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:
linktr.ee/The_Naked_Photographer
Music by Hooksounds: www.hooksounds.com/ref/thenak...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @thenakedphotographer

[@NicosPhotographyShow]

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

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

You are very kind

[@filmlovephotography]

Nicolas you have great content in your channel as well 👍 my friend. The 3 channels that I never miss @the naked photographer @shoot film like a boss @nicos photography show

[@filmlovephotography]

@@TheNakedPhotographer great video and well done, I can't wait to see more great content. Cheers

[@user-ti9zc1xv2b]

I'm a huge fan of your KZbin channel Nico! To each their own. Maybe you need to relax a bit more from time to time, sometimes you look tensed, loving the content.

[@slimnics]

Hey Nico, I subscribe to your channel. I like when you go out and take photos and then show the results. I always try to watch the news. What you are doing is important.

[@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!

[@35mmlove_eric]

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

[@nnelgsiggah]

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

[@cameronwilson8561]

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

[@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.

[@maksymilianbujnowski8282]

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

[@doyoudevelop]

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

[@carlabrahams6162]

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.👍

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Thank you.

[@Leptospirosi]

This is just fantastic content! Thank you Sir!

[@randallstewart175]

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..

[@lmaoroflcopter]

You could argue the same points regarding different chemistry or development techniques, skill of the maker, etc with prints.

[@abelsilvan]

What an awesome series! I just stumbled upon your channel and I can't believe KZbin never recommended it to me before. Finally someone doing a serious comparison!!! Thank you !! Looking forward to see more in this series. I'm very curious about Ultrafine Extreme. I have been using it for a few months and I really like the results and I feel like it's also another good "average" film but at a lower price. I hope you eventually get to compare against it too!

[@victordianow5973]

Thank you very much, great comparison.

[@adolfofernandezdotcom]

Thank you for doing it!

[@stephendeakin2714]

Looking forward to seeing comparison across range of films.

[@troyphillips1077]

Just found this channel and liked what you’re doing so I subscribed. Thanks

[@kristjank]

looking forward to more videos like this

[@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.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I know. And you’re the third person to remind me of my tongue slip.

[@iandvaag]

@@TheNakedPhotographer Not trying to be critical -- I scanned the comments and didn't see anyone mention this. Sorry for the bother.

[@JamieMPhoto]

Thanks for this comparison! I've been trying to figure out what film I want to get for bulk loading (if the one I like in the end can be purchased in that way), and I've had middling experiences with Tri-X. But now I want to take another look. Definitely looking forward to another comparison ... also, I think Photographer's Formulary TF-4 and TF-5 might help with the base fog color? I know it's supposed to help that with T-grain films, which has definitely been my experience so far.

[@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.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

They are all on my list, but FP4 will be next.

[@kannibaal]

@@TheNakedPhotographer Can't wait!

[@wsgiessen]

@@TheNakedPhotographer I love FP4! Will you shoot it at box speed as well? Probably, right?

[@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 ...

[@AdrianBacon]

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

[@poniatowski3547]

wow great video. more please!

[@enricodinardo6338]

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!

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I had considered that approach, but I decided since contrast can be altered so much by development, using the manufacturer’s instructions would be the most diplomatic. Besides, I don’t have the time or resources to shoot and process that much film to nail down custom development times to match CI for every one out there.

[@brett1354]

Love it. Dave Hancock has done a similar series he calls All About Film which I like a lot, but I'm always up for more information on BW film. Second, you confirmed my suspicion that when Kodak changed the TX formulation a few years back, they eliminated the difference between it and HP5. Any BW film videos you put up will be watched, liked and saved to my photography list. And then poured over again. Many thanks. It helps me a lot.

