Contrast and sharpness also depends on the lens so if you want to be objective you have to compare images taken with the same lens.

The development determines everything!

overall, I prefer Kentmere - I have a digital workflow and I LOVE how much data is in the shadows. TriX FEELS like classic photo journalism, and I believe Ilford is perfect for minimal editing, and looking great straight out of camera. TriX feels more like a Xerox of a black and white photo, like it's "clarity" is set to 10+. It also seems like Kentmere's 400 ISO rating should be set to 425 or 450 and I bet it would match Ilford really well.

great video, no doubt! thank you

This kind of comparison, done with identical cameras and lenses (or a single camera & lens) might be a better method. And if all three rolls could be developed with exact times and temperatures for the stock. Photography has SO many tiny variables in every aspect that it’s almost impossible to obtain flawless results. All of that said, it never ceases to amaze me at how picky people are with minuscule details. I try to stick to the theory that the subject is what’s important.. not the small details. That’s why I like to take photos of people rather than stationary stuff.. subjects that change with time vs things that stay the same.

Such a great comparison! Thank you! The Tri-X remains my favourite.

Thanks for this. My go-to film over the last year has been HP5+ and when I’ve shifted from that is when I’ve had issues. The other films I’ve had success with have been some out of date FP4 (exp 1985) that I’ve put through my box brownie and ensign cameras, and Kodak gold200 that’s given me some nice colour pics; crisp and clear with faithful rendering of the colours.

The frog photo I think had more texture detail in the shadows from the Kodak film. Apart from that, I think the best in 99% of the use cases was the hp5, but I may be biased. The hp5 definitely gives a more textured sky on blue sky days, and I’m here for it. My instagram photos will show you what I mean, especially recent shots from Sydney on and around the harbour bridge.

I’m sticking with HP5 for my bnw shots.

Hey appreciate the comparison! I think taken on their own, I could see myself going with any one of them. Depends on what's cheapest and available.

I think to control for as much variable as possible, you'd probably need to shoot on a medium format camera with interchangeable backs. But then again, that would limit the choice of films. Other than that, 2 of the same bodies, but swap the lens betw them might do the trick. Just choose one film as a benchmark/control and keep comparing that with other films. Could make a series out of that. Cheers!

you should also compare agfa apx 400

Thank you, in comparison the hp5 seems to make darker greens and sometimes more texture because of this. Good to know, once you need that.

Thank You for the test. While i do agree lens difference play a role how it will turn out. But is does show how Kodak does render very differently compared to the Harman produced films.

Hey Kevi man .. I loved this video .. I chose almost the same as you bar like 2 ish we clearly have a similar eye..
It’s a toughy cause hp5 I find great but slightly boring ..
Kentmere is definitely good and tons cheaper so it’s hard to ignore although you definitely saw what did it’s a bit faded…
The Kodak is so nice and definitely hard to call between with the hp5… overall I loved all your photos and love all the film …
If I had to choose … ooooff’…
I can’t …simply cause of price which is killin us guys right !!
Any way dude loves it subscribed instantly your a brother from another mother for sure ….
Keep on shooting on
Peace ✌️
Tommy.

I know that each film has special something, but most of the differences shown here are to be mitigated, either by different developers / developing techniques, or even better, in the post processing. WET post processing.
BTW, all those cameras used are OLD, and different, made by different camera makers, so there's a possibility that some exposure times on some of those cameras are not accurate. Not all the time. Just saying...
In regards to films, I'm a bit biased. I've never used Tri-X, ever. When I've started in photography, and later professionally while using film, Tri-X wasn't available in my country. Unlike Ilford's HP5. And later when Kentmere showed up I didn't care anymore. Course for me, HP5 was always a king...

very intertesting. thank you

Great lens comparison review. I joke. would be great to see this test but at night for some push comparison action

very interesting but to have a 100% idea you would need to have 3 cameras of the same brand, for example 3 Nikons with the same lens but it's still a great job thank you

Well, I'm in none of the camps as I use Tmax....however, it was interesting to see how these film stock react so differently scene to scene. Makes it really hard to put them into an isolated silo of any sort.  As someone had mentioned, the lens coatings could affect how the film reacts. Dunno.  I guess the only way to eliminate that would be to use a medium format camera with an interchangeable back. *shrug* You can also alter the results using different developers and concentrations.

I appreciate all of the work here, but I frequently see lens comparions on the same digital body that show similar differences for contrast, light transmission, and sharpness.  Respectfully,  I am not sure how valid the conclusions are with the subtle differences we see here...

Interesting comparison! There is so much you can do in digitising and post processing, I think K400 is perfectly adequate for me. But one could also argue that it's false economy trying to save a few bucks and risk losing the highlight/shadow details in some cases compared to HP5. Hmm..

Hi, the difference between the Tri-X and HP5 don't justify the 50% price increase here in Canada (18,99 Tri-X vs 12,99 HP5) per roll of 36.  Thanks for the time to do this.

On top of that, I'm more of a landscape photographer, and HP5 won most of those in this comparison.