Tri-X compared with HP5 plus, grainWhat to look for when developing black and white print film?What are these streaks in negative scans I got back from a lab?How far can you push process an accidentally under-exposed film?Can I use chemicals for developing ISO 400 film to develop ISO 100 or 200 film as well?If I want to get the effect of overexposure from pushed black and white film, do I add even more time in developing?Which current 35mm film will render results closest to Panatomic-X?Are overheated rolls of film (both exposed and unexposed) likely to be damaged?How do different developing fluids affect black and white film?needle cord type texture over the whole film after development. FP4.How are reference developing times determined?

How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect

Could Giant Ground Sloths have been a good pack animal for the ancient Mayans?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of running one shots compared to campaigns?

Crop image to path created in TikZ?

Why do we use polarized capacitors?

Was there ever an axiom rendered a theorem?

Can I legally use front facing blue light in the UK?

aging parents with no investments

How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?

Why doesn't a const reference extend the life of a temporary object passed via a function?

Need help identifying/translating a plaque in Tangier, Morocco

What is it called when one voice type sings a 'solo'?

Add an angle to a sphere

How do I create uniquely male characters?

How could a lack of term limits lead to a "dictatorship?"

New order #4: World

Is it legal to have the "// (c) 2019 John Smith" header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?

Pristine Bit Checking

Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?

Is domain driven design an anti-SQL pattern?

Where else does the Shulchan Aruch quote an authority by name?

Ideas for 3rd eye abilities

How to move the player while also allowing forces to affect it

Symmetry in quantum mechanics



Tri-X compared with HP5 plus, grain


What to look for when developing black and white print film?What are these streaks in negative scans I got back from a lab?How far can you push process an accidentally under-exposed film?Can I use chemicals for developing ISO 400 film to develop ISO 100 or 200 film as well?If I want to get the effect of overexposure from pushed black and white film, do I add even more time in developing?Which current 35mm film will render results closest to Panatomic-X?Are overheated rolls of film (both exposed and unexposed) likely to be damaged?How do different developing fluids affect black and white film?needle cord type texture over the whole film after development. FP4.How are reference developing times determined?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








4















I have used Tri-X for a long time as my general-purpose 35mm film. I use it at 400, process in Rodinal (or a clone in fact) 1+25 and using the massive dev chart times (which agree with Kodak's), and print traditionally (so, in particular I'm generally not scanning the film at all). I print typically on 16x12, image size about 15x10. I use Rodinal because I'm used to it: I know what the negs are like and I don't have to worry about made-up dev going stale if I don't process any film for a while.



I'm pretty happy with the process. But I'm not happy about the cost: Tri-X has gone up, a lot, in the last few years and it's becoming a major expense. HP5 (by which I mean HP5 plus) is a good lot cheaper and is obviously a fine film. So I've tried a few rolls of it, also at 400, in Rodinal at 1+25 for the recommended time.



I'm printing from these films now and the results look mostly good so far. But it's evident under the grain focuser that the HP5 is significantly grainier (larger grain, more obvious grain) than Tri-X: it's probably grainy enough that the difference is noticeable at my normal print size & would be very noticeable in anything bigger. This is not catastrophic: obviously if I was unhappy with grain I would not be using fairly fast 35mm film, or in fact 35mm at all. But it does mean I can't just switch to HP5 without knowing that my prints will change, so it's not a simple decision.



(I'd like to use a single film because I can then get used to it.)



So the question is two things:



  1. is HP5 just grainier than Tri-X and I need to get used to it and decide knowing that?

  2. Rodinal is known for producing somewhat grainy negs: what other dev might I consider which is painless to use (I'd like not to have to do the whole add-time-when-the-dev-is-old thing and it needs good keeping qualities when made up (months)) which might be better?

