400TX (the new stuff) vs. HP5+ in HC-110: results

[andy_piper2]

Since a few people have posted questions about the quality of the new

Tri-X (400TX) - here's a couple of samples next to HP5+ in HC-110.

 

A) Both films were processed together in HC-110(b dilution) for 4.5

minutes at 70 degrees, equivalent to 5 minutes at 68 degrees. If

anything, these negs were a tiny bit thin and flat and could easily

have stood another 15-30 seconds of development for silver printing,

although they scanned fine as is.

 

The 3.25-minute 68-degree development time listed inside the 400TX film

box for HC-110b is way out of line. Kodak's slide rule must have

slipped.

 

2) The detail shots are from full-res 2700dpi scans - equivalent to

standing in front of a 35"x50" print. I can barely make out a

difference - the same difference that existed between "old" Tri-X and

HP5. The 400TX has very slightly softer edge sharpness and grain. I

doubt this would show up in a print smaller than 20x30 (if then).

 

Otherwise, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.<div></div>

[andy_piper2]

The full frame from both films - to show overall tonality and as a reference for the size of the detail areas.

[joey]

Thanks Andy! I used to use mostly Tri-X in HC-110, but I've migrated to HP5+ (mostly for consistency across formats). I could never tell the difference, and these tests prove that there aren't many.

 

Did you shoot both the films at 400? How about your style of agitation? I get nice results developing for 6 minutes at 68 degrees, with 4 inversions per minute.

[andy_piper2]

Yeh - I should have added that stuff.

 

These shots were exposed at 400 EI (Leica M6 meter) and developed with Ilford's standard agitation sequence - 4 inversions of the tank at the start of every minute.

[lex_jenkins]

I do see some minor differences in acutance, grain and shadow detail, with the advantage going to HP5+. But the differences are minor enough that slight changes in development and agitation could alter the results.

 

Interesting stuff, Andy.

[john_stockdale2]

Thanks for the test results. I think I can notice a difference in the full frame shots: to me the HP5+ seems to be better exposed (=faster, better shadow detail) and maybe slightly less contrasty. It would be a coincidence if both film required exactly the same dev time for the same contrast. HP5+ has my vote on the basis of your test.

[ben_crabtree]

In the cropped section, I would give a slight edge to HP5+ in terms of accutance. In the full frame pictures, however, the Tri-X shot seems to have more depth and life than the HP5+ one, at least to my eyes.

 

Thanks to Andy for the posting.

[scott_eaton]

The new Tri-X has smoother Dmax areas (highlights) which is no doubt due to borrowing some R&D from the Tmax films. This accounts for why it looks smoother in the bigger print

 

HP5 has more accutance and the typically better shadow rendition.

[benjamin_ogdon1]

In the crops, the HP5 definitely looks sharper to my eyes. I like the tonal scale of the Tri-X better, though. That said, I sorta wish they hadn't begun screwing around with the Tri-X formulation---it's been my security blanket for so many years.

 

The full-frame shots aren't framed quite the same; were these shot from a tripod? I guess I'm wondering about focus/movement. The magnification is so high in the crops, that any slight difference would spoil the test. OTOH, if these results are consistent with other tests you've run...

 

I guess I'm also a little leary of the short dev times---3.25 is nuts, but I've never even gone as low as 4.5. I've always aimed for a little bit longer times with Tri-X/HC-110, agitating once a minute (using counted inversions with a twist), in order to let the edge boundaries develop.

 

Thanks for the post; very interesting.