[@soulstart89]

Great comparison. I’ve always felt that Tri-x gives slightly more contrast when I use both hp5 and tri-x on the same subject. Even though I use the same developer (id11) I never thought that developing time could make a difference. On the step strip I did notice that even though they have the same dynamic range hp5 was ever so slightly less punchy near the bottom stops. Rather negligible but did see it. Goes to show how agitation and development time can ever so slightly affect things. They are like you said basically identical Thanks for the in-depth comparison. Looking forward to this series 👍🏾

[@ianland4768]

Great video. We all have strong preferences but they're often driven by instinct rather than data. I shot Tri-X for years but stopped and switched to HP5 about 5 years ago because Kodak prices in the UK just got too high. In practice it was an easy transition to make, and my experience mirrors what your video shows: prints look much the same

[@buyaport]

Thanks a lot for all the work you put into this! These are the most popular films on both sides of the ocean. Having shot HP5 for nearly 50 years I think I will continue to do it, and don't "Try X". Suum quique!

[@atf2940]

cuique

[@MrPeetersmark]

Been waiting for this for a long time. Never shot tri-x. Only hp5 and other films. Always wondered what the difference is.

[@bidsandmen]

Very cool!

[@alistairwilson5344]

Just stumbled across this. Fantastic! love your approach. I used to use Tri-X back in the 70's shooting punk bands and alway's pushed it to 1600 and then overdeveloped to compensate. Printed on grade 3 paper the grain,contrast and density were perfect for that raw graphic feel l was going for-punk never looked so good! Tried HP5 at 1600 too but it never quite had the crunch and density of Tri-X.Really interesting to see their qualities at 400-l never got round to that myself. Now that l think about it over 40years(!) later,l think l was just addicted to the grain when you pushed it-l went as far as developing the film in paper developer-just to see how big the grains would get before everything else started to fall apart. Ah,the good old dayz,digital, somehow,just isn't as much fun. Anyway, l'm subscribed! Cheers from Sunny Scotland.

[@christianmayrhofer4178]

You must not forget that the current HP5+ only came onto the market in 1989, as the successor to the HP5 that appeared in 1976 (like the Sex Pistols ;-). So you were taking photos with HP5 at that time. Tri-X was probably better than HP5 back then.

[@nickdigrispino2409]

I like how you use the Kodak Grey Card Plus to compare the films

[@LillySchwartz]

In my thoroughly unscientific tests HP5+ and Tri-X came out quite different. I think it depends very much on the development method and the developer how close the end result will match though. Stand-developed in Rodinal I found Tri-X a lot more contrasty, because it was really prone to bromide drag. Due to the bromide drag semi-stand was the only way to go whereas HP5+ could be developed full stand with less contrast and grain. Same for stand development in Caffenol CL, and HC110, but not as pronounced and semi stand doesn’t affect grain quite as badly with those developers. I normally develop my film in a Jobo rotary processor in HC110 now, which again brings out the differences. I get slower development in the shadows for Tri-X than for HP5+, but the mid tones and highlights look pretty much the same. I think the slower shadow response happens for all emulsions in HC110 rotary, but it is especially pronounced in Tri-X and films like Rollei Retro. The curious effect is that I tend to pick the film according to the developer I have available. Caffenol CL: Tri-X because more contrast, Rodinal: HP5+ because of the bromide drag problem, HC110: HP5+ because less contrast, Xtol: Tri-X. At the moment, HP5+ in HC110 rotary is my standard, I just love that! I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they came out the same in D76 though, which is a developer I don’t like and have only tried a few times without much success. So, what I would really love to see is if you did a developer test like this too! HP5+ and Tri-X developed and printed like this in Rodinal, Xtol, HC110, stand, semi, regular, rotary where appropriate. I’m far too lazy to do such technical tests myself. I’m a scientist by training, so I’d get overly obsessed with all the gazillion variables, sounds too much like work to me. It sure would be interesting to see whether my unscientific observations hold though! In any case, great work, I love it and will watch out for more of these tests!

[@bwc1976]

All my home developing so far has been stand in HC110, and I found the HP5 to have lower contrast as well.

[@user-ti9zc1xv2b]

D76 without too much succes? You need to check your technique, D76 is arguably the best all around developer available.

