Tri-X compared with HP5 plus, grain The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhat to look for when developing black and white print film?What are these streaks in negative scans I got back from a lab?How far can you push process an accidentally under-exposed film?Can I use chemicals for developing ISO 400 film to develop ISO 100 or 200 film as well?If I want to get the effect of overexposure from pushed black and white film, do I add even more time in developing?Which current 35mm film will render results closest to Panatomic-X?Are overheated rolls of film (both exposed and unexposed) likely to be damaged?How do different developing fluids affect black and white film?needle cord type texture over the whole film after development. FP4.How are reference developing times determined?
Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?
Dual Citizen. Exited the US on Italian passport recently
What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?
How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?
Can't find the latex code for the ⍎ (down tack jot) symbol
If a poisoned arrow's piercing damage is reduced to 0, do you still get poisoned?
Is flight data recorder erased after every flight?
Why could you hear an Amstrad CPC working?
What is the use of option -o in the useradd command?
How to make payment on the internet without leaving a money trail?
Can distinct morphisms between curves induce the same morphism on singular cohomology?
Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"
Access elements in std::string where positon of string is greater than its size
Does duplicating a spell with Wish count as casting that spell?
How to deal with fear of taking dependencies
Why can Shazam do this?
Could JWST stay at L2 "forever"?
What is the meaning of Triage in Cybersec world?
How can I create a character who can assume the widest possible range of creature sizes?
Inversion Puzzle
What does "rabbited" mean/imply in this sentence?
Manuscript was "unsubmitted" because the manuscript was deposited in Arxiv Preprints
The difference between dialogue marks
Realistic Alternatives to Dust: What Else Could Feed a Plankton Bloom?
Tri-X compared with HP5 plus, grain
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhat to look for when developing black and white print film?What are these streaks in negative scans I got back from a lab?How far can you push process an accidentally under-exposed film?Can I use chemicals for developing ISO 400 film to develop ISO 100 or 200 film as well?If I want to get the effect of overexposure from pushed black and white film, do I add even more time in developing?Which current 35mm film will render results closest to Panatomic-X?Are overheated rolls of film (both exposed and unexposed) likely to be damaged?How do different developing fluids affect black and white film?needle cord type texture over the whole film after development. FP4.How are reference developing times determined?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I have used Tri-X for a long time as my general-purpose 35mm film. I use it at 400, process in Rodinal (or a clone in fact) 1+25 and using the massive dev chart times (which agree with Kodak's), and print traditionally (so, in particular I'm generally not scanning the film at all). I print typically on 16x12, image size about 15x10. I use Rodinal because I'm used to it: I know what the negs are like and I don't have to worry about made-up dev going stale if I don't process any film for a while.
I'm pretty happy with the process. But I'm not happy about the cost: Tri-X has gone up, a lot, in the last few years and it's becoming a major expense. HP5 (by which I mean HP5 plus) is a good lot cheaper and is obviously a fine film. So I've tried a few rolls of it, also at 400, in Rodinal at 1+25 for the recommended time.
I'm printing from these films now and the results look mostly good so far. But it's evident under the grain focuser that the HP5 is significantly grainier (larger grain, more obvious grain) than Tri-X: it's probably grainy enough that the difference is noticeable at my normal print size & would be very noticeable in anything bigger. This is not catastrophic: obviously if I was unhappy with grain I would not be using fairly fast 35mm film, or in fact 35mm at all. But it does mean I can't just switch to HP5 without knowing that my prints will change, so it's not a simple decision.
(I'd like to use a single film because I can then get used to it.)
So the question is two things:
- is HP5 just grainier than Tri-X and I need to get used to it and decide knowing that?
- Rodinal is known for producing somewhat grainy negs: what other dev might I consider which is painless to use (I'd like not to have to do the whole add-time-when-the-dev-is-old thing and it needs good keeping qualities when made up (months)) which might be better?
As an additional question: are there any other films I might consider? I am looking at a couple of Foma films, but have not got as far as processing them yet, let alone printing. It would need to be ISO 400 and some good: I typically can't go back and take pictures again if the negs turn out to be rubbish. The film needs to be reliably available: I don't want to change every year.
film
asked yesterday
tfbtfb
41917
add a comment |
I have used Tri-X for a long time as my general-purpose 35mm film. I use it at 400, process in Rodinal (or a clone in fact) 1+25 and using the massive dev chart times (which agree with Kodak's), and print traditionally (so, in particular I'm generally not scanning the film at all). I print typically on 16x12, image size about 15x10. I use Rodinal because I'm used to it: I know what the negs are like and I don't have to worry about made-up dev going stale if I don't process any film for a while.
