Stefan
Hello!
I exposed some Ilford FP4+ and Kodak Tri-X and developed them in ID 11. To my surprise, I can’t see any clear difference between the two films in terms of fine grain and sharpness.
Hence my question: is the FP4+ still worth it at all if I can expect the same quality from the Tri-X at a higher speed?
Best regards!
TR
Hi. The only way to properly assess this is really by using the same subject (e.g. a newspaper on a wall) and the same lighting (e.g. a flash bounced off the ceiling). It’s all too easy to be misled. If you’re happy with the fine grain and resolving power of the 400 ASA film, stick with it. A ‘400’ film has a wider exposure latitude than a 100.
In other words, if you imagine the films as barrels, the Tri-X is a larger barrel: it can hold even more ‘light’: you can actually expose it just like a 100 (i.e. supposedly experience overexposure). And what’s more, the tap is set lower: water flows out even in low light. I myself assume (though I haven’t verified it) that the FP4 has a higher resolution than a Tri-X. That is the only reason why I prefer the FP4 to the Tri-X for suitable subjects.
CPD
I too assume that the FP4 offers a higher resolution than the TX 400. However, since its relaunch a few years ago, the TX has actually become incredibly low in fine grain. So low in fine grain, in fact, that some die-hard Tri-X fans on American forums have already complained about it because they miss the old look.
€
If you’ve had such a good experience with the TX, that certainly suggests you should use it as your everyday film. The TX is certainly more versatile than the FP4.
€
Ultimately, it also depends on what you’re photographing and what print sizes you’re aiming for. For larger print sizes, the Ilford certainly still has a slight edge. Even if the gap between the two has likely narrowed.
€
One option for increasing the gap between the Pan F and the TX, using a classic crystal structure, would be the Pan F. During exposure at ISO 25/15 to ISO 32/16, it is not only extremely fine-grained but also extremely sharp, and I like it far better than Tmax 100, Acros 100 and Delta 100. But this is also a matter of personal taste.
€
However, Pan F isn’t always suitable for handheld shooting. You’ll have to weigh up what you want.
Bonderer
In my experience, both are very good films with their own distinct character. I like them both, though I tend to use FP 4 more in the summer and Tri-X more during the darker months.
I’ve also picked up some Pan F now – we’ll see how it goes.
ID 11 is certainly not a bad developer, but why not try something different for a change?
It’s a Methuselah of a developer. Like an elderly gentleman, a bit round the hips, a little bald on top and a bit sedate.
Be brave and try something different, but don’t ask here – you’d get 1001 recommendations. Just have a browse online and go with your gut feeling.
AchimBauer
Hi Stefan,
I’m not sure if the FP 4 is still worth it; I’m familiar with the FP 4 but not the Tri-X.
I’ve solved the question of which film is right for me by testing not all of them (unfortunately), but a large number of them. What I did was buy a few more M42 and Olympus bodies cheaply on eBay to go with the Praktica and Olympus bodies I already had, then I exposed the same subjects at the same time and developed almost all the films in the same developer according to the instructions. The exceptions were Silbermax, which I also developed in its own developer (it really does come out a touch nicer than in Rodinal), and CHM 20, which I also ran alongside.
The differences aren’t huge, but they are noticeable and sufficient to help you find your personal preference.
…
Regards, Achim
GX680
Hi Stefan,
The answer is quite simple, as I said before:
If you can’t see any (clear) differences, then the FP4+ isn’t worth it anymore.
?
However, you need to use a frame that’s easy to assess, at the maximum format, and ensure the photos are taken under the same conditions (as mentioned earlier).
The films must also be correctly exposed and developed. For me, the FP4+ in ID11 only reached 64 ASA and the old TRI-X 250 ASA. If you don’t take this into account during exposure, you’ll have less grain in the highlights of the positive, but the shadows will be washed out. So it could well be that you’ll see more differences if you have correct exposure and development.
?
I’m only familiar with the FP4+ and the old Tri-X. There was a very clear difference, but even the FP4+ didn’t have enough resolution in ID11 for 35mm and 30x40 cm prints. For medium format, the FP4+ has been my standard and favourite film so far. Whenever I wanted coarser grain, I used the Tri-X.
?
I use two film combinations each for 35mm and medium format: one with higher resolution and one fast ‘characterful’ one.
If the differences have become so small, then this film combination certainly no longer makes sense.
?
So you should ask yourself whether you want higher resolution than you get with the FP4+/ID11, or whether you want more ‘character/grain’ than you get with the new TRI-X/ID11, and then change one or both films. If you answer ‘no’ to both questions and are happy with the results of the Tri-X, then that’s the right film for you :-)
?
I would, however, definitely try a different developer.
