TriX and HP5 test...

Okay, someone persuade me this isn't one of the more skewed and

unscientific tests you've come across...

 

From the Fine Art Photo Supply newsletter:

 

"HP-5 Test

 

Ilford sent me some of their HP-5 film for testing. I don�t think

I�ve used this film since the days of photographing for my New York

Cityscape show at old Columbia College (1977)! Ouch. Anyway, this

emulsion is made in 5x7 size, is less expensive than Tri-X, so what

the heck.

 

I set up the Sinar to the side of our heavily wooded house, and

focused on a scene containing bushes, a maple tree, with the ground

covered in snow. The sky was cloud covered (this is Rochester). I had

one sheet of Tri-X loaded, and 3 sheets of the HP-5. I exposed the

sheet of Tri-X, and the 3 sheets of HP-5 at exposures at ISO 100, 200

and 400 respectively.

 

I developed the Tri-X and HP-5 together in a tray, agitating once

through the pile in each 30-second period, using HC-110 at the

dilution and time I normally use for Tri-X. For the Symmar 12" lens,

that�s 8 minutes at dilution D.

 

Proofing the negatives together for the same printing exposure, the

ISO 400 HP-5 negative looked like the correct one. The snow tones

were an okay match for Tri-X, but the low to mid-values didn�t look

good. They looked flat. The Tri-X negative showed crisp separation

from Zones II through V; the HP-5 showed almost a single tone Zone

IV. The Tri-X picture had vitality and "jump", and the HP-5 was dead

looking. Like the difference between Beck�s beer and Bud� or between

instant coffee and Starbucks.

 

Now � let me qualify this test. I�m not going to say that HP-5 is a

lousy emulsion, and I�ll never use it again ("never" and "always" are

words you should avoid after the age of 40). The 12" Symmar lens I

use has a very serious flare problem which I compensate for, hence

the ISO 400 rating and the long development time. A modern lens would

almost certainly give a better result. Also, HC-110 might not be the

ideal developer for this film, although I find that difficult to

fathom considering HP-5 is supposedly Ilford�s Tri-X equivalent� But

that may be the case. Experimenting with another developer may yield

better low to mid-value separation. Pyro?

 

For now, I�ll stick with Tri-X, since the side by side comparison in

this case yielded the better result. But I�m leaving the door open. I

don�t want to eat my words later� By the way, Kodak�s compensation

chart for the "new" Tri-X sheet films shows development times to be

lessened 23% in HC-110B � more than I originally thought, but not

really much of a big deal, since HC-110 can be diluted much more than

the B dilution, provided you don�t overextend it�s capacity. The

compensation required for the roll films is 1% less (!). This is all

what Kodak says. We shall see what happens when I get some of the new

stuff and test it. I�ll pass the information along�"

 

Okay, I'm an HP5 user and like it, but that said, the follwoing comes

to mind for starters:

 

HC110, esp Dil. D isn't generally one of the developers that first

comes to mind for HP5

 

Both films where developed togther.... one is nominally 320, the

other 400. And I'm not sure about Dilution D, but if memory serves

me, Ilford quotes a different dev time for HP5 than Kodak does for

TriX.

 

Seems a rather odd way to do things - "hey, these are all 300 to 400

iso films, lets bung em all in togehter!

 

tim

Ok let me say first I like Anthony, but is apparent controled testing is not his forté. Like I said I just got finished testing pyro and it was all done with HP5. Got some great stuff, so it is a great film if you use it the way is intended.

> more skewed and unscientific tests

 

It's in the running for top honors. What a nitwit.

John

 

those that call people nitwits in a public forum are nitwits.

watch out - cyber cops...

yeah, well ... name calling is slowly becoming a daily routine on this forum

If the man is a nitwit, could you tell us why? I'd appreciate learning something.

One of the most fundamental conclusions I arrived at with large format materials is still very valid in this situation - Do your own testing and draw your own conclusions. This includes films from ANY manufacturer.

 

I find it interesting that Fine Art Supply did not ask a simple question before they distributed their "conclusion" mentioned above. Will the distribution of my personal taste and testing conclusions in a public venue attenuate the perception of our business acumen business or add anything tangible to the reader? The would answer a resounding NO. After being e-mailed this newsletter last night I quickly deleted it as jibberish after a short review.

