>>3798009They're very similar in all aspects anon, and the small differences, say in contrast and whatnot, can be mostly compensated by developer + dev technique (times, agitation, etc.).
So I say get what's cheaper or most readily available. Or if you nailed down your times and technique based on either film, keep using that, not worth the effort figuring those out for the other.
As an anecdote, in most, common developers and "standard" times, I prefer the lower midtone contrast of HP5+ over TriX. Seems to give a straighter curve.
Also in the UK I used to get HP5+ for a fiver, and TriX was £8+ (before the hikes), so I used it almost exclusively and figured out the look I like: Perceptol 1+3, shot at ISO160-200, -15% dev compared to recommendation, normal agitation after the first couple minutes and then slow inversion every 3 minutes.
Absolutely nice, full tonality and could tame even very contrasty scenes.
Due to price and availability, I never bothered to use TriX extensively and adapt it to look exactly as I wanted it (as above with HP5+). But it can be done.
Lastly, TriX has a slight speed advantage in Diafine, like half a stop or a bit more.