I'm pretty happy with the process. But I'm not happy about the cost: Tri-X has gone up, a lot, in the last few years and it's becoming a major expense. HP5 (by which I mean HP5 plus) is a good lot cheaper and is obviously a fine film. So I've tried a few rolls of it, also at 400, in Rodinal at 1+25 for the recommended time.
I'm printing from these films now and the results look mostly good so far. But it's evident under the grain focuser that the HP5 is significantly grainier (larger grain, more obvious grain) than Tri-X: it's probably grainy enough that the difference is noticeable at my normal print size & would be very noticeable in anything bigger. This is not catastrophic: obviously if I was unhappy with grain I would not be using fairly fast 35mm film, or in fact 35mm at all. But it does mean I can't just switch to HP5 without knowing that my prints will change, so it's not a simple decision.
(I'd like to use a single film because I can then get used to it.)
So the question is two things:
- is HP5 just grainier than Tri-X and I need to get used to it and decide knowing that?
- Rodinal is known for producing somewhat grainy negs: what other dev might I consider which is painless to use (I'd like not to have to do the whole add-time-when-the-dev-is-old thing and it needs good keeping qualities when made up (months)) which might be better?
As an additional question: are there any other films I might consider? I am looking at a couple of Foma films, but have not got as far as processing them yet, let alone printing. It would need to be ISO 400 and some good: I typically can't go back and take pictures again if the negs turn out to be rubbish. The film needs to be reliably available: I don't want to change every year.
film
asked yesterday
tfbtfb
41917
I've souped Fomapan 400 in Ilfotec DD-X, and the grain is quite noticeable – I'm guessing it might be too much in Rodinal. Have you considered Kodak Xtol? Foma also makes a developer that people claim is a clone of Xtol, the Fomadon Excel. That's likely to be cheaper (depending on where you live).
– Kahovius
18 hours ago
add a comment |
I have used Tri-X for a long time as my general-purpose 35mm film. I use it at 400, process in Rodinal (or a clone in fact) 1+25 and using the massive dev chart times (which agree with Kodak's), and print traditionally (so, in particular I'm generally not scanning the film at all). I print typically on 16x12, image size about 15x10. I use Rodinal because I'm used to it: I know what the negs are like and I don't have to worry about made-up dev going stale if I don't process any film for a while.
I'm pretty happy with the process. But I'm not happy about the cost: Tri-X has gone up, a lot, in the last few years and it's becoming a major expense. HP5 (by which I mean HP5 plus) is a good lot cheaper and is obviously a fine film. So I've tried a few rolls of it, also at 400, in Rodinal at 1+25 for the recommended time.
I'm printing from these films now and the results look mostly good so far. But it's evident under the grain focuser that the HP5 is significantly grainier (larger grain, more obvious grain) than Tri-X: it's probably grainy enough that the difference is noticeable at my normal print size & would be very noticeable in anything bigger. This is not catastrophic: obviously if I was unhappy with grain I would not be using fairly fast 35mm film, or in fact 35mm at all. But it does mean I can't just switch to HP5 without knowing that my prints will change, so it's not a simple decision.
(I'd like to use a single film because I can then get used to it.)
So the question is two things:
- is HP5 just grainier than Tri-X and I need to get used to it and decide knowing that?
- Rodinal is known for producing somewhat grainy negs: what other dev might I consider which is painless to use (I'd like not to have to do the whole add-time-when-the-dev-is-old thing and it needs good keeping qualities when made up (months)) which might be better?
As an additional question: are there any other films I might consider? I am looking at a couple of Foma films, but have not got as far as processing them yet, let alone printing. It would need to be ISO 400 and some good: I typically can't go back and take pictures again if the negs turn out to be rubbish. The film needs to be reliably available: I don't want to change every year.
film
asked yesterday
tfbtfb
41917
I have used Tri-X for a long time as my general-purpose 35mm film. I use it at 400, process in Rodinal (or a clone in fact) 1+25 and using the massive dev chart times (which agree with Kodak's), and print traditionally (so, in particular I'm generally not scanning the film at all). I print typically on 16x12, image size about 15x10. I use Rodinal because I'm used to it: I know what the negs are like and I don't have to worry about made-up dev going stale if I don't process any film for a while.
