FP4+ To Tri-X Comparison

[@phillipP8848]

Excellent series. This is definitely the gold standard for film comparison.

[@rajs4719]

You're a great KZbinr, teacher and photographer. Keep up the good content and I hope your channel gets the recognition it deserves

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Thank you!

[@kalenderquantentunnel9411]

This series is pure gold! No bells and whistles, no exotic stuff, just using the best materials as intended by its creators.

[@m00dawg]

Really great series so far! As someone who really enjoys darkroom prints (over scanning for instance), it's refreshing and helpful to see a comparison that uses prints as one of the ways to judge the film. Really great work! Actually a lot of your videos I have found very helpful. I applied your methods of making a inter/copy negatives to boost contrast recently. It definitely worked how I wanted (I'll have to do them again as I got too much dust but otherwise it was a great exercise).

[@prussianblue222]

I shoot predominantly HP5 and FP4. Your results match my experiences perfectly. I like FP4 in the studio especially where I can very precisely control all the variables. I perceive that the mid tone information in the negative is very smooth and unbiased (although I realize it is not). Lends itself to printing adjustments that I want to make.

[@Luudite]

Oh sweet, I thought it would be a while longer until the next one. Great vid :)

[@TwelveFrames]

I'm finding this to be an incredibly useful series! Thank you for doing this.

[@JnOProductions]

Very appreciative of these videos, and all your videos in fact. I've gained more useful information from them than any other photography channel I watch. Please continue!

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Thank you

[@ivanalonso8012]

Great video. Thanks for taking the time for doing it!

[@linjicakonikon7666]

FP4 looks to be a very nice all around film. Good contrast that gives room for fine tuning in post. Good for landscape for sure. Good outdoor travel film.

[@ssp65]

I find your videos very informative with a lot of useful, practical information. Your kind of videos are too scarce on the net (Borut below is another making very useful videos) so thank you and please keep making them. There is much to learn and photographers new to film need someone with the knowledge to teach them. Thanks.

[@GGMediaWorks]

This is so good, keep it up! Can’t wait until you get into some of the more obscure films!

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Will do

[@BorutPeterlinPhotography]

I've enjoyed it. Thank you. I would add that a really important variable is not discussed here. That's developing. Sure, it's properly developed, but would you get the same results if you would expose three films of the same kind would there be some difference? Because your comparison is really through and I wonder if these kind of slight differences you would get also if comparing the same kind of film, developing the same time and doing the same everything. Now comparing HP5 and FP4 has even greater differences. As a fellow vloger I could say that kind of test would be really boring. I'magine the title: FP4 vs. FP4 vs.FP4 Which one is the best? He, he... Good work!

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Well, another series in the pipeline is the same film, but different developers. The comparison would be film speed change, grain, sharpness, etc.

[@flutgraben13]

He may change shirts in between ;-)

[@PedroskyFrEsp]

@@TheNakedPhotographer You're making my dreams come true

[@sguttag]

Excellent series! Thank you! FWIW...to my eyes (via KZbin...so there's that)...the image I'm seeing on FP4+ is night and day better than the Tri-X. This is not a dig on Tri-X since there is an apple/oranges comparison on ASA values alone but in terms of how both the left and right side of your face/eyes are detailed...i just find an incredible difference. The Tri-X almost looks like it went through a compression algorithm to make the file smaller so deal is lost while retaining good contrast. It's all there in the FP4+

[@ralphturner7852]

Just discovered your channel. Some excellent, impartial and methodical comparisons. Good to see exactly where one stands from an objective viewpoint. Thank you 🙂

[@b_wtangible_moments]

I Enjoy this series of comparisons. Thanks for sharing!

[@richardsimms251]

Wonderful comparison of these 2 films. I learned a great deal. Thank you again. RS. Canada

[@Bestbuddy719]

Great review!

[@soulstart89]

Fp4 is one of my favourite films it really sings in id11/d76 1:2 solution. It would be great if you can test some Fomapan

[@jolerodav]

can You share times of developement in this dilution?