 

Fred's old newsletters were in a different class and attempting to dispense knowledge/opinions in a similar manner is a risky proposition because of the lack of credibility from the "author".

 

I wish them all of the luck in executing their business model.

Hey, hey, don't be mean, anybody. There aren't enough of us in the universe to be able to afford to bash anyone. We have to stick together.

 

While I may disagree with some of the details of the testing procedure, at least he DID a test that satisfied himself. How many of us can say the same? I, too, tested HP5 4x5 and 8x10, and did tests closer to what Fred Picker might have done, and concluded that I'd stay with Tri-X. For me, and for the photographs I try to make, HP5 doesn't offer me any significant advantages. Would all of you have trashed my test procedure? Maybe. But it was good enough for me. Have you done it yourself? Lately?

 

I used to answer Fred's mail at Zone VI. We finally got a rubber stamp that said "TRY IT!" that, with tongue-in-cheek, we would stamp in red ink on letters sent by people asking questions about what such-and-such would do, or whether a certain film-and-developer combination was better than Tri-X and HC-110, etc. and send them back to people along with written comments, too. Fred faithfully believed that the only way to really know is to do it yourself, to your own satisfaction. He would listen to opinions he respected, but for anything that mattered to his work, he did the grunt work to find out for himself. He got mean sometimes, impatient when people refused to do the work to find out answers for themselves. Fred had the attitude of an artist always trying to understand his materials better: testing always taught him something, but he realized that there was a value to DOING it and not just guessing or talking about it. There's a valuable lesson there, because we will all continue to learn about our materials, or should, throughout our own photographic journeys. I suspect that we all have far less knowledge of our materials than we should have, and rarely make the effort to learn as much as we could. I know I'm guilty. "Life's too short to test." Life's also too short not to test.

 

I like it that Anthony is at least trying to establish another forum for spreading the gospel of large format. For that, we should all support him. I, for one, have subscribed to his newletter. We should disagree with him as necessary, but nicely. Separate our opinions of some of his photographic methods from evaluating his products on their own merits. When I disagree with him, it still provokes me to think about things I might not have thought about, and do things I wouldn't otherwise do. For that, I'm in Anthony's debt.

 

I like to say: "Don't bitch unless you've got a better idea." Earn the privilege of complaining. A more productive approach would be for someone to outline what they feel to be a better test procedure that relatively new folks, and all of us, for that matter, could use. It would help if it's relatively easy and time-effective to do. "Life's too short..." Especially if "new" Tri-X is significantly different from "old" Tri-X. That would disagree nicely, but substantively, and to the continuing benefit of all.

 

Good for Anthony! Good for all of us! Keep large format alive and well!

 

Bruce

It's one thing to post an uncontrolled test procedure as an opinion on an online forum. If that's how he wants to evaluate films, fine. Now I know that HP-5+ in HC-110 Dil D for 8 minutes doesn't give great results for Anthony under flat lighting.

 

It's another thing to spam the members of said forum with unwanted uncontrolled test procedures as part of a commercial enterprise. I don't understand his motives for such behavior, and I agree with John.

The Fine Art Photo Supply dude did not spam the forum. Another user passed on the newsletter.

and only a bit of it at that...

 

My point being (and if the nitwit hat fits, wear it), this methodology of film testing seems to be:

 

I get nice results using Tri-X in HC110 Dil. D for 8 minutes. I want to test another film (HP5) and compare it to Tri-X

 

So, I'll process that in HC110 Dil. D for 8 minutes and see what happens.

 

Ho hum - gee, it doesn't look as good as the Tri-X, therefore it probably isn't as good as Tri-X

 

Suprise, suprise, because processing HP5 in HC110 Dil. D for 8 minutes won't get you anything like optimum reslts for that film.

 

(I love the statement "Also, HC-110 might not be the ideal developer for this film, although I find that difficult to fathom considering HP-5 is supposedly Ilford�s Tri-X equivalent�" wow - no shit Sherlock! So everyone who makes a 400iso film is supposed to make it's development characterisitcas co-oincide with the big Yellow Fathers? - bizarre to say the least).

 

So, what next? I know, I'll try T-Max 400, Delta 400, APX 400 and maybe even the new Bergger 400 - all in in HC110 Dil. D for 8 minutes and see how they compare to the venerated Tri-X 320.

