Ilford HP5 (and other 'conventional' B&W films) have had emulsion
improvements through the years. I don't know specifics though. I have
not found the HP5 to be to high in contrast in general. I suspect that
it might be relates to processing. HP5 has always had a reputation for
having the ability to change contrast by changes in development. It may
be that the paper's lab developed for higher contrast. As I recall Tri-X
was not as receptive to contrast changes via development.
Different developing chemicals would have an effect on the result no doubt.
What my paper used I can't recall, though I do remember discussing the
difference between Ilford and Kodak with Fred (his full calling was Fred C.
Sappington, a great newspaper name!) my city editor at the time. This guy
liked the look of Ilford, I was less charmed by the results--not that I
gave it lot of thought back then.
As for Tri-X, this film has always been supremely even in its graduation
throughout the tonal spectrum, one of its more endearing attributes and why
it's remained universally in favor this many years down the road with
photographers both professional and amateur. It's simply a very very able
and versatile film emulsion for those who happen to be after a B&W image.
I hold no particular opinion regarding its Ilford counterpart (if we may
call it that) one way or the other, though I think there's a reason why
Tri-X is considered a classic, a veritable benchmark within the industry,
and users of it today have to ask this list "What is it?" <g>
Tris
Jim Couch
Tris Schuler wrote:
> I haven't touched it for years, but for awhile a daily I worked for
> in UP Michigan sent me preloads full of HP5 instead of Tri-X, which
> was what we (like everyone else) habitually shot for our halftones. My
> experience then (as memory serves) was that HP5 had a lot more
> contrast to it than did Tri-X, almost to the point where you might be
> tempted to say it was a "contrasty" film emulsion. Not bad film, mind
> you, and I think that its contrast, as it related to halftone process,
> was what one of the paper's editor's liked about it. The results did
> appear to be more "stunning" in their own fashion when published on
> newsprint.
>
> In any event, this film certainly had a different look to it than
> Tri-X, and it also didn't strike me at the time as being as tonally
> balanced as Tri-X. How forgiving it was in the darkroom I could not
> say, though I regularly sent canisters up with direction to push it a
> couple of stops, with no issues on that score. I never worked with it
> myself in the darkroom, though, just saw the results in my paper--and
> again, we're talking halftones here, not critical work.
>
> Does anyone know if Ilford has changed this emulsion over the years?
>
> Tris
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|