[@soulstart89]

dawid stawiak Ei 80 metered with incident meter under subject chin. Developed for 14mins with ilford agitation method. I deducted 10% of development time due to exposing ei80. If you expose at 125 then the development is 15.5mins (basically I split the difference of 1+1 and 1+3) Play around and see what your eyes like

[@jolerodav]

@@soulstart89 thank you, great tips!

[@lostintransitphoto]

Very well done. One item to keep in mind is the latitude of the film varies. So Tri-X and HP-5 can be pushed and pulled with predictable results. For tripod mount shooting or bright light FP-4 comes into its own. But if going into an unknown environment the flexibility of Tri-x brings an advantage. Great to see side by side comparison. I use both.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

The general point of this series is that most films, when shot at box speed and developed normally in a standard formula, will look nearly identical. It’s when you push the boundaries of exposure and contraction/expansion development that you start to see real differences. But that is a different video.

[@lucacoccioli9244]

Would be really cool to see a comparison with XP2!

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

It’s on my list, but no timeframe yet.

[@DavideBonatoph]

Good job with this series, would really like to see TMAX 400 compared. Keep up the good work

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

We will get there. PanF and Plus-X are in the works, then I will do another batch. May not be immediately.

[@brett1354]

I don't recall the step wedge test in the HP5 comparison, but I'll go back and check. Interesting that FP4 had a shorter range than TriX in the step wedge test, which perhaps explains why I've always felt FP4 produced a somehow flat-ish image. Something I'll explore further myself. Thanks again.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I don’t think it is necessarily a shorter range, but it handles the mid tones differently.

[@brett1354]

@@TheNakedPhotographer True. You also didn't sayhow you exposed the contacts, and duh . . . it's a slower film. #seniormoment

[@flavioserci6046]

I don't like the FP4 developed in D76. It looks creamy. I prefer the Rodinal 1:50. Sharp grain and more crispy image.

[@johnjon1823]

That was a lot of effort for 6 minutes BUT the shirt you wore looked quite different from one to the other. I would have liked a close up of that shirt and also the color parts of the color panels. I watch on a 52 inch TV screen as the "monitor" some, probably most, may see it on their phones so that makes it odd to decide how to show things. It was good work, thanks for the efforts. One also wonders how various grades of paper may have shown any subtle differences, (it has been way longer than you have been alive since I printed anything by enlarger, people don't know what they are missing in a real print these days, mostly, but happily some do). Best wishes!

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

This was one of the first comparisons I did, all of my current are much more rigid on the variables.

[@mamiyapress]

Acros II -V- Acros would be a great video.

[@gibcoprobe66]

great video, would love to see Acros as well

[@Taj3d]

Great content. Thank you!!

[@Apprendre-Photo]

I saw in the spec sheet of both films that FP4+ seemed to be less sensitive to blue/green light, but apparently you don't find the same result in this test. Maybe I misread the graph ? (Spectral sensitivity if I remember well) I'd love your input on this 🙂

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

The color patches speak for themselves. Last video I published was Acros II and it shows a clear bias towards reds. The red patch is clearly lighter than the blue and green. FP4 is equal across all colors, so it doesn’t seem biased toward any particular color over others.

[@amirizaiah7179]

You all probably dont care but does anyone know of a tool to log back into an Instagram account..? I stupidly forgot my password. I would appreciate any help you can offer me.

[@amirizaiah7179]

@Leonard Cody Thanks for your reply. I found the site through google and I'm in the hacking process atm. I see it takes quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.

[@amirizaiah7179]

@Leonard Cody It did the trick and I finally got access to my account again. I'm so happy! Thanks so much, you saved my ass!

[@leonardcody6967]

@Amir Izaiah Glad I could help :D

[@komagome03]

Great ! Thank you very much. It would be amazing if you could test the Kodak double-x 5222 and/or the Orwo UN54

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I couldn’t get ORWO, but the 5222 was tested.