As an additional question: are there any other films I might consider? I am looking at a couple of Foma films, but have not got as far as processing them yet, let alone printing. It would need to be ISO 400 and some good: I typically can't go back and take pictures again if the negs turn out to be rubbish. The film needs to be reliably available: I don't want to change every year.










share|improve this question




























    4















    I have used Tri-X for a long time as my general-purpose 35mm film. I use it at 400, process in Rodinal (or a clone in fact) 1+25 and using the massive dev chart times (which agree with Kodak's), and print traditionally (so, in particular I'm generally not scanning the film at all). I print typically on 16x12, image size about 15x10. I use Rodinal because I'm used to it: I know what the negs are like and I don't have to worry about made-up dev going stale if I don't process any film for a while.



    I'm pretty happy with the process. But I'm not happy about the cost: Tri-X has gone up, a lot, in the last few years and it's becoming a major expense. HP5 (by which I mean HP5 plus) is a good lot cheaper and is obviously a fine film. So I've tried a few rolls of it, also at 400, in Rodinal at 1+25 for the recommended time.



    I'm printing from these films now and the results look mostly good so far. But it's evident under the grain focuser that the HP5 is significantly grainier (larger grain, more obvious grain) than Tri-X: it's probably grainy enough that the difference is noticeable at my normal print size & would be very noticeable in anything bigger. This is not catastrophic: obviously if I was unhappy with grain I would not be using fairly fast 35mm film, or in fact 35mm at all. But it does mean I can't just switch to HP5 without knowing that my prints will change, so it's not a simple decision.



    (I'd like to use a single film because I can then get used to it.)



    So the question is two things:



    1. is HP5 just grainier than Tri-X and I need to get used to it and decide knowing that?

    2. Rodinal is known for producing somewhat grainy negs: what other dev might I consider which is painless to use (I'd like not to have to do the whole add-time-when-the-dev-is-old thing and it needs good keeping qualities when made up (months)) which might be better?

    As an additional question: are there any other films I might consider? I am looking at a couple of Foma films, but have not got as far as processing them yet, let alone printing. It would need to be ISO 400 and some good: I typically can't go back and take pictures again if the negs turn out to be rubbish. The film needs to be reliably available: I don't want to change every year.










    share|improve this question
























      4












      4








      4


      1






      I have used Tri-X for a long time as my general-purpose 35mm film. I use it at 400, process in Rodinal (or a clone in fact) 1+25 and using the massive dev chart times (which agree with Kodak's), and print traditionally (so, in particular I'm generally not scanning the film at all). I print typically on 16x12, image size about 15x10. I use Rodinal because I'm used to it: I know what the negs are like and I don't have to worry about made-up dev going stale if I don't process any film for a while.



      I'm pretty happy with the process. But I'm not happy about the cost: Tri-X has gone up, a lot, in the last few years and it's becoming a major expense. HP5 (by which I mean HP5 plus) is a good lot cheaper and is obviously a fine film. So I've tried a few rolls of it, also at 400, in Rodinal at 1+25 for the recommended time.



      I'm printing from these films now and the results look mostly good so far. But it's evident under the grain focuser that the HP5 is significantly grainier (larger grain, more obvious grain) than Tri-X: it's probably grainy enough that the difference is noticeable at my normal print size & would be very noticeable in anything bigger. This is not catastrophic: obviously if I was unhappy with grain I would not be using fairly fast 35mm film, or in fact 35mm at all. But it does mean I can't just switch to HP5 without knowing that my prints will change, so it's not a simple decision.



      (I'd like to use a single film because I can then get used to it.)



      So the question is two things:



      1. is HP5 just grainier than Tri-X and I need to get used to it and decide knowing that?

      2. Rodinal is known for producing somewhat grainy negs: what other dev might I consider which is painless to use (I'd like not to have to do the whole add-time-when-the-dev-is-old thing and it needs good keeping qualities when made up (months)) which might be better?