[@LillySchwartz]

It’s a matter of taste IMHO. It’s a decent developer. I wouldn’t say it’s the best, because there is no such thing. The best for a specific emulsion, maybe, but I never cared much for the curve or the grain it gave me. Other people might prefer it over anything I use though. The question is not which developer is the best, it’s which one is the best for you! If D76 works for you that’s great 😀

[@thomask1424]

That was a pretty amusing intro, thanks.

[@mikesullivan6724]

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.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Thank you, Mike. I’m currently testing out an RGB version of that light. I may try it for color printing someday.

[@mikesullivan6724]

@@TheNakedPhotographer I'm looking forward to seeing it, Greg.

[@joseerazevedo]

Hi, love this series, thank you for bringing us it! One question: you printed on which paper? Thanks

[@steverosenblum823]

I just found this video and want to convey my appreciation for the time and care you have put into this comparison and the making of the video. Thank you very much. One thing puzzles me (though I realize it is now irrelevant as this was made 2 years ago, and I'm sure you have already completed this series of videos). You took such care in using the same processes with both films. Why not use the same agitation and washing method for both? As you know, agitation can affect contrast, etc.. Why introduce that variable? Just a thought. Thanks again.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I haven’t published version 2, but I did the second time around just as I did with all the other films. The thought process in this particular video was to process the film exactly as the manufacturer instructed to in order to achieve a negative they anticipated.

[@wilbertvandenberg3158]

Excellent videos. Finally someone who gives real information about analog photography instead of unscientific hypes. I would very much like to support you so you continue these videos. But I'm not really impressed by either your photographs or your T-shirts. Is it possible to support you monthly through patreon?

[@slimnics]

the intro was a bit hard to watch too yeh! hairy legs haha

[@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.

[@massimilianomattei4879]

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

[@tomcruz3774]

I'm glad they're basically interchangable. Kodak is really expensive in my country and the Ilford film stocks are really cheap

[@wreckingpress7080]

Love your presentation, the opening, and can't wait to see what's next! I love to push hp5 to 1600 in hc110 and think a good extension might be a push comparison. As an armchair critique: That clip of your agitation on that tank had me cringe just a bit. I had to slow down agitating considerably for even development. Showed a bit in your graduating scale negatives on the edges a bit with chemical burned edges on the sprocket holes. Maybe you were going with box directions in which case that's cool for comparison, but to the beginner out there with the stainless steel wire spools dealing with burned frame edges: slow that agitation down, start trying one complete inversion per 5 seconds when calling for agitation! It's not a race!

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I use Kodak’s method of agitation of 5 inversions for 5 seconds every 30 seconds. It is different than Ilfords of 4 inversions for 10 seconds every minute.

[@wreckingpress7080]

@@TheNakedPhotographer figured the box directions were followed considering the approach you were taking, and it makes sense to do so. Too much agitation for me, but for comparison sakes I appreciate that detail. Best of luck with your future videos, I especially appreciate you doing a darkroom print. I miss having access to a color optical darkroom, it's just never the same scanning.

[@dougfoss1372]

Nice work! I'd like to see Tmax 100 in an upcoming video.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I’ll get there, be patient. I have three more ready to go, then I will do another batch and include the t-grain films.

[@leongkhaiweng61]

A noob in film photography. Thank you for making time to do the comparison. May not appeal to everyone but there is no need to go mental about it like some of the comments below. If you love Tri-X, shoot Tri-X. Don't touch HP5 Plus. By the way, seen your video on Xtol as a replenishing developer. Going to try out.

[@user-rj9kp4ep3t]

Thanks for your video! Very informative! But I do not understand English very well. Please tell me what color temperature is needed for printing on Iilford Multigrade paper? Do I understand correctly that with the same filter, a lamp of 2800 Kelvin and 5000 Kelvin will give a different contrast?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Maybe. That might be worth testing

[@Adrian-wd4rn]

This makes sense in perfectly controlled environments, but there have been other videos where they test the films in the same camera, same day and developer, but the contrast is a bit punchier in tri-x with darker blacks and slightly closer together grain structure. All really confusing tbh.

