Jump to content

Ilford HP5+ vs Tri-X 400 in Clayton F76+ developer?


Recommended Posts

<p>I know it's a question that's been asked time and time again, HP5 or Tri-X. I use F76+ developer because that is what is available at my school. I've found it to yield good results when working with Tri-X and also TMAX films.<br>

Recently, I've been looking into HP5 and from the examples I've seen, I love the look. It seems to be more grainy and contrasty which I prefer. However, i've searched forums and most seem to be dated 3-8 years ago, and I'm sure both Ilford and Kodak have updated their films in some way. Also, I haven't seen any forums in which the photographers have developed their film in F76+.<br>

<br />So I was wondering, a) key differences between Tri-X and HP5+, and b) how well HP5+ works in Clayton F76+ developer?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Whoops, I just realized that you were talking about a different developer after I posted below. Well, it's there now. I got it mixed up with D76, not your developer (which I know nothing about), so ignore it.</p>

<p>I recently developed some120 HP5 in D76 instead of my usual Tri-X. It looked great. Grain looked smaller, not larger than Tri-X. But grain is dependent on a host of variables. Exposure, how much agitation the film gets, temperature, and a lot more things. I am thinking of switching over to HP5 as it is more forgiving than Tri-X if you mess up on the developing. I printed the negs, and HP5 prints exactly like Tri-X. You can't tell which film was used by looking at the prints.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>While HP5+ may be a little grainier than Tri-X many users do like its look. I once tried a bottle of F76+, but never on HP5+. I mainly used it for Plus-X. As for contrast, you can control that by adjusting your developing times. I've found that Tri-X is more forgiving in the developers that I use, but YMMV. I like Tri-X best in Kodak's HC-110 dilution B and HP5+ in stock D-76. Back to the F76+: It is a very capable developer so I think with some experimentation you can find a time/dilution for it that will deliver what you want from HP5+.<br>

Kodak made some changes to Tri-X in the last decade (mainly finer grain) but I think it's been longer since Ilford tweaked its HP5+. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've used Tri-X and HP5 interchangeably in the past and if there was any difference it wasn't enough that I noticed. But that's been 10-15 years ago and as Mike says Kodak has made some changes with Tri-X. As for F76, the name suggests that it's the same formula as D76. Is that the case?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for the replies. Looks like I'm going to have to try some out, make comparisons.<br>

@Craig..not sure about D76 as I've never used it, but it seems to be a standard, reliable developer for a lot of people, though dilution is typically 1:1, I believe, whereas F76+ is usually 1:9. I'm not too up to speed about differences between developers & dilutions and how each one can affect the film, but that is something I will want to explore. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>F76+ is a phenidone based developer. D-76 is a metol based developer. Phenidone based developers generally produce more speed and more grain. This can be partially offset by adding sodium sulfite and other chemicals. If the film itself has fine enough grain then a phenidone based developer will not make it more apparent. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

<p>Hi JC, </p>

<p> I use FA-1027/F76+ for all of my processing and have tried both HP5+ and Tri-X. I shoot both at EI 200 and develop as per the instructions 1:14 for 11min agitate 5 inversions for 30s and then 3 inversions ~15s every minute gives me nice soft grain and good accutance.</p>

<p> I found that I didn't like the look of HP5+ or the lack of contrast so I moved to Tri-X and haven't looked back. Of course, my taste is totally subjective. You'll need to find a style/look of your own and hone your process in to achieve consistent results. If you don't you'll spend a LOT of time in the darkroom adjusting your enlarger to make both contact sheets and prints. This is the same for a digital workflow. Trust me on this, that's no fun at all...</p>

<p> All that said, my advice is to find 1 or 2 film developer combinations you like for the kind of work you like to do where you get a negative with a lot of information that gives you the ability to make different looking prints so you can evaluate them for content and artistic expression. As Ansel Adams once said, the negative is like a score of music and the print like the performance i.e., where all creativity resides. Good luck and message me if you'd like to chat more about my tests with other films. I'm happy to talk tech. </p>

<p>Finally, (yes, some shameless self promotion here...) you may be interested in my blog: <a href="http://learnanalog.blogspot.com">Learn Analog on Blogspot</a></p>

<p>-Brian</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...