      As an additional question: are there any other films I might consider? I am looking at a couple of Foma films, but have not got as far as processing them yet, let alone printing. It would need to be ISO 400 and some good: I typically can't go back and take pictures again if the negs turn out to be rubbish. The film needs to be reliably available: I don't want to change every year.










      share|improve this question














      I have used Tri-X for a long time as my general-purpose 35mm film. I use it at 400, process in Rodinal (or a clone in fact) 1+25 and using the massive dev chart times (which agree with Kodak's), and print traditionally (so, in particular I'm generally not scanning the film at all). I print typically on 16x12, image size about 15x10. I use Rodinal because I'm used to it: I know what the negs are like and I don't have to worry about made-up dev going stale if I don't process any film for a while.



      I'm pretty happy with the process. But I'm not happy about the cost: Tri-X has gone up, a lot, in the last few years and it's becoming a major expense. HP5 (by which I mean HP5 plus) is a good lot cheaper and is obviously a fine film. So I've tried a few rolls of it, also at 400, in Rodinal at 1+25 for the recommended time.



      I'm printing from these films now and the results look mostly good so far. But it's evident under the grain focuser that the HP5 is significantly grainier (larger grain, more obvious grain) than Tri-X: it's probably grainy enough that the difference is noticeable at my normal print size & would be very noticeable in anything bigger. This is not catastrophic: obviously if I was unhappy with grain I would not be using fairly fast 35mm film, or in fact 35mm at all. But it does mean I can't just switch to HP5 without knowing that my prints will change, so it's not a simple decision.



      (I'd like to use a single film because I can then get used to it.)



      So the question is two things:



      1. is HP5 just grainier than Tri-X and I need to get used to it and decide knowing that?

      2. Rodinal is known for producing somewhat grainy negs: what other dev might I consider which is painless to use (I'd like not to have to do the whole add-time-when-the-dev-is-old thing and it needs good keeping qualities when made up (months)) which might be better?

      As an additional question: are there any other films I might consider? I am looking at a couple of Foma films, but have not got as far as processing them yet, let alone printing. It would need to be ISO 400 and some good: I typically can't go back and take pictures again if the negs turn out to be rubbish. The film needs to be reliably available: I don't want to change every year.







      film






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 19 hours ago









      tfbtfb

      40917




      40917




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          Tri-X and HP5 are similar films and oftentimes compared. A consensus on which of the two is grainier however seems absent. This may be due to both films having a different grain structure.



          I would advise you to play with developing times and dilutions to see what suits you. As you mention yourself, Rodinal is a developer keen for grain and you will see this in your negatives. If you find your HP5+ negs to be too grainy, consider Ilfotec as a substitute for finer grain.



          Keep in mind that this all boils down to personal taste. I, for example, am a fan of Ilford's FP4+. It's great in contrast which suits my needs.






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.



























            1














            I think I went through the same process. Both TriX and HP5+ are films with a strong, almost cult-like, following, and reputation of a major brand to back them up.



            Foma is cheap (I am based in Czech, the country Foma is made in, so for me it is very cheap) - but it is prone to quality issues (mainly scratches) due to the fact it is still manufactured by hand. A risky bet.



            Other ISO 400 films - the talk is positive about Bergger and Rollei - do not have the history and brand strength like Kodak or Ilford.



            I ended up picking HP5+ due to a number of factors, chiefly because it costs less and loads into tank easier (less fingerprints) than TriX.



            As for souping HP5+ I have settled on Rodinal in 1+50 dilution. The development times are acceptably longer than 1+25 (I do not have patience for stand development). In the stronger dilution (1+25) I found the grain too much, even when shooting 120 film. It is best reserved for special circumstances, to be used on purpose.



            I have also found classical grain Ilford films (mainly FP4 though) to respond well to Pyro developers. Good option for static subjects, not so much for fast action - where HP5+ shines. It also responds well to pushing, just like TriX.



            To sum it up: if you are looking for a reliable ASA 400 alternative to TriX the HP5+ is likely your best choice.



