Ilford HP5 Plus vs Kodak Tri-X 400

[@TheMistermike87]

Love the extra punch in contrast with tri-x. Thanks for doing this!

[@HaiTran]

You're welcome! Glad you enjoyed the video 👍

[@stefanoguidone]

Very informative video, exactly what I was looking for! Thank you for your testing and sharing your experience!

[@HaiTran]

You’re very welcome!

[@TheMessengerMDH]

Thank you for this! I will be going with Tri X

[@HaiTran]

Have fun!

[@Irnbruist]

I never would shoot HP5 at box speed; always push to 800 or 1600 and than the contrast is like tri-x... plus I like the canisters of HP5 more as it has marks for pushing and the film dries much flatter compared to the always curly try-x. So for me, if you push, HP5 is a much better option and even cheaper (in europe)

[@HaiTran]

I don’t remember the last time I pushed HP5 so I would assume that it wasn’t memorable for me personally. I like to push Delta 400 more. In general, I really like Ilford’s Delta line more and the look it gives. The most attractive thing about HP5 for me is its price when bulk rolled as it becomes very economical.

[@proshotsfiji]

Loved your analogy of TX to JPEG and HP5 to Raw, very well explained Video, I now fully understand my choices, Thank you.

[@HaiTran]

You’re welcome!

[@istvann.huszar420]

Great comparison, thank you! Tri-X remains my favourite.

[@HaiTran]

Thanks for watching!

[@bencebarboza3826]

You just saved my day: after my fav BW films (CHM 100 and 400) got discounted, I started to look for alternatives and couldn't decide between Ilford and Kodak, though was leaning towards Kodak. After watching your video, I directly stopped my endless research and hit the road to the closest film shop to purchase a bunch of TriX and TMax.

[@HaiTran]

Glad I was able to help!

[@ManuelGuzmanPhotography]

Great video! I'm actually surprised by how flat a lot of the HP5 images came out. I normally shoot mine at box speed and don't have that issue, though I do add a yellow filter for most of my shots. Anyways, kudos on putting in the effort to make this. It's no easy task stretching out testing with two cameras. Subbed!

[@HaiTran]

Thanks a lot for the support Manuel! In response to what you said, a yellow filter should help with contrast but of course, that just depends on what you're shooting. Ilford HP5 has largely looked like this for me no matter the different chemicals that I use. Nowadays, I really only use it for comparison purposes and rarely for my personal photography.

[@nilsgu8349]

Great comparison! I completely agree with your opinion. Thanks!

[@HaiTran]

You’re welcome!

[@davidbalducci4312]

thanks! that was excellent. A big help.

[@HaiTran]

You’re welcome!

[@kevindiossi]

There's just nothing like that black-and-white look from Kodak Tri-X. I shot T-Max back in college and just recently picked film backup as a New Year's resolution. The images from Tri-X are exactly the look that I have been searching for. I picked up a few rolls of ilford, and Kentmere, but I'm pretty sure especially after watching this video I will just be shooting Tri-X for life. LOL

[@HaiTran]

It’s a special one. There’s just something about Tri-X that I really enjoy.

[@kevindiossi]

@@HaiTran yeah, already been through 3 rolls of Tri-X and loved it. Wanted to see what all the fuss was about Ilford and the cheaper Kentmere. But this is so contrasty and has great depth. Crushed blacks is fine sometimes, but I totally understand why someone would want to avoid that and shoot a flatter film instead.

[@HaiTran]

If you really like it, you may want to consider bulk rolling. Sometimes the bulk roll of Tri-X goes on sale, making it much more affordable. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnTbqYaGmNqJhbc

[@drollandnow]

Excellent job -- well said -- answered every question I have had

[@HaiTran]

Glad the video helped 👍🏽

[@antonroland]

Great video, thanks! I cut my teeth on FP4 and PanF 50 and I love them both but I never liked HP5. I “recently” discovered Tri-X and I must say that Tri-X is my go-to for 400 and you summed it up beautifully!

[@HaiTran]

Glad it was helpful!

[@lutherblisset3422]

Awesome video, good content! Thanks

[@HaiTran]

You’re welcome!

[@slavatimoshenko]

That was very helpful, thank you!

[@HaiTran]

You're welcome!

[@ldstirling]

I have noticed that HP5 tends to be more middle-gray and less contrasty than Tri-X when I have shot them both, however I have not seen such stark differences between the film stocks as you showed in your video. I am not developing at home, so I am not sure what chems my lab is using for developing. It's probably different than yours and I scan my own negatives on an Epson V550 so it will surely look a bit different there too. I tend to favor HP5 as I would rather not have such deep blacks and risk losing shadow detail from a high-contrast scene, but if my HP5 came out looking like yours, I'd favor Tri-X too.