[@KonradSarnowski]

Awesome ;) BTW: I've left a strip of developed Ilford film exposed to daylight for "some time" (months...) and that purplish tint disappeared :P (IME it depends on washing). BUT doe this tint affects contrast on multigrade papers?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Not in my experience, a staining developer can, but that is usually a green or yellow stain.

[@Zeoklis]

I don't know if it's just the quantity of Ilford film I shot, but I always know how a roll is gonna turn out with Delta 400 and HP5. The best thing for me would be to have Delta 400 in 4x5.

[@maythammaskaty8072]

Hi ; Once I’ve rated HP5 to E.I 3200 , results were awesome. But the Tri-X is my fav. One ; 120mm .

[@robert.aleksander]

Blow my mind.

[@armenianzombie]

I feel like it's kinda bullshit to say "I'm going to do this hyper controlled study," but compare two results that aren't tuned correctly to each other. Edit: also after having stopped and thought about it, if you had to calibrate both films to look/print the same, they really aren't the same

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Well, random internet guy, the only difference in printing is the exposure time, which are not equal. I don’t always get to make all my video prep at one time, so I had to come back another day and print after other prints were made for different purposes. I should have taken the extra time to nail the exposure exactly, but life doesn’t always allow for that. Contrast filters were equal, as stated in the video.

[@armenianzombie]

@@TheNakedPhotographer okay, but asking the audience to extrapolate data based on a false equivalency seems distinctly wrong, though I understand you had a time limit. It could well be the same but you kinda went and shot the example comparison in the foot by having the base examples be intrinsically not be the same. The onus is on you, the tester, not me the guy watching.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

First, my wife reminded me that I am very cranky from too little sleep with our 10 month old, so I answered a little short earlier. I apologize for that. Second, I stand by my conclusions, but I do understand the points made. It may be a few weeks, but I will revisit this film again with more attention to the printing. I have a few different films in the works first.

[@karlglogauer9731]

No need to apologize here, Naked Photographer. You were entirely clear in your explanation of what you were doing and openly admitted to certain caveats that arise out of the complexities of comparing films when there are multiple experimental parameters (e.g., exposure, developing, etc.) *and* multiple outcome criteria (e.g., density, grain, contrast, etc.). To my thinking, there are basically two ways of performing such a test -- one can either: 1) do all the exposing, developing, and printing exactly the same to evaluate intrinsic differences in the end product (without regard for whether the strict control of the preceding steps unnecessarily or unfairly limits the final result for either film); or 2) expose, develop, and print each film differently to achieve an end product that is identical according to one set of criteria (e.g., density) but that allows one to evaluate differences in other, non-controlled criteria (e.g., grain, sharpness, etc.). What Random Internet Guy doesn't understand is that you essentially chose route #2, which is an entirely fair approach. In fact, I think it's the most sensible approach, given that what people usually want to learn in these kinds of instructional videos is: "Given a properly exposed, properly developed, properly printed image, how do different film types compare with regard to parameters that photographers don't typically have much control over?" You did a bang-on job here. Also, I seem to recall you prophesying the appearance of "internet butt-hurt." Well, let's just say... prophecy fulfilled. Love your videos!

[@armenianzombie]

@@karlglogauer9731 I understand, exactly what he's doing - on the whole I have a very few nitpicks with the procedure itself - for the most part it's well controlled and the sources for error or difference are noted clearly. I just think it's really annoying/harmful to the experiment and finished data to present two different conclusions and say "these are the same, really, just use your imagination" because there shouldn't be any in an honest comparison, and I think expecting any random bystander or observer to automatically be able to do the math or imagine what the results would be if the results were tuned correctly is bad procedure, which he admits. For the record, I actually believe his findings are correct.

