Ilford HP5+ and Tri-X Contrast

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

krishnananda - 01 May 2008 05:03 GMT

For the past ten years or so I have been using HP5+ as my primary B/W
emulsion, having found it to be contrastier than Tri-X, which I had used
for the previous 20 years.

Now I'm finding that Tri-X is more contrasty -- to my eye -- than HP5+.
Has anyone else noticed this? Some variables are taken care of: same
lab, same cameras/lenses, usually same developing batch, side-by-side
comparison of the negs and contacts. Tri-X has a purple mask and HP5+
doesn't, but I'm not sure what difference that makes.

Any help greatly appreciated

--K

Reply to this Message

Dominic Richens - 07 May 2008 15:10 GMT

> For the past ten years or so I have been using HP5+ as my primary B/W
> emulsion, having found it to be contrastier than Tri-X, which I had used
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> comparison of the negs and contacts. Tri-X has a purple mask and HP5+
> doesn't, but I'm not sure what difference that makes.

You are probably noticing a difference in the spectral response of the two
films. I've noticed that Tri-X has an obvious blue bias while HP5+ seems to
be more sensitive to red. It could be that HP5+ is a more modern emulsion
and as such is actually more panchromatic whereas Kodak is probably hesitant
to radically change the spectral response of Tri-X for fear of upsetting
people who are accustom to it's old-fashion blue-bias.

So I like Tri-X because it gives everything that "look" (dark lips, light
skies), however HP5+ gives a more "faithful" rendering and is easier to get
a good print in contrasty situations and is more forgiving of exposure
errors.

Signature

Dominic Richens | knob@storm.ca
"If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"

Reply to this Message