[@HaiTran]

Personal experience beats another person’s opinions any day. You know what works for you and that’s what matters 👍🏽

[@nelsonm.5044]

very nicely done comparison, from your results Tri-X will be my cup of tea

[@HaiTran]

Give it a try and let me know how it works out for you! 👍

[@ericsaxton6032]

Great comparison and analysis. I have recently gone to T grain for 35mm shooting and like tmax 400. I'm curious to try tri-x in medium format. Thanks for sharing.

[@HaiTran]

I almost exclusively shoot T grain films now and am bulk rolling TMAX 400 as my everyday shooter. It’s probably my favorite film 👍🏽

[@bobsyeruncle4841]

Excellent review love the examples

[@HaiTran]

Thanks a lot!

[@malcolmverdin]

Great video, man! Keep it up!

[@HaiTran]

Thank you 👍

[@miracleyacht__1538]

Great video

[@HaiTran]

Thank you!

[@Bigfarmer8]

Great job!

[@HaiTran]

Thank you!

[@zhongyao-sc1lj]

it seems hp5 often be used to push in order to increase contrast.

[@JefferyAHoward]

Great video! I agree 100 percent with your observations. I shoot a lot of both films and develop them myself. HP5 sometimes looks flat and underdeveloped. HP5 is a great film for pushing and shooting at night, but not so good in bright midday sun.

[@HaiTran]

Both films have a time and place if you understand their characteristics 👍🏽

[@agylub]

Tri X in D76 1:1. I have been shooting this combo for 45 years. It works. Everywhere every time.

[@HaiTran]

Whatever works for you 👍🏽

[@grzesiekswiderek8462]

Great video ! the one i was looking for . I was about to replenish my stock and now i m gonna go with Kodak

[@HaiTran]

Glad you enjoyed the video. Both are great film stocks. It just depends on what you’re looking for 👍🏽

[@nik78757]

Great video, bud. You get it!

[@HaiTran]

Thank you!

[@marcossantana1164]

I knew what your findings were before I watched the video, but still watched it. Tri-x is sharper than HP5, and your video probes it. I've tried adding contrast in post, and the shots still look soft in HP5. Tri-x dynamic range is less than HP5, but I'm not willing to give that up for the lack of contrast and sharpness.

[@HaiTran]

It really depends on what you want out of a film stock. I don't necessarily care about sharpness but really do want contrast. For me, adding contrast to HP5 isn't the same as having contrast from the start like with Tri-X. Also, if I have to do a lot of editing to a film stock, then I don't see much sense in shooting it since I've completely changed the characteristics of the film.

[@RichardSwift]

Excellent comparison video. Well done. I've shot both film stocks for years and agree with your assessment of them. It might be interesting to see how they compare using their own developers. Ie. HC 110 for Tri-X and DD-X for the HP5.

[@HaiTran]

I’ve definitely thought about using different developers for both films because I don’t think many people who are new to developing would be using DD-X since it’s more expensive. I think the best route would’ve been using Kodak D-76 and Ilford Ilfosol 3 since they are the more popular developers from each brands. But like I said in the video, I just wanted to make things a little more constant.

[@b_wtangible_moments]

Thanks for sharing bro! Tri-x is my go to film. I love the more contrast film. I might give hp5 another go.

[@HaiTran]

If I'm in the mood for a traditional cubic grain film, Tri-X is definitely my go to. I use more T-Grain films nowadays though!

[@b_wtangible_moments]

@@HaiTran Nice! I gotta get a hold of some tmax film to give it a try.

[@HaiTran]

It is definitely recommended! I currently bulk roll TMAX 400 and use it as my everyday film 👌

[@MHSFL]

Very in depth comparison! Try darkroom printing Tri X if you have a chance, it's out of this world

[@HaiTran]

Thanks for watching 👍

[@mamiyapress]

Perhaps D76 or ID11 would have been a better developer to use.

[@HaiTran]

I use whatever I have around and normally develop with. There’s no point for me to use a developer that I never use just to make a video when I’ll never see the same results again for my everyday photos.

[@mamiyapress]

@@HaiTran I have so many developers on the go that it is complete madness. I suppose that is some of the pleasure shooting film.

[@HaiTran]

I've experimented with chemicals in the past and have found something that I like so I just use that for now.

