Ilford HP5 VS Kentmere 400 VS Kodak Tri-X | Black & White film stock comparison

[@istvann.huszar420]

Such a great comparison! Thank you! The Tri-X remains my favourite.

[@kevikronicles]

Thanks so much happy you enjoyed it.

[@tornikebratchuli1661]

Contrast and sharpness also depends on the lens so if you want to be objective you have to compare images taken with the same lens.

[@kevikronicles]

This is true. Guess i need to by two more Nikon F4's

[@yme4me]

Thanks so much , now I know that HP5 is my choice . I do not like how strong is contrast in 400 TX - which I ordered just before I started to watch your video ! Quick question, what would you say would be most suitable for portraits - i will use small soft boxes as I want to do head shots mainly - school type photos.

[@kevikronicles]

Glad I could help! I think for portraits my favorite is HP5 it has better roll off between the lights and darks giving a more gradient effect.

[@ingob.8168]

very intertesting. thank you

[@kevikronicles]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@AlexBornPower]

Nice Video! Which one has the finest Grain?

[@kevikronicles]

The HP5 i think has the finest grain

[@derMusicPete]

The K400 seems to be nice for portrait. Hp5 is my actual favorite. Nice for architecture

[@kevikronicles]

Yeah agreed. HP5 does great for architecture.

[@francisbombus3949]

Overall, I like HP5 best. Have you ever tried Cinestill BwXX? My absolute favorite!

[@kevikronicles]

Not yet! I definitely need to check it out.

[@thew0nster]

Interesting comparison! There is so much you can do in digitising and post processing, I think K400 is perfectly adequate for me. But one could also argue that it's false economy trying to save a few bucks and risk losing the highlight/shadow details in some cases compared to HP5. Hmm..

[@kevikronicles]

Truth all across the board.

[@tomislavmiletic_]

I know that each film has special something, but most of the differences shown here are to be mitigated, either by different developers / developing techniques, or even better, in the post processing. WET post processing. BTW, all those cameras used are OLD, and different, made by different camera makers, so there's a possibility that some exposure times on some of those cameras are not accurate. Not all the time. Just saying... In regards to films, I'm a bit biased. I've never used Tri-X, ever. When I've started in photography, and later professionally while using film, Tri-X wasn't available in my country. Unlike Ilford's HP5. And later when Kentmere showed up I didn't care anymore. Course for me, HP5 was always a king...

[@SuperTruePower]

Your Canon overexposes! It is quite common with the A-Series. They usually have about +1 to +1.5 stops.

[@kevikronicles]

I had no idea that was something with the A series. I’m happy I know that now. Thanks so much.

[@blackimp4987]

sorry this is a pointless comparisong made with different optics that clearly can't provide the same exact light transmission. I appreciate the effort but it's not useful. In one picture you appreciate HP5 over Trix (Korea building) then 2 pictures forward you have a tower building that in Trix image has a totally burnt face and you say it's the best of the three. Anyway also declaring how you developed these films is essential for getting any useful information