            Consider other developers though, or at the very least go down in dilution from 1+25 to 1+50.






            share|improve this answer























              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "61"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106440%2ftri-x-compared-with-hp5-plus-grain%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              2














              Tri-X and HP5 are similar films and oftentimes compared. A consensus on which of the two is grainier however seems absent. This may be due to both films having a different grain structure.



              I would advise you to play with developing times and dilutions to see what suits you. As you mention yourself, Rodinal is a developer keen for grain and you will see this in your negatives. If you find your HP5+ negs to be too grainy, consider Ilfotec as a substitute for finer grain.



              Keep in mind that this all boils down to personal taste. I, for example, am a fan of Ilford's FP4+. It's great in contrast which suits my needs.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                2














                Tri-X and HP5 are similar films and oftentimes compared. A consensus on which of the two is grainier however seems absent. This may be due to both films having a different grain structure.



                I would advise you to play with developing times and dilutions to see what suits you. As you mention yourself, Rodinal is a developer keen for grain and you will see this in your negatives. If you find your HP5+ negs to be too grainy, consider Ilfotec as a substitute for finer grain.



                Keep in mind that this all boils down to personal taste. I, for example, am a fan of Ilford's FP4+. It's great in contrast which suits my needs.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                  2












                  2








                  2







                  Tri-X and HP5 are similar films and oftentimes compared. A consensus on which of the two is grainier however seems absent. This may be due to both films having a different grain structure.



                  I would advise you to play with developing times and dilutions to see what suits you. As you mention yourself, Rodinal is a developer keen for grain and you will see this in your negatives. If you find your HP5+ negs to be too grainy, consider Ilfotec as a substitute for finer grain.



                  Keep in mind that this all boils down to personal taste. I, for example, am a fan of Ilford's FP4+. It's great in contrast which suits my needs.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.










                  Tri-X and HP5 are similar films and oftentimes compared. A consensus on which of the two is grainier however seems absent. This may be due to both films having a different grain structure.



                  I would advise you to play with developing times and dilutions to see what suits you. As you mention yourself, Rodinal is a developer keen for grain and you will see this in your negatives. If you find your HP5+ negs to be too grainy, consider Ilfotec as a substitute for finer grain.



                  Keep in mind that this all boils down to personal taste. I, for example, am a fan of Ilford's FP4+. It's great in contrast which suits my needs.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 15 hours ago









                  Tim StackTim Stack

                  1212




                  1212




                  New contributor




                  Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  Tim Stack is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.























                      1














                      I think I went through the same process. Both TriX and HP5+ are films with a strong, almost cult-like, following, and reputation of a major brand to back them up.



                      Foma is cheap (I am based in Czech, the country Foma is made in, so for me it is very cheap) - but it is prone to quality issues (mainly scratches) due to the fact it is still manufactured by hand. A risky bet.



                      Other ISO 400 films - the talk is positive about Bergger and Rollei - do not have the history and brand strength like Kodak or Ilford.



                      I ended up picking HP5+ due to a number of factors, chiefly because it costs less and loads into tank easier (less fingerprints) than TriX.



                      As for souping HP5+ I have settled on Rodinal in 1+50 dilution. The development times are acceptably longer than 1+25 (I do not have patience for stand development). In the stronger dilution (1+25) I found the grain too much, even when shooting 120 film. It is best reserved for special circumstances, to be used on purpose.



                      I have also found classical grain Ilford films (mainly FP4 though) to respond well to Pyro developers. Good option for static subjects, not so much for fast action - where HP5+ shines. It also responds well to pushing, just like TriX.



                      To sum it up: if you are looking for a reliable ASA 400 alternative to TriX the HP5+ is likely your best choice.



                      Consider other developers though, or at the very least go down in dilution from 1+25 to 1+50.






                      share|improve this answer



























                        1














                        I think I went through the same process. Both TriX and HP5+ are films with a strong, almost cult-like, following, and reputation of a major brand to back them up.