I'm pretty happy with the process. But I'm not happy about the cost: Tri-X has gone up, a lot, in the last few years and it's becoming a major expense. HP5 (by which I mean HP5 plus) is a good lot cheaper and is obviously a fine film. So I've tried a few rolls of it, also at 400, in Rodinal at 1+25 for the recommended time.
I'm printing from these films now and the results look mostly good so far. But it's evident under the grain focuser that the HP5 is significantly grainier (larger grain, more obvious grain) than Tri-X: it's probably grainy enough that the difference is noticeable at my normal print size & would be very noticeable in anything bigger. This is not catastrophic: obviously if I was unhappy with grain I would not be using fairly fast 35mm film, or in fact 35mm at all. But it does mean I can't just switch to HP5 without knowing that my prints will change, so it's not a simple decision.
(I'd like to use a single film because I can then get used to it.)
So the question is two things:
- is HP5 just grainier than Tri-X and I need to get used to it and decide knowing that?
- Rodinal is known for producing somewhat grainy negs: what other dev might I consider which is painless to use (I'd like not to have to do the whole add-time-when-the-dev-is-old thing and it needs good keeping qualities when made up (months)) which might be better?
As an additional question: are there any other films I might consider? I am looking at a couple of Foma films, but have not got as far as processing them yet, let alone printing. It would need to be ISO 400 and some good: I typically can't go back and take pictures again if the negs turn out to be rubbish. The film needs to be reliably available: I don't want to change every year.
film
film
asked yesterday
tfbtfb
41917
asked yesterday
tfbtfb
41917
asked yesterday
tfbtfb
41917
asked yesterday
tfbtfb
41917
asked yesterday
tfbtfb
41917
41917
I've souped Fomapan 400 in Ilfotec DD-X, and the grain is quite noticeable – I'm guessing it might be too much in Rodinal. Have you considered Kodak Xtol? Foma also makes a developer that people claim is a clone of Xtol, the Fomadon Excel. That's likely to be cheaper (depending on where you live).
– Kahovius
18 hours ago
add a comment |
I've souped Fomapan 400 in Ilfotec DD-X, and the grain is quite noticeable – I'm guessing it might be too much in Rodinal. Have you considered Kodak Xtol? Foma also makes a developer that people claim is a clone of Xtol, the Fomadon Excel. That's likely to be cheaper (depending on where you live).
– Kahovius
18 hours ago
I've souped Fomapan 400 in Ilfotec DD-X, and the grain is quite noticeable – I'm guessing it might be too much in Rodinal. Have you considered Kodak Xtol? Foma also makes a developer that people claim is a clone of Xtol, the Fomadon Excel. That's likely to be cheaper (depending on where you live).
– Kahovius
18 hours ago
I've souped Fomapan 400 in Ilfotec DD-X, and the grain is quite noticeable – I'm guessing it might be too much in Rodinal. Have you considered Kodak Xtol? Foma also makes a developer that people claim is a clone of Xtol, the Fomadon Excel. That's likely to be cheaper (depending on where you live).
– Kahovius
18 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Tri-X and HP5 are similar films and oftentimes compared. A consensus on which of the two is grainier however seems absent. This may be due to both films having a different grain structure.
I would advise you to play with developing times and dilutions to see what suits you. As you mention yourself, Rodinal is a developer keen for grain and you will see this in your negatives. If you find your HP5+ negs to be too grainy, consider Ilfotec as a substitute for finer grain.
Keep in mind that this all boils down to personal taste. I, for example, am a fan of Ilford's FP4+. It's great in contrast which suits my needs.
answered yesterday
Tim StackTim Stack
1214
New contributor
Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I think I went through the same process. Both TriX and HP5+ are films with a strong, almost cult-like, following, and reputation of a major brand to back them up.
Foma is cheap (I am based in Czech, the country Foma is made in, so for me it is very cheap) - but it is prone to quality issues (mainly scratches) due to the fact it is still manufactured by hand. A risky bet.
Other ISO 400 films - the talk is positive about Bergger and Rollei - do not have the history and brand strength like Kodak or Ilford.
I ended up picking HP5+ due to a number of factors, chiefly because it costs less and loads into tank easier (less fingerprints) than TriX.
As for souping HP5+ I have settled on Rodinal in 1+50 dilution. The development times are acceptably longer than 1+25 (I do not have patience for stand development). In the stronger dilution (1+25) I found the grain too much, even when shooting 120 film. It is best reserved for special circumstances, to be used on purpose.
