And that's echoed with Tri-X in HC110. Well it was a first class combination, and is still pretty good. So many of my correspondents and workshop attendees, especially large format workers, use it and have rarely, if ever, used anything else. "If it was good enough for Ansel…"

Me too. Back in the 80s. Indeed, so convinced was I of its superiority that I never even tried 400 speed rivals other than T-Max, which I soon discarded as overly fussy in processing and very sensitive to minor changes in development time for no major apparent improvement in the final print's quality.

When HP5 Plus launched, I felt obliged to try it because by then I was processing and printing professionally, and needed to be able to advise my customers about the new film. So inured was I to Tri-X and its pedigree and romance that I couldn't at first believe what I was seeing with HP5 Plus. I was getting a noticeably superior result, especially so when I tried it with dilute Perceptol.

For absolute speed, maybe Tri-X will push further than HP5 Plus - maybe - but that's a poor measure of the over all qualities of a film. Those who have tried HP5 Plus in tanning and staining developers, like PMK or DiXactol™ for instance, know what special qualities this film has. Certainly, Ilford's existing Delta 400 hasn't shaken it from its perch - maybe it can soon be improved too.

A major London processing house uses my DiXactol™ developer for large processing runs with Tri-X for a valued fashion photography client. I suggested to them that they might like to recommend him to put through a few comparison rolls of HP5 Plus with his next shoot. They were very reluctant to upset client relations by doing so. I can well understand their response. We photographers can be very conservative when we get to know a particular emulsion and how it performs.

Continue ...

.