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

Keith Tapscott wrote:
"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?

What I am trying to say is that Neopan 400 is better than EITHER HP5
Plus or Delta 400, and better than Tri-X and T-Max 400. Fuji seems to
have produced a film that gives the best of both (crystal) worlds.
Sure, TMY is a bit finer-grained, but Tri-X is woefully old-looking. In
trying out all these films, subtleties became apparent. I just cannot
see using 5 different B&W films, trying to match them up with different
situations. I don't have or need to have 5 bodies. I want to narrow
down to just one or two 400 speed films, and one or two medium
speed/slow films

Right now, that would be:

Neopan 400 or HP5 Plus
FP4 Plus or Neopan Acros 100
Pan-F


Also rans:
Delta 400
Tri-X

Film I will not use:
TMY

Keith Tapscott wrote:
"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?

To clarify:

The current approach of both Ilford and Kodak is to have TWO different
film lines, with different crytsal types predominating. Fuji has
apparently decided not to do that, but to issue films that seem to
combine the best of both worlds. Neopan 400 is intermediate between
Tri-X and TMY in graininess and curve shape, though perhaps just a bit
closer to Tri-X than TMY. It's a 'better Tri-X' if you know what I
mean. It's what Tri-X COULD be like if Kodak had decided not to bring
out TMY but instead decided to mix T-grains in with Tri-X conventional
grains.

This article is full of ****:

http://www.highwayproject.org/Pages/technotes_01.htm

So is this one:

http://shutterbug.com/equipmentrevie.../0204sb_kodak/

Tri-X is distinctly grainier than TMY, and the TMY is just exposed a
couple of weeks ago looks identical to what I used 10 years ago. the
same is true of Tri-X. These films look exactly as they did before.

In article ,
"Keith Tapscott" wrote:

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?

If the films are actually better I would say I'll buy them just as I
have done with the Deltas.


--
"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

In controlled tests performed by qualified professionals, new TX shows
less grain than TMY. Which film is more or less grainy in practice
depends on too many factors to go into here, but suffice to say that
blanket statements of fact by one unnamed person without qualifications
of any kind should not be taken too seriously. UC has offered nothing
of more substance than his opinion of a few 400 speed films. His claim
that pyro developers are too grainy for 35mm film, even though he's
never used one, is very telling. He is clearly relying upon outdated
literature as the basis for his pronouncements. Modern staining
developers produce no more grain, and often less grain than comparable
non-staining, acutance developers. UC's film speed ratings might work
very well with his system and condenser enlarger, which exaggerates
contrast, requiring a reduction in development, which in turn reduces
fim speed, but those who use a diffusion enlarger might require less
exposure, and more development for easy printing negatives. Since
we're noting our favorites, mine is TMY.

wrote:
In controlled tests performed by qualified professionals, new TX shows
less grain than TMY.

It certainly does not, at least not when developed in a
metol-hydroquinone or phenidone-hydroquinone developer. I developed
three rolls of film at the same time in the same tank, in Acutol 1+14
for 8 minutes @ 68F: TMY, Tri-X, and Neopan 400. The TMY was slightly
finer-grained than the other two, and Tri-X was by a sight margin the
grainiest. This is not unexpected, as it is an older-technology
product. I can send you scans if you wish, to prove it! I will trust my
own eyes before trusting your unsupportable rantings.

Which film is more or less grainy in practice
depends on too many factors to go into here, but suffice to say that
blanket statements of fact by one unnamed person without qualifications
of any kind should not be taken too seriously. UC has offered nothing
of more substance than his opinion of a few 400 speed films. His claim
that pyro developers are too grainy for 35mm film, even though he's
never used one, is very telling. He is clearly relying upon outdated
literature as the basis for his pronouncements. Modern staining
developers produce no more grain, and often less grain than comparable
non-staining, acutance developers.

False. Utter rubbish.

UC's film speed ratings might work
very well with his system and condenser enlarger, which exaggerates
contrast, requiring a reduction in development, which in turn reduces
fim speed, but those who use a diffusion enlarger might require less
exposure, and more development for easy printing negatives. Since
we're noting our favorites, mine is TMY.

The new Tri-X vs TMY comparison studies were conducted by Dick
Dickerson and Silvia Zawadzki, both former Kodak research engineers
responsible for the development and testing of many Kodak B&W products.
Their finding were published in Photo Techniques magazine,in an article
called "Testing Kodak's (remanufactured) Black-and-White films", and
the details of their testing regime can be found therein. The only
"unsupportable rantings" are your own, and which are truly "utter
rubbish".

Does this even seem probable to you? Just think about it....


wrote:
The new Tri-X vs TMY comparison studies were conducted by Dick
Dickerson and Silvia Zawadzki, both former Kodak research engineers
responsible for the development and testing of many Kodak B&W products.
Their finding were published in Photo Techniques magazine,in an article
called "Testing Kodak's (remanufactured) Black-and-White films", and
the details of their testing regime can be found therein. The only
"unsupportable rantings" are your own, and which are truly "utter
rubbish".

wrote:
The new Tri-X vs TMY comparison studies were conducted by Dick
Dickerson and Silvia Zawadzki, both former Kodak research engineers
responsible for the development and testing of many Kodak B&W products.
Their finding were published in Photo Techniques magazine,in an article
called "Testing Kodak's (remanufactured) Black-and-White films", and
the details of their testing regime can be found therein. The only
"unsupportable rantings" are your own, and which are truly "utter
rubbish".

Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadzki, are both 'former' Kodak research
engineers because Kodak 'invited' them to leave. Who are you going to
believe? Kodak AND me, or Kodak's rejects?

wrote:
The new Tri-X vs TMY comparison studies were conducted by Dick
Dickerson and Silvia Zawadzki, both former Kodak research engineers
responsible for the development and testing of many Kodak B&W products.
Their finding were published in Photo Techniques magazine,in an article
called "Testing Kodak's (remanufactured) Black-and-White films", and
the details of their testing regime can be found therein. The only
"unsupportable rantings" are your own, and which are truly "utter
rubbish".

I read that article. It is utter rubbish. Did you know those people
were 'invited' to leave Kodak? My testing showed the films behaved as
they always have. It would be surprising if they did not, especially
since Kodak says the films should behave as they always did. So, who
are going to believe? Kodak AND me, or two people who were kicked out
of Kodak?

wrote:
The new Tri-X vs TMY comparison studies were conducted by Dick
Dickerson and Silvia Zawadzki, both former Kodak research engineers
responsible for the development and testing of many Kodak B&W products.
Their finding were published in Photo Techniques magazine,in an article
called "Testing Kodak's (remanufactured) Black-and-White films", and
the details of their testing regime can be found therein. The only
"unsupportable rantings" are your own, and which are truly "utter
rubbish".

I read that article. It is utter rubbish. Did you know those people
were 'invited' to leave Kodak? My testing showed the films behaved as
they always have. It would be surprising if they did not, especially
since Kodak says the films should behave as they always did. So, who
are going to believe? Kodak AND me, or two people who were kicked out
of Kodak?