I recently tested both HP5+ and Tri-X (35mm), shooting several rolls of each on the same (or similar) subjects. After some testing I ended up rating them both at EI 200 and developing both in HC-110 (for slightly different times) to what I though was the correct density. I'm mainly interested in scanning the negatives rather than conventional printing at this point.(posted 8780 days ago)My conclusion was that I really can't tell much, if any, difference. I certainly couldn't pick out a shot as being taken on one or the other. Maybe (just maybe) the HP5+ has slight;y smoother grain, but it's subtle. I couldn't really say one has more highlight or shadow detail than the other, or that the "tonality" is noticably different when averaged over the whole set of images.
So my question is whether anyone has noticed any conditions under which either HP5+ or Tri-X (35mm) is noticably "better" (or even different) than the other, or whether they are pretty much clones of each other under just about any conditions as my testing so far seems to suggest.