35mm Tri-X Pan, Neopan 400, and TMY

On 2006-01-16, G- Blank wrote:
In article ,
Jon Rogers wrote:

only hastens the end for the rest of us though.

Is that because your an EK employee? Or pondering jumping off
a bridge once you can't get EK product,....or both?


Neither. I use Tri-X and Neopan, as well as Ilford and Adox films.

Tri-X is my 400 film of choice, but I guess I'd survive without it.

I just like having options, and I don't relish my choices getting
reduced even more.


--
Jon
____________________________________________
jondotrogersatntlworlddotcom
============================================

Jon Rogers wrote:
On 2006-01-16, G- Blank wrote:
In article ,
Jon Rogers wrote:

only hastens the end for the rest of us though.

Is that because your an EK employee? Or pondering jumping off
a bridge once you can't get EK product,....or both?


Neither. I use Tri-X and Neopan, as well as Ilford and Adox films.

After bouncing around and trying lots of different fioms for the last
two years, I'm settling on Fuji and Ilford. Kodak offers nothing that
is better than those firms' products, and I dislike the fact that both
Ilford and Kodak make TWO lines of film. Why not make ONE that does the
job? Fuji has done exactly that!

TMY does in fact offer the finest grain of the bunch, but only by a
smidgen (or a jot, maybe a tiddle) but the disadvantages of it
characteristic curve are just too severe to deal with. Tri-X, on the
other hand is old and looks it. It's really showing its age. HP5 Plus
is a superior film, in my judgement, but only by a small margin. Neopan
400 is superior by a greater margin. I think that if Kodak had wanted
to, they could have improved Tri-X to meet or surpass Neopan 400. Since
the latter is superior, I'm switchin'!

If Kodak DOES improve Tri-X, I'll switch back.

Ilford and Fuji have simply passed Kodak by....


Tri-X is my 400 film of choice, but I guess I'd survive without it.

I just like having options, and I don't relish my choices getting
reduced even more.


--
Jon
____________________________________________
jondotrogersatntlworlddotcom
============================================

Mike wrote:
Have you tried Pyro-based developers? TMY in Pyrocat is lovely. I have
not tried Neopan yet.

No, and I never will. Pyro-based developers are actually rather grainy,
and not good for 35mm films.




I finally ran some tests on Tri-X, TMY, and Neopan 400 together in
Acutol.

I ran all three films at 1+14 for 8 minutes.

There has been a rumour floating around that due to the production
changes made in Tri-X, it was actually finer-grained than TMY. This is
quite false.

The time of 8 minutes is on the nose for Neopan 400, but both the Tri-X
and TMY could use about one more minute to match the contrast of Neopan
400.

HP5 Plus, on the other hand, requires a bit less time (7 minutes) or a
bit more dilution (1+15) to match Neopan 400. I prefer the latter.

Anyway, the grain of Tri-X is still coarser than that of TMY, and, I
should add, that of Neopan 400. Neopan 400 combines the fine grain of
TMY with a characteristic curve somewhat similar to that of Tri-X.

For that reason, I have switched to Neopan 400.

http://www.retrophotographic.com/PDF...neopan_400.pdf

As far as I am concerned, Neopan 400 is the best reportage film out
there, with HP5 Plus and Tri-X tied for second.

In article ,
Mike wrote:

Have you tried Pyro-based developers? TMY in Pyrocat is lovely. I have
not tried Neopan yet.

Neopan should be fine, Acros does rather nicely in PMK.



"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

On 16 Jan 2006 21:56:21 GMT, Jon Rogers
wrote:

I just like having options, and I don't relish my choices getting
reduced even more.

I don't mind if it insures the continued production of Galerie and the
Deltas.

JD

Last night I made some extreme enlargements (about 14X) and examined
them closely.

I still definitely prefer the Neopan to Tri-X and TMY, even though TMY
is slightly finer-grained. I just HATE TMY's soft-shadow look. Neopan
just looks less 'tired' than Tri-X. I guess I'm sick and tired of the
Tri-X look.

I plan on soon comparing HP5 Plus and Delta as well, all in Acutol. I
have tested them before, but it's been a couple of years, and TMY/Tri-X
were not included.

If you like Tri-X, fine, but I'm sick of it. The shadows are TOO
contrasty. TMY goes too far in the other direction: the shadows are too
soft. Neopan 400 is just right. It's the perfect compromise between TMY
and Tri-X. Tri-X was designed back when lenses had a lot more flare. If
you use 1960's Nikon lenses, it's a good choice. TMY is a disaster.
Neopan 400 seems to be designed for modern lenses, with just a bit less
contrast in the shadows than Tri-X, and thus a more uniform contrast
from top to bottom. HP5 Plus seems to be somewhat nondescript.

R.W. Behan wrote:
UC, thanks a million for sharing your test results. I've been a long time
fan of Tri-X, too, but it looks like Fuji may outlast Kodak in keeping B&W
films on the market. Could be time to switch. Your tests are encouraging
that. Thanks again.
Dick B.


"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...
I finally ran some tests on Tri-X, TMY, and Neopan 400 together in
Acutol.

I ran all three films at 1+14 for 8 minutes.

There has been a rumour floating around that due to the production
changes made in Tri-X, it was actually finer-grained than TMY. This is
quite false.

