Pan F+ to Tri-X Comparison

[@kendesantis7319]

This has been a great series so far and I really look forward to the future comparisons! These videos are also starting to confirm to me that all of these films kind of look the same as I’ve tried different films expecting drastic differences and have not really found any. Thanks for all of your hard work and time invested, it’s sometimes difficult to make time for what you enjoy.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

So far, the only difference is minor differences in the midtones.

[@geoffchaplin5601]

The first proper comparisons I have seen. Excellent series, thanks.

[@richardsimms251]

Excellent video

[@chrwalder]

Thanks for this tons of work! Great! I watched the hole series, but: It seems, that TriX at the end ist just amazing. I really like your way of explaining, your knowledge, your likable attitude. Best!

[@thetinmansheart]

I know I'm just finding your Channel this month, and I'm binge-watching them all, I just wanted to thank you for all of your hard work. It has been a joy to watch your videos and I have saved them all and I'm learning quite a bit. I am just going back into film work after decades away.

[@kristjank]

I really appreciate these comparison videos, I find them very useful as I do all your other videos too. Thank you for all your hard work and time in producing great content.

[@randallstewart175]

Great film series! I expected the Pan F is have a bit finer grain compared to Tri-X. I do not mine grain if it is sharp. I use HP-5 in medium format 6x7 and 645.

[@filibertkraxner305]

I love these film comparison videos. So informative to see controlled print results to compare real-life results of various films. Great job!. If you want to make another, could I suggest Rollei Ortho 25? Perhaps compare with Ilfords Ortho Plus 80 as well? I shot the Rollei on 35mm (developed in ID-11) and am very excited about the results. Had a hard time focusing on the grain, so I'd say the grain is pretty fine too. Will shoot some Ilford 120 soon too.

[@nickathos7428]

Great video very informative. Ive always been a firm believer after getting in the darkroom the film stock doesnt matter much when you have the option of contrast filters, toning, different papers and developers etc

[@gregoryfricker9971]

This is great. Would love to see delta 100 in the mix, especially in comparison to pan f 50

[@agespin]

love your work. can you do a comparison with ilford hp5+ and arista edu uitrsa 400

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

When I eventually get through all these that I have prerecorded I will do a few side by sides of all 400’s, 100’s, etc

[@TheMrBennito]

It is soooo long ago that I used those 2 emulsions, as a dedicated amateur! I think I always liked Ilford best, anyway... The film, the paper....

[@ccoppola82]

Thanks for the great comparison! One question which may have been covered in previous videos...are you using a condenser or diffusion enlarger?

[@amberisvibin3287]

these are really helpful! thanks for making them!

[@RedPillMode]

Thank you, this is very interesting stuff. No real difference.. was not what I expected. Are we getting to Adox CMS 20 Pro ii at some point? Very interesting film. Certainly, there will be some difference! New HR-50 should be very different too

[@joeltunnah]

Agreed, very similar results. I’m also surprised.

[@markuslarjomaa3122]

I don't think CMS 20 will be part of this series. Why? Because for this series, every film stock is developed in D-76 (to minimise variables and D-76 because it's about the most widely used and easily available developer worldwide). CMS 20... cannot be developed in normal developers. So while it truly is an interesting film stock, it doesn't fit in the "expose every film stock at box speed and develop in D-76 for the manufacturer recommended time" approach of this series.

[@RedPillMode]

@@markuslarjomaa3122 Selvä pyy, käy järkeen.

[@GreyGhost-r4z]

How about TMY film ? People rave about it. I never liked it because of the purple tint. What am I doing wrong ?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I’ll compare them sometime in the future. The dye comes out with a longer fix than normal combined with a longer wash. I soak it in water for 5 minutes before the actual wash and that seems to work very well.

[@GreyGhost-r4z]

The Naked Photographer Thanks! Will fixing “longer” eventually clear the film entirely? I use kodak fixer and fix for 5 min. Define longer. I wash for 10 minutes. I enjoy your videos. Awesome content. I need to print more. Lately been doing shutter rebuilds. I miss stirring the chems 😊

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Kodak recommends at least 8 minutes of fixing for TMY. Soak the film in water for 5 minutes before you wash.