I have also found classical grain Ilford films (mainly FP4 though) to respond well to Pyro developers. Good option for static subjects, not so much for fast action - where HP5+ shines. It also responds well to pushing, just like TriX.
To sum it up: if you are looking for a reliable ASA 400 alternative to TriX the HP5+ is likely your best choice.
Consider other developers though, or at the very least go down in dilution from 1+25 to 1+50.
answered yesterday
Jindra LackoJindra Lacko
5,395635
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106440%2ftri-x-compared-with-hp5-plus-grain%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Tri-X and HP5 are similar films and oftentimes compared. A consensus on which of the two is grainier however seems absent. This may be due to both films having a different grain structure.
I would advise you to play with developing times and dilutions to see what suits you. As you mention yourself, Rodinal is a developer keen for grain and you will see this in your negatives. If you find your HP5+ negs to be too grainy, consider Ilfotec as a substitute for finer grain.
Keep in mind that this all boils down to personal taste. I, for example, am a fan of Ilford's FP4+. It's great in contrast which suits my needs.
answered yesterday
Tim StackTim Stack
1214
New contributor
Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Tri-X and HP5 are similar films and oftentimes compared. A consensus on which of the two is grainier however seems absent. This may be due to both films having a different grain structure.
I would advise you to play with developing times and dilutions to see what suits you. As you mention yourself, Rodinal is a developer keen for grain and you will see this in your negatives. If you find your HP5+ negs to be too grainy, consider Ilfotec as a substitute for finer grain.
Keep in mind that this all boils down to personal taste. I, for example, am a fan of Ilford's FP4+. It's great in contrast which suits my needs.
answered yesterday
Tim StackTim Stack
1214
New contributor
Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Tri-X and HP5 are similar films and oftentimes compared. A consensus on which of the two is grainier however seems absent. This may be due to both films having a different grain structure.
I would advise you to play with developing times and dilutions to see what suits you. As you mention yourself, Rodinal is a developer keen for grain and you will see this in your negatives. If you find your HP5+ negs to be too grainy, consider Ilfotec as a substitute for finer grain.
Keep in mind that this all boils down to personal taste. I, for example, am a fan of Ilford's FP4+. It's great in contrast which suits my needs.
answered yesterday
Tim StackTim Stack
1214
New contributor
Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Tri-X and HP5 are similar films and oftentimes compared. A consensus on which of the two is grainier however seems absent. This may be due to both films having a different grain structure.
I would advise you to play with developing times and dilutions to see what suits you. As you mention yourself, Rodinal is a developer keen for grain and you will see this in your negatives. If you find your HP5+ negs to be too grainy, consider Ilfotec as a substitute for finer grain.
Keep in mind that this all boils down to personal taste. I, for example, am a fan of Ilford's FP4+. It's great in contrast which suits my needs.
answered yesterday
Tim StackTim Stack
1214
New contributor
Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
Tim StackTim Stack
1214
New contributor
Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
Tim StackTim Stack
1214
answered yesterday
Tim StackTim Stack
1214
1214
New contributor
Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
I think I went through the same process. Both TriX and HP5+ are films with a strong, almost cult-like, following, and reputation of a major brand to back them up.
Foma is cheap (I am based in Czech, the country Foma is made in, so for me it is very cheap) - but it is prone to quality issues (mainly scratches) due to the fact it is still manufactured by hand. A risky bet.
Other ISO 400 films - the talk is positive about Bergger and Rollei - do not have the history and brand strength like Kodak or Ilford.
I ended up picking HP5+ due to a number of factors, chiefly because it costs less and loads into tank easier (less fingerprints) than TriX.
As for souping HP5+ I have settled on Rodinal in 1+50 dilution. The development times are acceptably longer than 1+25 (I do not have patience for stand development). In the stronger dilution (1+25) I found the grain too much, even when shooting 120 film. It is best reserved for special circumstances, to be used on purpose.
I have also found classical grain Ilford films (mainly FP4 though) to respond well to Pyro developers. Good option for static subjects, not so much for fast action - where HP5+ shines. It also responds well to pushing, just like TriX.
To sum it up: if you are looking for a reliable ASA 400 alternative to TriX the HP5+ is likely your best choice.
Consider other developers though, or at the very least go down in dilution from 1+25 to 1+50.
answered yesterday
Jindra LackoJindra Lacko
5,395635
add a comment |
I think I went through the same process. Both TriX and HP5+ are films with a strong, almost cult-like, following, and reputation of a major brand to back them up.