[@christiancardona9889]

Thank you for this amazing new series. If I may ask two questions 1.- what film format are you using? Don't recall you saying it (but I might be wrong) 2.- could you explain how the step wedge has been exposed please? And elaborate about it (are filters used, time and aperture,) Kind regards

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

These are shot on 35mm. I typically shoot on large format, but it would not show the difference in grain at 11x14. To expose the step wedge, I use a machine called a sensitometer. You can see mine in the ISO video. It is designed specifically to expose a step wedge on film. Some models use a shutter, but mine uses an electronically controlled light bulb similar to an enlarger. There is no lens, so no aperture. Instead you measure the brightness in millilux (1/1000 lux) and calculate the exposure in millilux per second and arrive at that units log. There is a 0.60 ND filter and a Full CTB filter inside to regulate the brightness and make the light daylight balanced. Eventually I will do a video on basic sensitometry and go into this device in more detail.

[@oscarlopez2052]

Hello, my friend, I really like your channel, I discovered it yesterday and I subscribed very good and infofmative I have a question what would be the development time that I should use for a kodak portra 400 pushed to 800, Im useing unicolor c41 kit i hope that you can help me thankyou

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I would start with 3:45

[@nostalgix8430]

While you are in comparision mood.... I'd be interested in a comparision of film developers. Same shot on same film but developed in D76, XTol, Rodinal and whatnot... I use XTol since I started developing my own films in 2011. Often thought about using a different one but never did, because I was afraid I'd be upset by the results.

[@joeltunnah]

Please do Ilford Delta 400!

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I have, but it’s not published yet

[@byronboneparth5795]

Do you think Plus-X 125 had a more similar tonality to Tri-X than FP4+ does?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

We’ll find out in a few weeks

[@stephen_mcateer]

Handy.

[@wilbertvandenberg3158]

Upper midtoWn seperation ?? ;-)

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Dang autocorrect

[@flutgraben13]

Well, D-76 is more a kind of solvent developer, unlike e.g. Rodinal (non-solvent). The latter wouldn't change the basic grain of the film that much only by time and agitation. As "Topshit Photography" already mentioned, you are not comparing film but a film/developer system and the developer cannot be seen as a constant in the equation of comparing different film types. Also the ISO setting has a large impact not only on the steepness of the density curve but on how color tones are transformed into B&W tones. I know too well that technical equipment tempts people to make such comparisons. But does it make sense? Exposure and development have a much greater impact than different types of a similar film. It's a real Sisyphean task if you wanted to treat all this exhaustively.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I do it for the clicks

[@AndresRuiz-gs8vm]

I wish kodak released a slower version of trix 400 like they do with Tmax & the portra lines of film.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

That was Plus-X. It was ISO 125 and pretty good. I’ve got a bunch in the freezer.

[@AndresRuiz-gs8vm]

@@TheNakedPhotographer I would disagree

[@matthiasschreiner8778]

One more thing to mention: Here in Europe 1 roll of 35 mm 400TX is 14,50 eur. FP4 is 9,- thats quite a difference

[@nickfanzo]

Why compare 400 speed to 125? Apples and oranges

[@r.hinojosa]

Your film + above base fog for roll film should be .30 not .10 according to Fred Picker " The Fine Print" Zone IV publications. Picker was the expert he studied under Ansel Adams.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I couldn’t care less about Fred Picker’s taste. I’m using the widely accepted industry standard for sensitometry as published by Kodak’s Sensitometry handbook.

[@cweeks5211]

Want a roll of APX 25?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Maybe, I have a long list to work through first

[@JMaxwell1000]

They're both excellent films, but Tri-X looks more appealing to me.

[@joachimlindback]

FP4+ to 400TX. Tri-X has not been produced since 2007. 400TX is a new emulsion with less silver.

[@Adrian-wd4rn]

Everything is cheaper than tri-x and has better tonal separation than tri-x.....Sooooooo.....Why does a roll of tri-x cost 13 bucks? I don't know, but I'll spend my 5.99/7.99 (HP5/fp4) elsewhere. Kodak is getting ridiculous with their prices.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Kodak is more expensive, but not that expensive. B&H sells it for $9.99

[@UpcomingJedi]

The cost is from the increasing costs of chemicals and their disposal and recycling. Then there are less people buying film these days.

[@r.hinojosa]

Ok, "to each his own " but we should all learn from the master's not a just an unfortunately slowly disappearing film manufacturer.

[@slimnics]

dude...that intro like scratching a blackboard with nails.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Is what it is

[@btpuppy2]

That’s a horrible test!