TriX and HP5 test...

"He's just trying to be like Fred. Give him a break!"

 

Ahhh - perhaps he needs to chop down a few trees then...! :-)

A better way to test would be to cut all 4 notches off the films in the dark and then develop for eight minutes. You could also pour all of your different possible developers into empty unmarked wine bottles just to make it fair. But I'd sure stick with that 8 minutes.

Fred Picker chopped down trees?? Tim, I don't understand what you are referring to? I haven't purchased anything from Anthony's company, as yet. There's a good possibility that I never will. But I cannot deny him the right to give it his best try.

Ok, com'n guys, even Fred Picker made mistakes. I sure remember in his news letter where he was marketing his print washer as better because it drained at the bottom and "everybody knows fixer is heavier than water". Every body that knows something knows fixer is not heavier than water. Then we have the chopping small trees to get a better view idea. So Anthony was not very smart posting his "test", let anybody here who has not done something stupid critize him, me I have done them plenty so although I agree in principle with Tim and it was a foolhardy thing to do, I am willing to give him a break.

One thing is for sure, if I was advicing him I would try to get him away from trying to be like Fred Picker and find his own place. I mean, Picker actually manufactured and tested his own equipment, and as Tim points out Anthony will have a hard time trying to pass himself as an authority being only a reseler of whom nobody heard until now. Also like Tim I think this news letter a la Picker is going to cause him more harm than good.

 

But bottom line like it was mentioned above lets give the guy a break, he is really trying, his customer service is great and some of his ideas are actually not bad. I bought a couple of his negative boxes and they are cool.

"Fred Picker chopped down trees??"

 

my recollection is that he was ocassioanlly know to re-arrange small parts of the environment... and made no excuses for it if it made for a better picture.

 

As for FAPS, I love the way everyone jumps from the particular to the general.

 

I raised the specific point of Anthony's Tri-X and HP5 test - which I think has a fundamanetally flawed methodology. (btw - I've tried emailing the same direct to Anthony, but my email has bounced).

 

In the meantime I've been jumped on for apparently criticising Anthony's business efforts with FAPS - just not true. If people were to check the archives, I've made positive comments about what he is trying to do on several occasions. I've pointed people to his products when it seemd like a good idea and i've come out on his side when he was (literally and abusuvely) cursed for supposedly spamming the list.

 

I just think he did a bad job with the film tests, which he made public.

 

tim

 

PS - I do like the look of his 8x10 contact printer - have done right from the start.

Jeez guys. I like this forum - I've learned from it and been entertained by it. But there are days when you remind me of one of those lame call-in radio shows where all of the callers are amazingly opinionated (and usually only marginally sane, but that's my personal opinion). The reason that they are all opinionated is only opinionated people call the damn show.

 

Only opinionated people participate in this forum. We need to remember that.

 

I've talked to Anthony on the phone. I've read his email newsletters. I've read his printed newsletters. Is he opinionated? Damn right. Fits right in here. He is also friendly and helpful. Which also fits in here if you'd all just relax a bit.

 

Okay. The much discussed Tri-X / HP5+ test. Was it a detailed, rigorous, scientifically valid test? No. Do I necessarily agree with his conclusions? No. Did the test meet his needs? The answer may be yes. If you read Anthony's newsletters you will get the sense that he thinks we (meaning black and white large format photographers) spend too much time testing, and too little time taking pictures. I suspect that in the past he spent a lot of time testing, found a film (Tri-X) and developer (HC-110) combination that works for him, and stuck with it. Anthony tested HP5+ by treating it the same way he treats Tri-X. I don't think he was looking to replace the film he knows. It sounds more like he did it out of curiousity and as a courtesy to Ilford. Perhaps if the result of the HP5+ test was something more Tri-X like - only better - he might invest more time.

 

Here is the paragraph immediately before his discussion of the test. Read the last sentence. Please.