[@flutgraben13]

Hi, are you sure the "grain" of the smooth background isn't from reflections of your flash bouncing back? But I wanted to ask you another more technical question: I do quite a lot of film/developer calibration myself and was very surprised of your step wedge directly on film method. As you got no aperture and time how do you set ISO 400 when exposing?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

It is exposed by a sensitometer, not under an enlarger. Find an online copy of Basic Sensitometry Workbook by Kodak for instructions on how to calculate Gamma, Contrast Index, average Gradient, Film Speed and other things including sensitometers. And yes, the grain is apparent regardless of video lights. When I show slower film next time next to the Tri-X, it is even more apparent. The back ground is a matte surface seamless paper. No specular reflections.

[@ronnaldaman7079]

OK interesting enough if not very encompassing. I am somewhat surprised you did not wear the same shirt.

[@MprivetM]

Where I live, HP5+ cost like 2/3 of a TriX so great tip, no point overpaing ;)

[@BeingWolfy]

Nice job. Can you do another video on how you exposed the step tablet on the film? Subscribing....

[@joeltunnah]

Yet the negatives clearly show a difference in the step chart. The hp5 negative is more compressed towards the dark end, thinner at steps 1-5 than tri-x... which actually matches my experience of shooting and developing hp5.

[@steveh1273]

I looked for this question in the comments below but couldn't find it: How did you expose the step wedge onto the film strip? I noticed that the film around the step wedge did not receive any light/exposure, that's perplexing and I didn't understand your explanation about the sensitometer. I expose a sheet of 4x5 film under a 120 size 21 step tablet in my 4x5 film holders to zone 10 on white smooth board.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

A sensitometer is a device that contains a light bulb and a step wedge. It’s sole purpose is to expose a step wedge onto film. You could use the same setup as my color head calibration videos instead, but I wanted a bit more consistency from video to video. You can see a brief demonstration in my ISO video.

[@BryHong]

Considering how this series has evolved and how iconic/cliche this comparison is... it seems worth revisiting this comparison in the style of the later videos, and maybe without having to make so many excuses for the printing :P

[@lukaserba]

one more question: how did you proccess the step tablet exposure on films?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

It is the end of the roll used for the test shot.

[@georgeosier5459]

Tri-X in D-23 is great for reduced grain but with a slight loss in sharpness .... very smooth developer for Tri-X

[@cweeks5211]

If you want a roll of frozen Agfa APX 25, let me know.

[@slimnics]

HI, this is great thanks. I look forward to seeing more. I love to see the grain in black and white film, specially when the subject is a silhouette and a bit blurred from motion. What is the difference between density and contrast?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

They are related. Density is how much silver is formed through exposure, contrast is the difference between the areas of high density and low density.

[@slimnics]

The Naked Photographer errrr ok hmm

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Did that not answer your question? If it didn’t, can you clarify?

[@jameslane3846]

Great unbiased comparison and find it quite funny that you came to the conclusion that they are the same! By the way, your statement of Tri X is the most popular film is partially incorrect. It may be the most popular in the USA but globally, according to a recent survey by Kosmo Foto, HP5 has a clear lead as the most popular!

[@wsgiessen]

really? could you share the link?

[@jameslane3846]

@@wsgiessen kosmofoto.com/2019/08/black-white-world-cup-results-the-winner/

[@wsgiessen]

@@jameslane3846 I thought there is information about selling numbers / market share. Well, we do not know how geographically diversified the voters are.

[@Karreth]

Have you seen Andrew & Danae's guide to film types? You might enjoy it, they take a similar systematic approach.

[@richard.l5563]

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

[@mannyseguin9082]

Purple color cast is the fixer; some films like TMax and HP5 need double time in fixer bath. This won't affect the negatives and will remove the purple ;)

[@smokybear7511]

I found this very useful. As for DieRots comments below he is apparently lacking knowledge of science. Very few things are exactly the same, in the real world. For instance: how exact is your chemistry, what are the manufacturer tolerances. Who knows? Are all big macs exactly the same? You pointed out your methods and I find your results completely practical. I suspect that Dierots accomplishes very little, as with most perfectionists. Keep up the good work!

