Ilford HP5 Redux

In our final comparison we will take a second look at the differences between Kodak Tri-X as our standard and Ilford HP5+. All films in these comparisons were shot using the same lighting and position, developed in Kodak D-76 using the manufacturer’s recommended time, and printed on Ilford Classic FB at 11x14 size using the same contrast settings. The printing time varied to cancel any changes in film base fog from film to film. I included the H&D curves for each film to see the individual differences and we look at the overall print, the spectral response of each film, and the grain characteristics.

Channel Merch, Discord, and more:

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[cavb]

Is good to see a second try on HP5. There are other films that turned out over or under developed that deserve a second chance... eventually... I'm sure they take a lot of time and money.
Thanks for your work!

[bunyowbub]

I used to use HP5+ in large format work, but I gave it up because the high values don’t separate as well as I like. Your test shows the same result as I got from HP5+. Because of this trait, it makes an excellent portrait film (smoothes out lighter skin tones = more flattering) but it’s not as good for landscape work, which benefits from good separation of the bright values.

[tundrusphoto]

No roasting here. Thank you for this. Very much appreciated.

[lostintransitphoto]

Loved the video. I love HP5 film and believe you covered it well. At the end, it is about personal preference however we should agree on objective evaluations of performance which you have done well here. I will keep shooting HP5 and agree its “limitations” and grainier product (if ever so slightly).

[ianthomas]

what an effort. Very well made. Thank you. Inspires me for doing more in the lab. 👍👍👍

[silverandplatinum]

Interesting! I do a lot of large format portraiture, almost exclusively with HP5+, and my experience has been similar. I've thought of HP5+ as "high global contrast, low local contrast" but it's nice to be able to add some nuance to that. Thanks for doing the legwork

[dexon]

My subjective opinion is that Tri-X was muddy and HP5 is more contrasty and more pleasing to my eye. I’m glad your results mirror my own.

[chesslover]

The HP5 highlights seem a little brighter and a little hotter than the Tri-X highlights. Also, the HP5 grain seems a little more obvious, especially on the background material.

[twoeggcups]

I used HP5+ for years. At first I really couldn't get on with it, until I realised that it was more of a blank canvas, and let you do more in the darkroom. Also works great with dilute development at ISO 3200.

[VariTimo]

Having shot both quite a bit and developed them in the same developers, (all most all in XTOL 1:1) I’d say comparing them is almost splitting hairs:

Tri-X is a tat finer and tighter grain with a tat more sharpness. HP5 is a tat more sensitive with slightly rougher, softer grain.
HP5 tends to be a bit hotter and flatter in certain conditions.

[c.augustin]

The results "on paper" match the curves: with HP5+, the highlights are flattening out. But what the curves also show: technically, the HP5+ has a higher sensitivity in the shadow areas. Both aspects of the HP5+ make it so responsive to and useful for pushing. This matches my own experience with HP5+. What did surprise me was the (slightly) finer grain of the Tri-X – but one has to keep in mind that this is the *modern* version of Tri-X, which was re-formulated sometime at the beginning of this century, while the HP5+ is a much older formulation. And it does keep up astonishingly well.

[markholm]

Hi Greg. These videos are really great. The care you have taken to make the conditions reproducible across all the films is invaluable. In this video, unlike the others, you did not discuss the H&D curves. Is there nothing to see there?

[dsan-stuff]

I do appreciate that you tried to keep this comparison as "dry" as possible, but I also like that extra opinion on top that you usually have :) For me, Ilford films have a lot going for them compared to Kodak: Straight curve most of the way = more realistic. Slightly more yellow sensitive = slightly more pleasing skin tones and blue skies, you don't need to carry a yellow filter. Honestly, in this comparison in particular, Kodak looks a bit orthochromatic, which is not so flattering. Slight taper to the top of the curve = easier to retain a more pleasing transition between almost white to full blown white in the print. It's also more pleasing for skin tones, and is of course the "standard" adjustment/feature to go for with this in digital photography as well. Going the opposite way (ie increasing the separation in the brightest highlights) is usually not what you want except in some niche fashion photography where you want that metallic skin look, which I don't think most people otherwise appreciate. Overall I feel that Tri-X is more distracting than HP5. If you want more distortion but in a somewhat pleasing way (as opposed to Kodak), I'd say look at Fomapan 100 (EI 50 imo).

[dsan-stuff]

I think it would be interesting if/when you'd do a comparison between developers as well. Not just for looking at any differences in aspects of image quality, but also user friendliness, keeping properties, etc. When I started out in the 90:s my first few films were with D76. I then switched to the latest hottest thing: TMAX-developer. I've stuck with it since, even though I stopped using TMAX films in the early 00's. I appreciate that it keeps forever compared to the others, and that you don't have to wait for it to cool down. I know that it's supposed to "retain full speed in the shadows", fine grain etc which is important to me, but I haven't challenged that myself. While I've compared film stocks, I haven't gotten myself to actually compare developer performance properly.

[christianmayrhofer]

D-76 is a Kodak developer. A comparison would be interesting if both films are developed in an Ilford developer. But the difference between the films is really very sought after and both films will have minimal variations in mass production. I buy Ilford because the Kodak Tri-X are far too expensive in my country.

[jimglenwright]

Interesting. I used HP5+ previously and thought it didn’t have as much contrast as Tri-X with far more “grays”. I’ll have to get a few rolls again for another try.

[DominikMarczuk]

So when do we get a colour film comparison series?

[carlmcneill]

I just jumped back into film this year. HP5 was the first b&w film I tried. I have to say I'm not a big fan. There's too much grain for my liking. Maybe it was the way I shot it. That may have been the roll I had forgot to change the ISO from 100 to 400. So far my favorite is Tmax 100. I like the time grain. But you need a sunny day for that.

[kiwipics]

How many of those film stocks are re-spools or re-badged film from the same stock ?

[CertainExposures]

Five minutes in and if this were a blind test I would have failed because I would have bet yo money that your image on the left was Tri-X and the right was HP5. Does this suggest I have been doing something wrong? I've used published times and temps for a couple different developers. Thanks for sharing.