...however, I've just realised that to cover "all the bases" I'll need 10 types of film. Not wanting to use Velvia for fashion work, so need some Provia...then what if I want to cheat and get away with more forgiving neg...I'll need some Portra and Ektar. What if I then want B&W, I'll need some Delta 100, Delta 400 and Pan F. What if I want to try it on MF...I'll need all of the above on 120 format and a new fridge/freezer to store it all.

In answer to the original question...I've always been an Ilford user, HP5 is a nice film and very forgiving of exposure. Delta 400 is my favourite for that speed of film though...something just a little different about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top