Tri-X to HP5+ Comparison

This is my first film comparison video. I do not intend to try and crown a “winner”, but rather, I am interested in creating an objective comparison that looks at any differences. Any and all future comparisons will be made against Kodak Tri-X just to use that as a type of film measuring stick. All films are developed in stock D-76 at the published times by the manufacturers and then the negatives are printed to 11x14 to clearly show grain and contrast differences.

Channel Merch, Discord, and more:

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[NicosPhotographyShow]

You are the channel I want to be but dont know if I know how! So happy to see this on Youtube.

[EliteGamersCenturion]

I'm so excited for this series! Finally someone sets clear standards with a color checker and step tablet. Together we see renditions of color and contrast. I would be curious to see an average w/ standard deviation from a scan of a clear area on the prints for our total noise. Wonderful series, looking forward to where this goes!

[bakskam]

The best comparison video I’ve ever watched. Love your channel.

[randallstewart]

Excellent job done here. The vast quantity of these comparisons on YT look at scans rather than prints. They become comparison of the scanners and scanning skills of the maker, almost useless. I am a bit surprised that these films appear so close in performance. I adopted Ilford exclusively many years ago, but have accepted that HP[5 is the grainier film, apparently not so. I look forward to future film comparisons. Thanks..

[mrgregpappas]

I stumbled on you Cinestill XX video first and started digging. Great series. I’ll continue going through your channel. Thanks for making good work.

As for winner?

HP5+ is $5.69 a roll for 120
Tri-X is over $7.

HP5+ wins.

[mmlove_eric]

Thank you!
I agree! So many film reviews and comparisons out there but not what I was looking for.

[iandvaag]

Great video, Greg. I've really been enjoying the channel. One small correction though: the D-76 equivalent in Ilford's product line is ID-11, not ID-68.

[doyoudevelop]

Great comparison! Getting the densities right is what I struggled with the most as well.

[carlabrahams]

Great video. I think its great that you show the technical side of the photographic processs in a darkroom setting. Really impressive watching how you work.👍

[cameronwilson]

Love to see a comparison done with darkroom prints and not just a scan, 👍🏻 looking forward to the rest of the series

[massimilianomattei]

Dear NP! Good job.
About your comparison, in my experience, I can say: HP-5 is more 'soft' than Tri-x, but keeps generally more details in lighter shadows, you know? In more, I can in a second time get more contrast by printing with filter. With Tri-x I cannot get details in darker shadows and mid-tones, in a second time.
Grain in HP-5 has a 'softer look', in Tri-x it looks harder, you know what I mean!?
Hp-5 can be pushed till 6400 iso (I did, with a concentrated 1+15 compensate developer and different calculation for time) and it maintain a tiny grain also in lighter zones. Tri-x can be pushed yet, but grain is more evident, in cause of his shape.
They are different films, no one is better than the other, but I personally think HP-5 is more usable and elastic.
Thank you for your videos!
If you are curious, you can check an old post on IG where I have developed pushed HP-5 till 3200 and 6400 iso. @2m_foto
Regards, Max

[fishtacoguy]

I admire your detailed reviews of films, great series idea (plus the calm, even tone in which you speak, almost relaxing...). I agree, most other film 'reviews' are not great, many are all over the place on techniques used, scanned not prints, different ISO, etc.. I must say, I've never been crazy about Tri-X (always liked look of Acros myself, apples to oranges I know), I have a roll of loaded in my Bronica and am trying to shoot this weekend. Looking forward to more reviews.

[blackimp]

I appreciate your efforts... but what should we desume from differently washed/fixed films, different exposured printz, different tissues in the pictures... ??

[AdrianBacon]

This mirrors my own findings. 400TX and HP5+ are effectively interchangeable.

[kannibaal]

Fantastic! Looking forward to the rest of the series.
Personally I'd be very interested in Foma 100, FP4+, Delta 100 and Delta 400 and Bergger 400.

[mikesullivan]

Hi Greg, So sorry to see that you got caught up in that sh*tstorm over this video over on Photrio. Although I may do some things
differently than you do, I find that your videos provide a lot of good solid information, as do many others on that forum. I was sorry
to see you leave, but I understand completely and support your decision. I just wanted to let you know that there are a fair number
of people who appreciate what you are doing. Don't let the self appointed "Gods Of Photography" get you down. BTW, thanks for
posting the video about using the Neewer LED video light as an enlarger lamp. I'm very seriously considering using one to bring
an old 5x7 Elwood back to life.

[nnelgsiggah]

That was awesome. I love the way you did this. 🇿🇦 looking forward to more of these!

[richard.l]

reflection densitometer ... on easel light meter ... 50x magnifier to inspect film on light table ... capture from that 'inspection scope'

[enricodinardo]

Hi! and thanks for the video and for the great channel! I’d say that what you are doing is essentially giving a visual demonstration of sensitometric properties/information normally expressed on graphs, which is great...but I was thinking that if you wish to test both film in equivalent conditions, maybe film development should be considered more carefully. More specifically: you say you are developing both films for the standard time given by the manufacturer, but as you surely know, development time (and agitation, as you correctly recall in the video) control film contrast, and maybe by following manufacturers prescription on time you might yield different contrast for each film leading to biased conclusion on film intrinsic properties when looking at the prints (i.e. tonal separation in certain tonal range). Maybe it would be more meaningful (even if surely more cumbersome) to develop TriX by standard but tune the development time of the compared film so that its contrast (the average slope of the response curve -properly defined- that you can surely graph out by measuring the step tablet with the densitometer) matches that of TriX. Without checking contrast is the same for both films, the mismatch would be analogous to that we would have by comparing two shots of same scene but with two different light scheme. Hope I made my point clear. Cheers!

[Pixelwaster]

The style of film comparison I didn't know I needed. You should get an intern - they can refill your coffee IV, develop film (but not prints, love seeing them come up still), and can be blamed when things go bad. Will work for chemistry and darkroom time ...