Kodak vs Ilford film

HI, I've been a loyal TriX user over the years, but my uneasiness

over its future is making me think about trying an alternative. Can

anyone give me recommendations that are the equal to the look

and feel of TriX? I 've heard Ilford has some nice films. Any

examples posted here of images using different films are

appreciated. Thanks for the help. Paul<div></div>

Ilfords, HP-5, is quiet similar to Tri-X. However, I highly recommend Fuji's Neopan 400, over both of them. Much nicer grain, and beautiful tonality.

 

Russ

I would wait for the film to be discontinued and then go for an alternative... why bury someone who's still living?

Hear, hear, Bruno.

My sentiments exactly. While HP5+ is close to Tri-X, it's nowhere near the same film. The little bit of Fuji Neopan that I've used showed me that it is indeed a very nice film - on par with Tri-X; but I've no idea of how well it responds to speed enhancing developers or push processing. Tri-X fits the bill for me on these criteria so I keep using it. Kodak is not some sort of evil empire out to make photographer's lives miserable. It is a company that has to make money in a changing market to survive. If people keep buying the stuff, Kodak will keep making it.

It's really hard to tell a film's characteristics from scans posted to the Web due to differences in developing, scanning, post-processing, etc. At the moment it looks like both Tri-X and HP5 Plus have long lives ahead of them. No harm in trying out HP5 to see if you like it better, but I wouldn't switch because of a fear of Tri-X availability.

With Tri-X being one of Kodak's best selling and most flexible films, I would think that it will be a very long time before this bad puppy disappears.

Even if you are worried about the future of Tri-X, I don't see why you wouldn't be just as worried, if not more, about Ilford's HP5, given Ilford's very recent difficulties and the much smaller size of that company. Personally, I would use either one and not worry about the future. I've used them both quite a bit and while not identical, they are both in the same ballpark. If one we're to bite the dust, the other would work out just as nicely. If that second one bit the dust too, there would still be alternatives.

I like both Tri-X and Neopan 400, I have not yet been able to tell which I like most. Last time I bought Neopan, the time before that Tri-X. (I have not tried HP5+ as I use Rodinal and have read some horror stories about that combination at photo.net).

 

One thing I do not like about Kodak is that they tend to make things harder for me. They change the film which affects development time. They do not display development times in other makers developers and I find information hard to find at their web site.

 

I have been a Kodak B&W user, but I will now shift over to Ilford and Fuji. I already use Ilford papers and chemicals and I use Fuji color slide film. I would not want to be without either of these, so if the market is shrinking, I better concentrate my purchases on the companies I rather have around. In addition to this, Kodak also increased the prices for their B&W film, so the alternatives are cheaper where I do my shopping. (Apart from expensive Acros stuff that is, though I bought a couple of rolls recently to try it out.)

 

I do not hope any of these companies go away, or any other company producing film related material for that matter...

Paul,

 

As already said...your 'uneasiness over it's future' is a silly reason to look for alternatives

now. If you love Tri-X, buy a bunch of it and put it in the Freezer.

 

If you want a CHEAPER film today however...that would be a fine reason to explore. In

reality, nothing looks like Tri-X except for Tri-X.

 

Go to www.freestylephoto.biz and order a couple of FIlms. Arista .EDU 400 is an

interesting Film called "Classic Pan". Be sure to give it ample development or the negs will

look thin. It has a great texture to it.

 

The other Film to try is Arista Pro 400 which is generic Ilford HP5. You can also get HP5 in

Bulk (I boxes of 50 rolls) for $2.30 for a 24 exposure Roll.

 

I am TriX fan myself, but also shoot lots of HP5 because it is cheap (I burn lots of film).

 

jmp

From what I've read recently, Ilford is ceasing the practice of selling film and photographic papers for re-branding. That will mean the end of the Arista HP5 films.

 

Personally, HP5 is my favorite film for 35mm. I haven't used the current Tri-X but I've shot a trainload of the previous Tri-X films. I may give Tri-X a try again but I have several hundred rolls of HP5 in the freezer to go through first. That should take a few years.

There are lots of great films to experiment with for different looks, even if you like TriX.

 

All the same, though, if you like TriX, stick with it. I have a feeling that TriX will be the last traditional black-and-white film made by a major manufacturer anywhere.

Don't worry about changes in the traditional b&w industry. It's even more futile than worrying about having the latest and greatest dSLR.

 

(I just bought a discontinued Nikon D2H. 50% off the original price. That's how worried I am about keeping up with the Joneses.)

 

As others have said, Ilford HP5+ is similar to Tri-X. The current version of Agfa APX 400 is not a true ISO 400 film but has the potential to produce the look of films from decades ago. I've badmouthed APX 400 before but after seeing some results other folks have gotten with it I'm willing to give the film another try at EI 200 or slower.

HP5 is not quite a 'Tri-X lookalike' but it's reasonably close. It can be developed in Rodinal at rated speed at the 1:25 dilution or at 160 ASA at 1:50 dilution. I've used Fuji Neopan 400 and devved it in Rodinal, getting excellent results.

 

Ilofrd Delta 400 is another film I've used and devved in Rodinal, rating it at 160 ASA. Tonality and sharpness are excellent.

Chris, what time/temp/agitation were you using for the HP5+ @ 160 and Delta 400 @ 160 in Rodinal?

fuji neopan imho is simply superior to all 400 i've tried (tri-x is quite good though)

 

i develop with hc-110 6 1/2 minutes 20?C and 4 inversions / minute.

It depends on your developer and also if you shoot other formats.

 

I use diafine, and TriX is definitely very good with that - EI 1000 and still good shadow detail.

 

OTOH, I also shoot 4x5 and there is no TriX, only TriX Pro, which is different in diafine. Hence, I use 4x5 HP5+, for a EI of 800.

 

Do I find the films similar? Other than the film speed.. the grain structure is different for TriX in diafine as compared to HP5+ in diafine.

 

I agree with most posters, use the film until it is gone, then stock up as much as you can :) - my fridge is now full of Velvia 50 :)