[@chadpomerleau8731]

Interesting. Love your channel and videos, am really looking forward to this series! I have no experience with ID-68, as D76 is my go-to. I am still relatively amateur so I figured I would stick to one formula until I have built up some experience. I am curious, though, as much of what I have read has compared d76 to ID-11. I am not sure I have seen it on the shelf, but is ID-68 a closer fit if for some reason my local shop is out of d76?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

No you are right. I kept saying ID-68, but it is ID-11. Small kids and no sleep make for bad recollection.

[@chadpomerleau8731]

Oh man! I feel ya! It is all theoretical for me as I think it will be some time that I stick with d76. Thanks again for the great content.

[@soulstart89]

The Naked Photographer lol lack of sleep and kids..ouch. I’m sure we got what you was saying. Also it’s great you post these on photrio

[@raceface_m2579]

curious to see the difference when done in the same time.

[@lyfandeth]

Studio flash lighting adds the complication of reciprocity failure to the exposure. Are you factoring for that?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Hot lights perhaps, but not controlled flash.

[@michaelthaler4819]

Danke!

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Thank you!

[@haroldishoy2113]

Are you comparing the HP-5 to the legacy (pre Kodak reformulation) Kodak Tri-X 400? The two different formulas of the Kodak T-X film are different.

[@hansformat]

I have to say my 3xperience is different. Hp5 has less contrast. In practice i pump up the contrast (in darktable but can do in darkroom also) when using hp5. When using trix i usually reduce overall contrast or lighten the shadows to bring back some detail. Once you make theseajustments the end result is nore or less identical. Great films.

[@rvbsoundfactory]

I like both of these films equally. I find that the only way you can make a clear judgment is by the character of the companies. Ilford. Kodak.

[@simonsharp9162]

This guy is a legend !

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Thanks!

[@simonsharp9162]

@@TheNakedPhotographer Thanks is all mine. You're keeping the craft of photography alive !

[@arnolfini1434]

I tested TRI X and HP5 years ago and found the TRI X had better H/L detail and the HP5 had better S/D.Both were processed in ID11. ID11 and D76 as far as I know, give identical results. The differences were small, but remember film varies in the way it sees colour. Some things cannot be shot in B/W because some colours will look identical In monotone. I remember photographing a painting by Patrick Heron ,it had blocks of colour that showed up well on 8x10 tranny, but in B/W some colours disappeared. Love how many people love ILFORD films, the factory was a mile from my home!

[@mattlappinen5029]

I would like to see this same comparison from a 4x5 neg.

[@walterzandvliet8598]

Difficult to listen to the complete story, because directly you have a better feeling with the left (TriX) pic, you have a good explanation but the damage is done! Difficult to put the first impression aside, but still interesting.

[@mauriziosaroli2155]

could you do another video of this but this time print them again with exactly the same density and contrast for a better comparison?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I have redone the comparison when I made the rest a some big project, but I haven’t published it yet

[@Adrian-wd4rn]

@@TheNakedPhotographer did you end up coming to the same conclusion again? I notice HP5 image is a bit softer overall, whereas tri-x looks sharper overall.

[@techietypex]

Would you be interested in comparing 20 or 30 year expired Tri-X with fresh stock? With the high price of film, many of us shoot expired stock. Rumors about how to use old film abound. For instance, I've seen a rule of thumb about adding an F stop more exposure for every ten years the film is past its expiry date. Is that really true? Personally, I've never had a problem using old film at box speed, but that could just be me and the film I have

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I may do that one day. I couldn’t tell you if that rule is true or not because I rarely shoot old film.

[@danfloresmusic]

Fresh new approach to an emulsion comparison. Thanks! It would be nice to see (Fuji or Noritsu) scans of the same negatives, since many of us digitize film.