                        Foma is cheap (I am based in Czech, the country Foma is made in, so for me it is very cheap) - but it is prone to quality issues (mainly scratches) due to the fact it is still manufactured by hand. A risky bet.



                        Other ISO 400 films - the talk is positive about Bergger and Rollei - do not have the history and brand strength like Kodak or Ilford.



                        I ended up picking HP5+ due to a number of factors, chiefly because it costs less and loads into tank easier (less fingerprints) than TriX.



                        As for souping HP5+ I have settled on Rodinal in 1+50 dilution. The development times are acceptably longer than 1+25 (I do not have patience for stand development). In the stronger dilution (1+25) I found the grain too much, even when shooting 120 film. It is best reserved for special circumstances, to be used on purpose.



                        I have also found classical grain Ilford films (mainly FP4 though) to respond well to Pyro developers. Good option for static subjects, not so much for fast action - where HP5+ shines. It also responds well to pushing, just like TriX.



                        To sum it up: if you are looking for a reliable ASA 400 alternative to TriX the HP5+ is likely your best choice.



                        Consider other developers though, or at the very least go down in dilution from 1+25 to 1+50.






                        share|improve this answer

























                          1












                          1








                          1







                          I think I went through the same process. Both TriX and HP5+ are films with a strong, almost cult-like, following, and reputation of a major brand to back them up.



                          Foma is cheap (I am based in Czech, the country Foma is made in, so for me it is very cheap) - but it is prone to quality issues (mainly scratches) due to the fact it is still manufactured by hand. A risky bet.



                          Other ISO 400 films - the talk is positive about Bergger and Rollei - do not have the history and brand strength like Kodak or Ilford.



                          I ended up picking HP5+ due to a number of factors, chiefly because it costs less and loads into tank easier (less fingerprints) than TriX.



                          As for souping HP5+ I have settled on Rodinal in 1+50 dilution. The development times are acceptably longer than 1+25 (I do not have patience for stand development). In the stronger dilution (1+25) I found the grain too much, even when shooting 120 film. It is best reserved for special circumstances, to be used on purpose.



                          I have also found classical grain Ilford films (mainly FP4 though) to respond well to Pyro developers. Good option for static subjects, not so much for fast action - where HP5+ shines. It also responds well to pushing, just like TriX.



                          To sum it up: if you are looking for a reliable ASA 400 alternative to TriX the HP5+ is likely your best choice.



                          Consider other developers though, or at the very least go down in dilution from 1+25 to 1+50.






                          share|improve this answer













                          I think I went through the same process. Both TriX and HP5+ are films with a strong, almost cult-like, following, and reputation of a major brand to back them up.



                          Foma is cheap (I am based in Czech, the country Foma is made in, so for me it is very cheap) - but it is prone to quality issues (mainly scratches) due to the fact it is still manufactured by hand. A risky bet.



                          Other ISO 400 films - the talk is positive about Bergger and Rollei - do not have the history and brand strength like Kodak or Ilford.



                          I ended up picking HP5+ due to a number of factors, chiefly because it costs less and loads into tank easier (less fingerprints) than TriX.



                          As for souping HP5+ I have settled on Rodinal in 1+50 dilution. The development times are acceptably longer than 1+25 (I do not have patience for stand development). In the stronger dilution (1+25) I found the grain too much, even when shooting 120 film. It is best reserved for special circumstances, to be used on purpose.



                          I have also found classical grain Ilford films (mainly FP4 though) to respond well to Pyro developers. Good option for static subjects, not so much for fast action - where HP5+ shines. It also responds well to pushing, just like TriX.



                          To sum it up: if you are looking for a reliable ASA 400 alternative to TriX the HP5+ is likely your best choice.



                          Consider other developers though, or at the very least go down in dilution from 1+25 to 1+50.







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered 11 hours ago









                          Jindra LackoJindra Lacko

                          5,385635




                          5,385635



























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106440%2ftri-x-compared-with-hp5-plus-grain%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                              Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                              Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її