# HP5 vs. Tri-x



## loser101

What do you guys prefer? I done like 10 rolls of tri-x and like 3 of HP5 and i gotta say i'm happier with how hp5 comes out, the blacks seem better and i get constant results.


----------



## montresor

I've shot Tri-X and liked it well enough, have never done my own printing from it. It has a nice, well-defined and varied range of tone. Have not shot HP5, but have very much liked the results I've had from Ilford Delta 400. Probably my preference for 400 b&w, though recently I bought 2 rolls of Tri-X and 2 rolls of Plus-X, just to revisit the formulas and see how I like them after a few years away.


----------



## newrmdmike

i voted hp5, but i really really like fp4.


----------



## ann

i am not a guy, but i have used both for many years,

each has it's own "look".  tri's grain pattern is much different than hp5+ and depending on the subject matter each has it's place.

when you say the black's are better; are you doing your own printing?

What EI are you using for each type of filmand what developer.


----------



## Don Simon

I tend to stick with Ilford or Fuji, occasionally Agfa if I can get it. HP5 was definitely one of my favourites when I had darkroom access, but when handling film digitally I find it doesn't scan as well as many films.


----------



## motcon

i've used both and i must say, if hp5 had the traits of a human, i'd marry it.

normally loaded, i shoot it 320ei developed in pmk pyro. yummy negs.

it tolerates a great deal of pushing as well. i pushed it to just over 1200 with, to my surprise, great results.


----------



## kaboom

yap, gotta go with the flow. i find HP5 more predictable and more pleasing to the eye than TRI-x, altough the tri-x can be more contrasty, lending itself to interesting effects.
for general photography i'd take hp5 over trix any day, but i keep some of both in my bag.


----------



## nealjpage

I've really enjoyed Trixie--very easy to use.  HP5 was ok (I used a few rolls that I got free with some Ilford paper once) but I prefer the Kodak.


----------



## Mitica100

Gotta go with Ilford.


----------



## ksmattfish

I use both, and I'd bet $1,000,000 that no one on this forum, or most anywhere else, could tell which is which from my prints short of guessing, or prints where the borders shows the manufacturers' writing.


----------



## Alpha

TX's beauty really comes out in printing. But I still voted "other."


----------



## nealjpage

I guess this is a strange poll--my only criteria for prefering Tri-X over HP5 is that I think it's easier to work with and it's (or was) less money than the Ilford.


----------



## deanimator

I used Kodak´s Tri-X for many years, but then they changed the formula considerably several years ago...now it has maybe half the silver content. I had worked a long time to refine my chemicals, agitation, temperatures, times etc and got to know and love it. It still works but it´s not the same.

Nowdays I´m using Fuji Neopan...it seems to have similar characteristics to the previous Tri-X.


----------



## PhotoPhoenix

hp5 film is reallllyyyy nice.


----------



## Kahn10

I always proferred tri-x back when I shot a lot of 35mm b&w, I don't remember why I specifically preferred it to HP5, I just really liked tri-x deep tones and high contrast.


----------



## deanimator

Tri-X is not a high contrast film.

The formula changed significantly 5 or 6 years ago...less silver although Kodak refuse to go into details.

Many photographers I know either stocked up on thousands of rolls of the original (deep frozen) or moved away to HP5 or Fuji Neopan. 

A few good alternatives with similar properties can be obtained from the Czech and Polish manufacturers.


----------



## jstuedle

I always liked Tri-X, but it seems Kodak has lessened the quality standard they set so many years ago. I still like it, and voted for it, but it's more because old habits die hard. It's not the same film I grew up with.


----------