[@slimnics]

El Film Lab i had my lab scan with a fuji frontier. they came back terrible to my eyes. There was a very low dynamic range, no shadow or highlight details. I think it is really how the user operates the machine. Have you tried using a dslr ? I believe this is the best way to scan.

[@danfloresmusic]

​@@slimnics I'm currently running a lab in Mexico. I've scanned with Epson V850, Pakon F135+, and DSLR's in the past. Currently using a Noritsu HS-1800. I've found that B&W emulsions maintain a pretty consistent look overall even between scanning methods. Although results can be great (and one can include the film borders) DSLR scanning can be slow if you need to scan 10 rolls a day, for instance.

[@slimnics]

El Film Lab ah yeh , it is not a professional solution for sure. Hello from Thailand :)

[@danfloresmusic]

@@slimnics still, there are professional photographers using DSLRs for scanning! Regards from Mexico!

[@nickfanzo]

Scanning sucks lol

[@filmniyom]

Good films 👍

[@MrRom92DAW]

One thing I’ve found in my own unscientific comparisons - HP5 always dries flatter, which in turn makes it easier to scan. Every roll of Tri-X I’ve shot has a tendency to cup. I’ve also always felt that Tri-X was a little more contrasty in the shadows, but again, totally unscientific and purely anecdotal on my behalf. These are essentially the two most comparable, if not interchangeable films. It ain’t perfect but I still probably shoot more Tri-X than anything.

[@ninabumanglag7917]

Love your format of film comparison. Very objective, controlled and well constructed. I can't wait for you to test out JCH streetpan and color negatives in the future. Very awesome channel! 👌❤️😊

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Thanks!

[@ccoppola82]

Great comparison. I noticed this in print as well that they both look so similar as to not matter. If scanning, HP5 lays WAY more flat. Developer seems to make more difference than stock from my experience. Would love to see comparisons between Tmax400 on the color checker. I think we would see a massive difference in the color and grain.

[@slimnics]

Christopher Coppola thats a good point about the developer. It would be interesting to see different developers comparison .

[@ccoppola82]

SLIMNICS while it’s true, I think there’s another KZbinr who has done this. For comparison sake I think selecting TriX and D76 is about as standard as can be. I think it’s great he did a wet print. I’m always amazed at how good wet prints look when I compare them to my scans.

[@lukemakayabu4369]

. . . Epic, this will be interesting . . . hold my beer!

[@jiajiajiaism]

Great upload as usual. One thing bothering me though :-) If you want to compare grain you can't agitate the developing tank that roughly as you show here. With large formats it doesn't really matter that much, but with 35mm film you have to agitate slowly because otherwise the grain will be blown up no matter what the speed of the film.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I said at the start that I would follow the manufacturer instructions. Kodak clearly states in their instructions for Tri-X and D-76 to invert 5 times in 5 seconds every 30 seconds. If agitation affects film grain size, and I agitate all the film the same way, then film grain size would be relative to each other. I am showing relative differences.

[@jiajiajiaism]

​@@TheNakedPhotographer Ilford recommends a slow agitation for 10 seconds every 1 minute for the HP5+, examples given are at 4 turns in 10 seconds. Did you go slower on that one?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Yes, but if you think agitation style between the two brands makes that big of a difference, I’ll consider making a video comparing just that.

[@jiajiajiaism]

​@@TheNakedPhotographer Would be interesting. Also comparing results with one kind of film if developed differently, like continous vs. intermittent agitation vs. stand development. Hot and cold, also an important factor with grain (Ilford for example provides 2 time sheets each for 20° and 24°C development).

[@jiajiajiaism]

@@TheNakedPhotographer Anyways, I loved your vids on printing techniques. So if you want to do something on that topic, rather than compare film grain, I'd be perfectly happy with that ;-)

[@lukaserba]

hey, just regarding prints, I would consider d-max of both films while setting the developing time for those prints.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

D-max would be a function of the paper, not the film. And as I said in the video, I rushed the printing and didn’t match as close as I would like. If I took more time, they would be indistinguishable.