The time of 8 minutes is on the nose for Neopan 400, but both the Tri-X
and TMY could use about one more minute to match the contrast of Neopan
400.

HP5 Plus, on the other hand, requires a bit less time (7 minutes) or a
bit more dilution (1+15) to match Neopan 400. I prefer the latter.

Anyway, the grain of Tri-X is still coarser than that of TMY, and, I
should add, that of Neopan 400. Neopan 400 combines the fine grain of
TMY with a characteristic curve somewhat similar to that of Tri-X.

For that reason, I have switched to Neopan 400.

http://www.retrophotographic.com/PDF...neopan_400.pdf

As far as I am concerned, Neopan 400 is the best reportage film out
there, with HP5 Plus and Tri-X tied for second.

At what speed did you expose the Neopan 400? I find that both Tri-A
and TMY are actually slower than rated by the manufacturers. I have
always exposed them at 320 with excellent results.

David


On 16 Jan 2006 06:47:44 -0800, "UC"
wrote:

I finally ran some tests on Tri-X, TMY, and Neopan 400 together in
Acutol.

I ran all three films at 1+14 for 8 minutes.

There has been a rumour floating around that due to the production
changes made in Tri-X, it was actually finer-grained than TMY. This is
quite false.

The time of 8 minutes is on the nose for Neopan 400, but both the Tri-X
and TMY could use about one more minute to match the contrast of Neopan
400.

HP5 Plus, on the other hand, requires a bit less time (7 minutes) or a
bit more dilution (1+15) to match Neopan 400. I prefer the latter.

Anyway, the grain of Tri-X is still coarser than that of TMY, and, I
should add, that of Neopan 400. Neopan 400 combines the fine grain of
TMY with a characteristic curve somewhat similar to that of Tri-X.

For that reason, I have switched to Neopan 400.

http://www.retrophotographic.com/PDF...neopan_400.pdf

As far as I am concerned, Neopan 400 is the best reportage film out
there, with HP5 Plus and Tri-X tied for second.

I bracketed the exposures. I used the same frame in each case (1/500th
@ f/8) which corresponds roughly to EI 250.

I rate all ISO 400 films at around 250-320. Wait for my book and you'll
see why this is a good universal practice.


Peregrine Rigging wrote:
At what speed did you expose the Neopan 400? I find that both Tri-A
and TMY are actually slower than rated by the manufacturers. I have
always exposed them at 320 with excellent results.

David


On 16 Jan 2006 06:47:44 -0800, "UC"
wrote:

I finally ran some tests on Tri-X, TMY, and Neopan 400 together in
Acutol.

I ran all three films at 1+14 for 8 minutes.

There has been a rumour floating around that due to the production
changes made in Tri-X, it was actually finer-grained than TMY. This is
quite false.

The time of 8 minutes is on the nose for Neopan 400, but both the Tri-X
and TMY could use about one more minute to match the contrast of Neopan
400.

HP5 Plus, on the other hand, requires a bit less time (7 minutes) or a
bit more dilution (1+15) to match Neopan 400. I prefer the latter.

Anyway, the grain of Tri-X is still coarser than that of TMY, and, I
should add, that of Neopan 400. Neopan 400 combines the fine grain of
TMY with a characteristic curve somewhat similar to that of Tri-X.

For that reason, I have switched to Neopan 400.

http://www.retrophotographic.com/PDF...neopan_400.pdf

As far as I am concerned, Neopan 400 is the best reportage film out
there, with HP5 Plus and Tri-X tied for second.

Peregrine Rigging wrote:
At what speed did you expose the Neopan 400? I find that both Tri-A
and TMY are actually slower than rated by the manufacturers. I have
always exposed them at 320 with excellent results.

The manufacturers don't rate the films. They merely apply the ISO
standard. The problem is with the standard itself.


David


On 16 Jan 2006 06:47:44 -0800, "UC"
wrote:

I finally ran some tests on Tri-X, TMY, and Neopan 400 together in
Acutol.

I ran all three films at 1+14 for 8 minutes.

There has been a rumour floating around that due to the production
changes made in Tri-X, it was actually finer-grained than TMY. This is
quite false.

The time of 8 minutes is on the nose for Neopan 400, but both the Tri-X
and TMY could use about one more minute to match the contrast of Neopan
400.

HP5 Plus, on the other hand, requires a bit less time (7 minutes) or a
bit more dilution (1+15) to match Neopan 400. I prefer the latter.

Anyway, the grain of Tri-X is still coarser than that of TMY, and, I
should add, that of Neopan 400. Neopan 400 combines the fine grain of
TMY with a characteristic curve somewhat similar to that of Tri-X.

For that reason, I have switched to Neopan 400.

http://www.retrophotographic.com/PDF...neopan_400.pdf

As far as I am concerned, Neopan 400 is the best reportage film out
there, with HP5 Plus and Tri-X tied for second.

"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...


After bouncing around and trying lots of different fioms for the last
two years, I'm settling on Fuji and Ilford. Kodak offers nothing that
is better than those firms' products, and I dislike the fact that both
Ilford and Kodak make TWO lines of film. Why not make ONE that does the
job? Fuji has done exactly that!


If Ilford were to `improve` the Delta 100 & 400 films and call them, let`s
say, Ilfopan 100 & Ilfopan 400 respectively and then discontinue the current
Delta and Plus series films, I am wondering what the reaction would be with
regular users of the present series of films?