[@ricdonato4328]

Excellent review. When one is shooting on a sunny day with sun high overhead the contrasts may be bit too much, then use HP5, when shooting on a overcast day I would lean towards Tri-X, it will bring out more contrast of the scene. Suggestion, turn off the background music. We came to hear you, not listen to music. Some folks have hearing difficulties thus with background music it is often difficult separating music from your voice; the music is at best distracting at worse annoying, Remember, preachers giving sermons do not play music, professors presenting their talks do not play music, business folks as they are giving presentations do not play music; they all want their audience to only hear and understand them.

[@HaiTran]

Yes, there’s a time and place for each film stock. As for the music, some request for there to be some while in this case, some complain about. There is no making everyone happy. You get what you get and that’s life.

[@tomfwatson]

After 4 minutes in, I think you have covered every angle that might offend someone’s arguments for your opinion. Welcome to KZbin life.

[@HaiTran]

An important thing to note in life is that you can’t please everyone.

[@gskowal]

I would figure that if you are scanning your negatives you can bring down the blacks and get the TRI-X look anyway.. Has anyone here tried it?

[@HaiTran]

At the end of the day, you can edit the negatives to make them look like anything you want, but that doesn’t mean that you’re making an accurate representation of the film stock, which I tried to do. I don’t see a point in shooting one film stock and trying to make it look like another. I would just shoot the film stock I want the look of in the first place and save myself time.

[@gskowal]

​@@HaiTran I was just bouncing of your idea of how HP5+ is like a RAW file and TRI-X as JPG. For those who scan the images I would assume shooting HP5+ is actually a better thing. I was wondering how different would those images be if the blacks would be lowered in post.

[@HaiTran]

You can probably make them look exactly like each other if starting with HP5+. The only hard thing to replicate would be the grain pattern but probably also possible.

[@huuhuy5367]

Are you Vietnamese ?

[@HaiTran]

Yes, I am.

[@codybrookehanson2346]

Keep in mind that tri-x only has 24 exposures compared to hp5, 36. Just another thing to consider.

[@HaiTran]

Not sure where you buy your film but Tri-X is readily available with 36 exposures.

[@codybrookehanson2346]

@@HaiTran oh dang.... thanks for the heads up.

[@HaiTran]

You're welcome.

[@dian_photo]

For me, HP5 is more a street/landscape film, altough I use it for portraits, because I prefer shooting in daylight out in the "wild", so I needed a less contrasty film. But in control enviroment the Tri-X is waaaay more interesting, than the HP5. Yet, I low the HP5 somewhy...

[@HaiTran]

If you know what you’re looking for and what you can get, then there’s definitely a time and a place for both films 👍🏽

[@allyearclan]

Tri-X is far more of a B&W standard, but HP5 has its own thing that Tri-X cant always do, if you want a more flat 'vintage' look you're better off with HP5

[@HaiTran]

They both have a time and place 👍

[@nickathos7428]

Totally agree with you. Hp5 looks more like a matte finish as opposed to trix which seems a bit glossier and punchier in my opinion

[@valabirna7781]

i kind of prefer the low contrast look

[@HaiTran]

Whatever works for you 👍🏽

[@jeremyfielding2333]

I was never impressed with HP5, though FP4 was a classic.

[@HaiTran]

Whatever works for your style 👍🏽

[@neilyakuza6595]

Tri-x is far more superior compared to HP5. Tri-x has better contrast, and the grain is even nice when the film is pushed beyond its 400 Iso range. Try developing Tri-x in Liquid Rodenol developer, if they still make it. The combination oF Rodinol developer, and Tri-x is amazing.

[@HaiTran]

Both films have a time and place if you understand what they can do 👍🏽

[@_Key]

HPS5 looks a bit washed out to me im liking the Tri-x a lot better

[@HaiTran]

Whatever works!

[@JMaxwell1000]

TRI-X wins hands-down. It's not even close.

[@HaiTran]

It all comes down to personal preference and what the occasion calls for.

[@sandrokalandadze9501]

tri-x is beautiful film and i cannot say same about hp5 :/

[@HaiTran]

It’s definitely just preference. Many people enjoy Ilford HP5. I just can’t say I’m one of them.

[@sandrokalandadze9501]

@@HaiTran yep, hp5 has too much grain for me

[@HaiTran]

If you like fine grain, I would highly recommend trying out Ilford Delta 400 or Kodak TMAX 400. They have EXTREMELY fine grain for 400 speed films.

[@zhongyao-sc1lj]

hp5 has low contrast.