[@lukaserba]

@@TheNakedPhotographer hi, you are right, but I thought using the same printing time on diferent film (different transparency, denisty of crystals), gave you different tonality on paper...or it does not?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

No. I realize I edited it out, but I placed both negatives on the light table at one point and they are identical in density. I didn’t make these prints back to back so I started from scratch on each.

[@byronboneparth5795]

In my experience, they both print the same and look indistinguishable in print form. But for some reason, I consistently prefer the way Tri-X scans. Maybe I'm just bad at scanning, but there you go.

[@alvareo92]

Byron Boneparth Tri-X was, like Portra 160 and 400, recently re-engineered to be more suitable for scanning, less grain clumping. Anecdotally, I’ve heard older Tri-X printed easier and was more malleable

[@node547]

You mean id-11 rather than id-68, right?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Yes, I realized after uploading

[@artistjoh]

I can sum up the differences easily. Want to shoot street, portrait, landscape - choose Tri-X. Want to shoot artwork, copy negatives, product for advertising - choose HP5. Tri-X has a slightly better look for "life" subjects. It's strength is in the dynamic punch. HP5 has better rendition of mid-range tones. It doesn't have the punchiness of Tri-X, but has more subtle tones. I have shot hundreds of rolls of both over decades. In the deeper past, Tri-X was very clearly the more punchy, but in recent years it lost some of that, and became moire similar to HP5. But over a lot of rolls I do see a subtle difference still. No right or wrong here, but each is a better choice for different subjects, but they are similar enough that whichever one chooses (most likely due to local price), it will be a great choice. I have shot more HP5, but that is only because of price. I like Tri-X more, but not enough more for it to be worth a higher price.

[@sguttag]

Very interesting. It has been a long time since I shot B&W (or film, for that matter). Back in the day (before there was + or T--Max...etc.)...I really disliked the Tri-X look and MUCH preferred HP5. The grain on the original Tri-X was horrid. I'd put my HP5 photos up against Plus-X (again, of the day). I, typically, would shoot HP5 with a yellow filter, which would lower the contrast some...but then, in the darkroom, finalize the look I was going for with a particular shot and shooting with the yellow filter gave me a better starting point. In your video, it is clear, the big divide between the two, that I worked with, once upon a time, is no longer there. I don't know how much HP5 changed as it has migrated into HP5+ but clearly Tri-X has become a better product.

[@halehorstman4459]

You did so well with everting the same but then you printed one print lighter....you lost me....and the wash process differently may have caused the difference in base fog. I guess you should follow company wash suggestions and then you see the difference. But the lighter print 🤷‍♀️ you gave up too soon. But I am enjoying your videos, thank you for putting them out there 🤗

[@PanAmStyle]

The Ilford equivalent of D76 is ID-11, not ID68. ID68, whereas D76 and ID-11 are MQ developers. There were too many variables in the processing a valid comparison requires only *one* variable, in this case, only the film stocks should be different, not developers, agitation, etc.

[@ChrisSpinney]

Looks like I'm going with whatever is cheaper from now on! I always imagined Hp5 to be a bit smoother in tone but doesn't appear to be the case.

[@slimnics]

Chris Spinney i think that is a good idea. shooting one type of film stock for a long period of time can help to appreciate the differences when you do try other films.

[@dumbguy9386]

Thanks for the information. I find it refreshing to see a scientific approach to film comparisons.

[@SuperJupiter33]

really getting your Smock-frock on...be careful agitating those chemicals.

[@joachimlindback]

400TX to HP5+. Tri-X has not been produced since 2007. The amount of silver was reduced in the new 400TX.

[@igaluitchannel6644]

I don't know, I've always found much more contrast with Tri-X than with HP-5. The highlights and shadows with Tri-X seem much harder to tame. HP-5 films are immediately recognizable and the difference between the two is evident without any great deliberation.

[@darylbaker8911]

how can you go to extreams to make shure every things the same then wash them differently, do it over!

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I am, but it won’t be published for a while