Tri-X,Delta400 or HP5

[ian_kie]

I'm using a leica M , It's kind of hard for me to choose a B&W film...

is there anything bad about new Tri-X ?

Help ... : |

[jonathan_walker]

All three are great films, as is Tmax 400 (TMY).

[jon_noble]

Grain or no grain. Thats the decision you need to make

[shoebox]

I have used Tri-X and HP5+. Both are great films and you can't go wrong with either one.

Now HP5+ is the only film that I use.

 

And if you push films, it's good to stick with Tri-X or HP5. Delta films don't push very well (at

least that's what I heard).

[__jon__]

Don't forget Neopan 400/1600. Work quite well in DD-X.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Which scans best?

[al_kaplan1]

I find that Tri-X is easier for me to print the old fashioned conventional way. I just like the way the tonality is.

[robert_clark]

If you develop your own and then scan, then avoid Tri-x. The plastic base is extra stiff and hard to flatten causing focusing differential.

Squeezed between glass in a conventional enlarger it's fine.

 

HP5+ and Neopan flatten much more easily, are not prone to twisting and bending and are easier to handle in a film scanner.

 

All three are great films as far as getting good detailed prints to a large size with excellent grain and tonality.

[ronald_moravec1]

My experience has been new Delta 400 does not like developers diluted even 1:1. Not true of the original Delta 400. I think they did it to maximise sales of their expensive DDX. Undiluted D76 works fine.

 

Best think to do is shoot the same subject at the same time with all candidates and pick the one you like. You must have previously detirmined the developing time. All this is a whole lot of work, but necessary for a valid test. Then you will find they are all quite close.

 

My pick is HP5+, but everbody will tell you his favorite.

[steve_unsworth1]

"If you develop your own and then scan, then avoid Tri-x..."

 

I can't say I've ever noticed that myself and I've developed and scanned a few hundred rolls of Tri-X. Perhaps it's scanner related - I use a Nikon V.

[jtk]

Can't comment on Kodak, but Neopan 400 is sweet at 800-1000 with Rodinal or Emofin, depending on love for or hatred of grain.

 

What's happened to Delta 400? I was just scanning some old 800ei stuff, developed in a French minilab...it's so beautiful that I was planning to order some? How is it with Rodinal?

[tony_senzaorbi]

"Grain or no grain. Thats the decision you need to make"

 

The tab grain films have grain, it's just different. Some people don't like the look of the t grain in large empty areas like sky. Bottomline, its a personal esthetic choice both in terms of the individual photographer and the particular subject matter.

 

That said, I've seen it suggested somewhere that it's a good idea to support the small companies like Forte because, so they say, ultimately Kodak and Fuji and even Ilford may not be able to downsize effectively enough to accomodate the tiny niche that film will soon occupy, and if the little guys are choked out in the meantime we'll be up the creek. We used to advise students to buy APX because it was way cheaper than Kodak or Ilford, but as we all know, that's history.

 

And (just to make things more confusing)it might depend on whether you're printing in a wet darkroom or scanning. I'm not up on scanning but one of the other instructors swears by shooting color neg and then converting to b/w in the computer, says it scans easier and the scanner's dust/scratch filter works with it, not to mention being much finer grained and with a smoother tone curve.

[juergenf]

Delta 400 is a very 'clean' film in terms of grain. Tri-X has a much more grainy look. HP5 I don't know but it is said to be very similar to Tri-X though a tiny bit sharper.

[kirk_teetzel]

Alot depends on developer too. But for the most part Tri-X and HP5 are great. I had some difficulty scanning Tri-X at first. Part of the problem may have been that it was on an Epson 3170 flat-bed scanner and the other may have been than I was developing in Diafine. This combo seemed to have pronounced the grain more. I picked up some tips to scan in 24bit color positive mode and the results were way better.

 

Still, like the others say it's a matter of tast and I like a little grain and some heavier contrast. I keep going back to Tri-X because it looks so good in Perceptol at 400, but I'm trying to learn HP5 for the inevitable day Kodak discontinues Tri-X. Now THAT will be a sad day.