Foma is cheap (I am based in Czech, the country Foma is made in, so for me it is very cheap) - but it is prone to quality issues (mainly scratches) due to the fact it is still manufactured by hand. A risky bet.
Other ISO 400 films - the talk is positive about Bergger and Rollei - do not have the history and brand strength like Kodak or Ilford.
I ended up picking HP5+ due to a number of factors, chiefly because it costs less and loads into tank easier (less fingerprints) than TriX.
As for souping HP5+ I have settled on Rodinal in 1+50 dilution. The development times are acceptably longer than 1+25 (I do not have patience for stand development). In the stronger dilution (1+25) I found the grain too much, even when shooting 120 film. It is best reserved for special circumstances, to be used on purpose.
I have also found classical grain Ilford films (mainly FP4 though) to respond well to Pyro developers. Good option for static subjects, not so much for fast action - where HP5+ shines. It also responds well to pushing, just like TriX.
To sum it up: if you are looking for a reliable ASA 400 alternative to TriX the HP5+ is likely your best choice.
Consider other developers though, or at the very least go down in dilution from 1+25 to 1+50.
answered yesterday
Jindra LackoJindra Lacko
5,395635
add a comment |
I think I went through the same process. Both TriX and HP5+ are films with a strong, almost cult-like, following, and reputation of a major brand to back them up.
Foma is cheap (I am based in Czech, the country Foma is made in, so for me it is very cheap) - but it is prone to quality issues (mainly scratches) due to the fact it is still manufactured by hand. A risky bet.
Other ISO 400 films - the talk is positive about Bergger and Rollei - do not have the history and brand strength like Kodak or Ilford.
I ended up picking HP5+ due to a number of factors, chiefly because it costs less and loads into tank easier (less fingerprints) than TriX.
As for souping HP5+ I have settled on Rodinal in 1+50 dilution. The development times are acceptably longer than 1+25 (I do not have patience for stand development). In the stronger dilution (1+25) I found the grain too much, even when shooting 120 film. It is best reserved for special circumstances, to be used on purpose.
I have also found classical grain Ilford films (mainly FP4 though) to respond well to Pyro developers. Good option for static subjects, not so much for fast action - where HP5+ shines. It also responds well to pushing, just like TriX.
To sum it up: if you are looking for a reliable ASA 400 alternative to TriX the HP5+ is likely your best choice.
Consider other developers though, or at the very least go down in dilution from 1+25 to 1+50.
answered yesterday
Jindra LackoJindra Lacko
5,395635
I think I went through the same process. Both TriX and HP5+ are films with a strong, almost cult-like, following, and reputation of a major brand to back them up.
Foma is cheap (I am based in Czech, the country Foma is made in, so for me it is very cheap) - but it is prone to quality issues (mainly scratches) due to the fact it is still manufactured by hand. A risky bet.
Other ISO 400 films - the talk is positive about Bergger and Rollei - do not have the history and brand strength like Kodak or Ilford.
I ended up picking HP5+ due to a number of factors, chiefly because it costs less and loads into tank easier (less fingerprints) than TriX.
As for souping HP5+ I have settled on Rodinal in 1+50 dilution. The development times are acceptably longer than 1+25 (I do not have patience for stand development). In the stronger dilution (1+25) I found the grain too much, even when shooting 120 film. It is best reserved for special circumstances, to be used on purpose.
I have also found classical grain Ilford films (mainly FP4 though) to respond well to Pyro developers. Good option for static subjects, not so much for fast action - where HP5+ shines. It also responds well to pushing, just like TriX.
To sum it up: if you are looking for a reliable ASA 400 alternative to TriX the HP5+ is likely your best choice.
Consider other developers though, or at the very least go down in dilution from 1+25 to 1+50.
answered yesterday
Jindra LackoJindra Lacko
5,395635
answered yesterday
Jindra LackoJindra Lacko
5,395635
answered yesterday
Jindra LackoJindra Lacko
5,395635
answered yesterday
Jindra LackoJindra Lacko
5,395635
5,395635
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106440%2ftri-x-compared-with-hp5-plus-grain%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I've souped Fomapan 400 in Ilfotec DD-X, and the grain is quite noticeable – I'm guessing it might be too much in Rodinal. Have you considered Kodak Xtol? Foma also makes a developer that people claim is a clone of Xtol, the Fomadon Excel. That's likely to be cheaper (depending on where you live).
– Kahovius
18 hours ago