 

You know what, I bet none of them will look as good either, so Tri-X must still be the best!

 

It's called skewing your results before you even start

I dont think he was claiming to have done more than a cursory test here. I'm sure that within the limitations of a cursory test his conclusions would seem valid but HP5 is a very good film so he does it a dis-service.

 

It's always down to personal preference at the end of the day but proper systematically executed tests I've seen over the years in the photo press score these 2 films pretty equally with each having a slight edge in some characterstics but neither winning by much.

 

I use HP5 because 1) it's very good and 2) because I'm British and I like to buy British products when they are at least comparable with the competition

 

I did have one really annoying problem with HP5 last year. I tried to order some in 9x12cm size, I confirmed Ilford had it in stock but could not find a UK dealer who was prepared to order one box for me - they couldnt be bothered. One dealer even tried to sell me 9inchx12inch.....

So I had to order some Efke from Fotoimpex in Germany. Someone at Ilford needs to kick the UK dealers.

Twenty-five years ago, when I went back to B&W photography, I used Tri-X and HC-110, just like Ansel and Fred recommended. Eventually, I felt that I could improve my results, so I tried other combinations of film and developer, and eventually settled on Ilford HP-5+ developed in Ilford's Microphen 1:1. That combination has produced the best results using my developing technique,so far. The negatives print well on my enlarger in my darkroom. Will I continue to up-grade my technique? You bet I will! I'm looking for perfection in my prints. Will I go back to using Tri-X and HC-110? Heck no! Been there, done that. Anthony still has a long road to travel. He has to find his own way. Don't criticize him. Encourage him to keep on searching. My father used to say: "If you haven"t tried it, don't knock it".

"Been there, done that. Anthony still has a long road to travel. He has to find his own way. Don't criticize him. Encourage him to keep on searching. My father used to say: "If you haven"t tried it, don't knock it"."

 

That would be fine if he didn't appear to be trying to establish a certain authority with his "newsletter" (which I do generally find itneresting).

 

In which case, what he says in it is likely to take a bit of knocking to ascertain it's validity

As to whether or not Anthony "spammed" the forum, my email inbox this morning contained the newsletter, sent from Anthony's business address. I've never bought anything from him, nor did I sign up for his newsletter. I assumed that I received it because I was one of the forum participants he chose to put on his list. Unsolicited commercial email is spam, is it not?

For Anthony, FAPS and spam, see varous endless threads in the archives... (unless they all got deleted!)

When Anthony publishes his test article (yes, I got the spam too) he opens his methodology and results to public criticism. The illogical method and results are simply amazing.

Tim, I recognise what you mean by "a certain authority" in Anthony's method of communicating. However, I think that you are over-reacting to a perceived authority figure, here. Anthony tends to come across as being assertive, opinionated, and somewhat over zealous , but I believe his intentions are honest. Just take what he says with a grain of salt, and give him the benefit of the doubt. That's all I'm trying to say.

Thanks for the psychobabble Eugene - I'm not quite sure where you get the over reaction part from.

 

Read my initial post on this.

 

Anthony mailed out what he describes as a film test in his Newsletter.

 

I merely pointed out (very reasonably) that his test is really at all, but is set-up from the start to most likely give inaccurate and misleading results. Simple as that (bear in mind he happens to sell Tri-X, but not HP5...)

that should be... I merely pointed out (very reasonably) that his test is really at all, but is...

"I recognise what you mean by "a certain authority" in Anthony's method of communicating. However, I think that you are over-reacting to a perceived authority figure, here."

 

Very much to the contrary, I see him as a businessman trying hard to amrket himself and build brand recognition through establishing a repution as an authority and expert

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

What's the problem?

 

Does anyone think that there are many LF'ers out there who will swap their HP5+ for Tri-X based on that "test"?

 

The only people likely to agree with that "test" are already nearly religiously attached to Kodak...

 

I still haven't found a way to make Tri-X look as good as HP5+.

Psychobabble?? Tim, I read your original post several times. I also read Anthony's newsletter (It's now in my trash bag, along with the latest KEH catalog that arrived in the mail, today). I'm not disagreeing with your contention. I am merely saying "give the guy a break". We need new enterprises in the field of LF photography. He seems to really be trying to make a go of it.