hp5 and arista premium 400

<p>I just made some 8x10 enlargements of 35mm hp5 negatives, after shooting and enlarging 35mm arista premium 400 film for the past six months. The photographs made from hp5 negs tonight appear both more grainy and less sharp, perhaps only slightly less sharp, than those made with arista premium 400 film in the recent past. What a surprise! I think I expected just the opposite. (Perhaps I am just used to the look of arista film.) All film developed normally in d76. What are others' experiences with these two films? Just curious. </p>

Bigger grain and less sharpness are symptoms of overexposure and/or overdevelopment. How does the density of the HP5 negatives compare to that of the Arista negatives?

<p>Since I switched to Xtol I can't tell much difference between the 2. I think it is the of Ford vs Chevy thing. It is what you like.</p>

<p>Offhand I would say that both the hp5 and arista 400 negatives show good shadow and highlight detail. The exposure looks about right, and the higlights don't appear blocked to me. Perhaps the way in which I am printing the hp5 negatives--too much contrast?--produces the somewhat grainy effect. I am just beginning to work with the hp5 film after months of not using it, and I have printed only two frames off one roll of film. I haven't decided whether or not the "look" is objectionable to me. Your thoughts will be helpful to me in evaluating the results.</p>

<p>Arista Premium 400 is Tri-X. Tri-X film got finer grained when Kodak switched to the new plant and started labeling the film 400TX. Ilford hasn't made any changes on HP5+ that I know of.</p>

<p>I do not regularly shoot TX or HP5+ because I never really liked ether one. But thats just me.</p>

<p>However I have some printed and on the wall and your comment brings three things to mind.<br>

1) Try HC110 - it liked both films better than D76 and Larry is right about the XTol.<br>

2) Don't suffer from the "PIXEL PEEPING" illness that those "DIGI"s spread like a virus. Stand back and look from 2-3ft and judge.<br>

3) You can't develop your way out of a bad lens. If it's not sharp at the source it isn't going to print any better.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/product_tests/400ISO_filmtest_001.php">http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/product_tests/400ISO_filmtest_001.php</a></p>

<p>The sharpest film is here the Rollei Retro 400S.<br>

Slowest speed: Fomapan 400<br>

Tri-X versus HP5+:<br>

Here HP5+ seems to be finer grained but Tri-X is sharper. But these results depends of course also which developer has been choosen.<br>

Just an impression of different iso 400 (cubical type) films.</p>

<p>HP5 will appear/is grainer than TriX but developer and agitation technique will reduce or amplify the apparent grain.<br>

Try D76 1:1 instead of straight. If doing inversion processing turn the tank 2 turns at the end of each inversion cycle, right 1st cycle, left 2nd cycle or try rotary processing if your equipment will allow.</p>