FP4+ To Tri-X Comparison

This is a comparison of FP4+ to Tri-X. I chose Tri-X to serve as a general measuring stick to other films simply because of it’s wide popularity, I do not think it is a superior film to any other. All films in this series were exposed at box speed, processed in D-76 stock for the manufacturer’s published times, then printed to the same contrast and time. The purpose is to see if there are any differences and what they might be, not to name one film better than another.

In this specific comparison, both performed well at box speed and had a full range of tones when processed in this basic manner. Tri-X displayed more grain, as expected of a faster film, but the mid tones separated differently between films, though overall contrast range was the same.

Channel Merch, Discord, and more:

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[phillipP]

Excellent series. This is definitely the gold standard for film comparison.

[kalenderquantentunnel]

This series is pure gold! No bells and whistles, no exotic stuff, just using the best materials as intended by its creators.

[rajs]

You're a great YouTuber, teacher and photographer. Keep up the good content and I hope your channel gets the recognition it deserves

[prussianblue]

I shoot predominantly HP5 and FP4. Your results match my experiences perfectly. I like FP4 in the studio especially where I can very precisely control all the variables. I perceive that the mid tone information in the negative is very smooth and unbiased (although I realize it is not). Lends itself to printing adjustments that I want to make.

[Luudite]

Oh sweet, I thought it would be a while longer until the next one. Great vid :)

[linjicakonikon]

FP4 looks to be a very nice all around film. Good contrast that gives room for fine tuning in post. Good for landscape for sure. Good outdoor travel film.

[TwelveFrames]

I'm finding this to be an incredibly useful series! Thank you for doing this.

[mdawg]

Really great series so far! As someone who really enjoys darkroom prints (over scanning for instance), it's refreshing and helpful to see a comparison that uses prints as one of the ways to judge the film. Really great work!

Actually a lot of your videos I have found very helpful. I applied your methods of making a inter/copy negatives to boost contrast recently. It definitely worked how I wanted (I'll have to do them again as I got too much dust but otherwise it was a great exercise).

[sguttag]

Excellent series! Thank you! FWIW...to my eyes (via YouTube...so there's that)...the image I'm seeing on FP4+ is night and day better than the Tri-X. This is not a dig on Tri-X since there is an apple/oranges comparison on ASA values alone but in terms of how both the left and right side of your face/eyes are detailed...i just find an incredible difference. The Tri-X almost looks like it went through a compression algorithm to make the file smaller so deal is lost while retaining good contrast. It's all there in the FP4+

[JnOProductions]

Very appreciative of these videos, and all your videos in fact. I've gained more useful information from them than any other photography channel I watch. Please continue!

[BorutPeterlinPhotography]

I've enjoyed it. Thank you. I would add that a really important variable is not discussed here. That's developing. Sure, it's properly developed, but would you get the same results if you would expose three films of the same kind would there be some difference? Because your comparison is really through and I wonder if these kind of slight differences you would get also if comparing the same kind of film, developing the same time and doing the same everything. Now comparing HP5 and FP4 has even greater differences. As a fellow vloger I could say that kind of test would be really boring. I'magine the title: FP4 vs. FP4 vs.FP4 Which one is the best? He, he...
Good work!

[ssp]

I find your videos very informative with a lot of useful, practical information. Your kind of videos are too scarce on the net (Borut below is another making very useful videos) so thank you and please keep making them. There is much to learn and photographers new to film need someone with the knowledge to teach them. Thanks.

[GGMediaWorks]

This is so good, keep it up! Can’t wait until you get into some of the more obscure films!

[ivanalonso]

Great video. Thanks for taking the time for doing it!

[richardsimms]

Wonderful comparison of these 2 films. I learned a great deal. Thank you again. RS. Canada

[flavioserci]

I don't like the FP4 developed in D76. It looks creamy. I prefer the Rodinal 1:50. Sharp grain and more crispy image.

[ralphturner]

Just discovered your channel. Some excellent, impartial and methodical comparisons. Good to see exactly where one stands from an objective viewpoint. Thank you 🙂

[lostintransitphoto]

Very well done. One item to keep in mind is the latitude of the film varies. So Tri-X and HP-5 can be pushed and pulled with predictable results. For tripod mount shooting or bright light FP-4 comes into its own. But if going into an unknown environment the flexibility of Tri-x brings an advantage. Great to see side by side comparison. I use both.

[b_wtangible_moments]

I Enjoy this series of comparisons. Thanks for sharing!

[matthiasschreiner]

One more thing to mention: Here in Europe 1 roll of 35 mm 400TX is 14, 50 eur. FP4 is 9, - thats quite a difference