 

"I�ll get e-mails and calls saying I�m wrong, from folks who like to debate this lens vs. that lens, the Sinar F vs the Arca Swiss, and some who no doubt take densitometer readings of threshold values in prints. Great. Whatever makes you happy. A factor of less than 1-1/2 percent is perfectly okay with me. I�d rather hone and analyze my sensitivity and response to the world out there� or debate Rubenstein vs Horowitz interpretations of Chopin, or modern day (too fast) interpretations of Handel; or Cézanne, Hals, Miro, Pollock. Think those guys sat around talking about music paper and tubes of paint?"

 

So... who wants to talk about tubes of paint?

 

Bill

Would one of the more knowledgeable forum members please

offer Anthony a better developer regime for the HP5+ that could

perhaps show him a better result then what he's getting from

Tri-X in his developer. Let's try to help if we can, which is what

this forum should be about.

I don't see why to gripe about a silly test, so long as it is accurately described. It provides reliable information. Granted, the information: 'Film H processed as if it were Film K gives inferior results' may not be tremendously useful, but as long as the details are present, then at least it is reliable information. Disseminating reliable information is in general a good thing, so (in terms of content) I'm on the 'give the guy a break' side.

 

My gripe is with the dang spam. He should have posted to this forum saying 'contact me for my free email newsletter', instead of spraying it all over the place. This spam was the first I ever heard of his store, and all he accomplished was to aggravate me so much I will never consider patronizing him.

 

CXC

Hey guys I would like to post the recent e mail Mr. Guidice sent to me:<p>

 

<i>I spoke to Alan Ross about my testing procedure and he said it was fine, that it was a good way to test 2 films. Would you like me to raise Ansel Adams from the dead and then ask him? HP-5 is used by folks who it seems never made their own tests.

 

Picker had about 7 years experience when he started Zone VI, I had 31. I think I'm qualified to make the observations about the products I sell, use, test, or dislike.

 

We have products we design and manufacture, and I test those before they are offered for sale, and we also have products made by others. Where is this idea that I've got a lot to learn...

 

I know what is said about me in those chat rooms. People dispute my testing methods but I never see any prints that prove their methods are better. To suggest I don't know how to judge how materials work I won't even comment on.

 

Very few people ever tell me this stuff directly, I always hear it secondhand. Some folks e-mail me friendly comments, and then say nasty things on the chat rooms. Picker was dead right when he said photography was a backbiting world.

 

Fred told me once never to respond to a criticism... I should probably ignore this whole thing. but people that say these things do real harm - to our business and to photography in general.

 

If you like, I'll take you off of our mailing list.

 

Anthony Guidice</i><p>

 

I guess he really thinks he is Fred Picker, right down to the nastiness. I am now sorry I stuck out for the guy....burn him in a stake....:-))

Looks like he just lost another potential, repeat customer, Jorge....

You bet Emile, I told him so. Shame, I was thinking of asking him to build me a 12x20 film washer. I suppose he does not need my business.

And yes I took his offer to remove me from the mailing list, good by and good riddance as far as I am concerned.

I found my copy of "Black and White Shootout" by Gordon Lewis in Camera and Darkroom, November 1991 which gives tests of seven different films, including Tri-X and HP5. His conclusions on HP5:

"In many ways HP5 plus is more like one of the new technology films than its conventional brothers. While its film speed and shadow detail are similar to Tri-X, its grain size and definition are closer (but not quite equal) to T-Max 400 or 400 Delta. HP5 is also similar to T-Max 400 in its rendtion of highlight detail. Subjects that gleam, glisten, shine and sparkle will have a bit more kick with HP5 than with Tri-X. The downside is that you have to be a bit more careful not to overexpose or overdevelop. (It isn't nearly as sensitive about this as T-Max 400, however.)"

"Ilford claims HP5 is flexible enough to be used at exposure indices as high as 3200, but for best results they recommend using either Ilford Microphen or Ilfotec developers. T-Max developer, particularly at 1:4, tends to be too active and yields negatives with too much contrast.":

Film choice is such a personal thing, and development and exposure methods introduce so many variables, that I don't know why anyone would rely on or get too worked up about anyone else's tests or tastes anyway. Personally, I prefer Tri-X to HP-5 as well, but in the LF world for formats other than 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10, HP-5 is often the only option, so I accept that I have to learn to work with it for some uses.