[@GreyGhost-r4z]

The Naked Photographer Thanks for that. Maybe I just didn’t read the “manual”. I just always assumed 5 minutes per the Mass Dev chart. Hmmm. I might have to get some TMY and experiment. I never took a formal class. It’s great to have this resource. I’m constantly learning

[@unpocodeluz_atill]

@@GreyGhost-r4z Every time i develop, I put a piece of film in fixer, and take note of the time it takes to get transparent. I use 2x of that time as fixing time, and 3x that time as washing time.

[@bgm1958]

is that an 18% gray on the wall behind you when you shoot?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

It is a roll of seamless paper that is a light gray. It appears darker due to the inverse square law of light.

[@gerardodalchielelueiro6818]

Hi your videos are interesting but I do not understand the criteria of comparison because you compare films with different sensibility I thin the comparison may be HP5 vs TriX , Plus X vs FP4 etc Best regards from Argentina

[@kennywood19]

Excellent video nicely done! Are more film comparisons in the pipeline or are you just sticking to Kodak and Ilford?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I recently purchased every 35mm film I could get from B&H and Freestyle. Including the two rolls of Efke I’ve been saving, it is around 50 different kinds of film. I’m waiting for the Shanghai GP3 and Catlabs to arrive before shooting it all at one long session.

[@kendesantis7319]

The Naked Photographer are you shooting and developing full rolls or are you using part of one role for the step wedge and the rest for the portrait?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I expose the beginning of the roll with the step wedge, load the roll into the camera and shoot the rest with the portrait in repeating brackets until the roll is full.

[@burntoutelectronics]

You should demonstrate spectral sensitivity with a roll of ilford ortho

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

It’s in the batch of 50 rolls I will be doing.

[@Photo-ops_OnPeninsula]

ok... so you are also saying that 'Pan F Plus 50....stands up to the test' is that right? You are saying its quality is equal but it's objective use is targeted differently due to the smoothness of grain and slightly broader rendering of blues and greens... so when would you prefer to use each? Tri X indoors low light less detail deeper shadows & Pan F for sharper detail smoother gradation...? You tell me....

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

It’s not a vs. situation, it’s a look at a film’s qualities compared to a baseline. If someone wants a fine grain film but they have only shot a basic 400 speed film before, this would let them see if Pan F gave them what they were looking for.

[@igaluitchannel6644]

I miss Plus-X.

[@impressionsoflight9263]

PanF 50 has been my go to 35mm film for a long time (when I don’t have a need for speed). Great series👍🏻 The Tri-x definitely makes you look older, a little less intelligent maybe 🤔 😂

[@r.hinojosa]

Your step wedge is off. It's. 30 for roll film, .10 for sheet film.

[@Sticktube878]

Found my answer.

[@charleseliason4694]

Looking at the prints, your shirt and face are markedly different in contrast to the Tri X print. Overall to me the PanF print is much more preferable to my eye, the TriX print has much more contrast. At the same time the color checker is almost identical. The lighting on each of the prints seems consistent. Could you share your thoughts?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I wasn’t wearing the same shirt. I pointed that out in an earlier video. I point out the contrast difference in my face at the end of the close up portion of the video. Kodak film seems to push the midtones outward creating more middle separation while Ilford films seem to push them inward creating more highlight separation.

[@charleseliason4694]

The Naked Photographer Thanks for the reply 👍

[@Machster10]

HP5 vs Trix would be goid

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I already made that one. Up a few weeks ago.

[@r.hinojosa]

your box speed is off.

[@robertobrosan758]

Looking at the two negatives they appear to be rather challenging to print, they are much too thin just as the ones in previous videos: they appear to be underexposed, possibly by at least a stop. Also your usage of a number three filter is puzzling as you should be able to make a great print without a filter. Something is wrong and it I doubt that it is the D76 and your developing method seems ok so next time perhaps you should expose your film differently and show us the over and under exposures and determine that either your light meter is faulty or that the film should be rated differently. Thank you

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

These are shot at box speed. The shadow detail is thin because it is a 8:1 lighting ratio. It exhibits exactly what it is exposed for. A 3 filter is used to provide the same contrast as a contact print of the negative, the relative high enlargement reduced the contrast. This is discussed in several Kodak documents and is recommended by the manufacturer. I’ll see if I can find a reference for you when I get home.