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

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.

Hm, UC, unless you own a portfolio of shares of Fujifilm ;-) , the fact that
you keep repeating the qualities of that film makes me wanting to test some.
I am a Tri-X lover for it's tonality, but the characteristic grain, how
lovely it can be, is indeed sometimes a little coarse for some kinds of
jobs. As soon as my stock of Tri-X runs out, I could maybe switch from the
yellow to the green box.
Fuji defenitely has something! I'm using the Neopan 1600 with pleasure, and
since I developped it according to your advice in Acutol, my prints look
better. I must admit I don't quite follow you on the higher dillutions and
shorter times, I print with a VC haed, wich is of course a diffusor.

A friend already advised me the Acros 100 for the finer work. Did you run
tests on that?

Jan


"UC" schreef in bericht
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.
|

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.

I would say that Neopan 400 is just about the best overall 400 speed
B&W film on the market right now.

The grain of this film is very close to TMY.

If Tri-X is 100, HP5 Plus is about 98, Neopan 400 is about 95, and TMY
is about 90. Anyone who hates TMY is in for a shock if you try Neopan
400. You may prefer it in FX-39, at 1+17 dilution for about 8 min, on
grade 3 Galerie w/condenser.


Jan T wrote:
Hm, UC, unless you own a portfolio of shares of Fujifilm ;-) , the fact that
you keep repeating the qualities of that film makes me wanting to test some.
I am a Tri-X lover for it's tonality, but the characteristic grain, how
lovely it can be, is indeed sometimes a little coarse for some kinds of
jobs. As soon as my stock of Tri-X runs out, I could maybe switch from the
yellow to the green box.
Fuji defenitely has something! I'm using the Neopan 1600 with pleasure, and
since I developped it according to your advice in Acutol, my prints look
better. I must admit I don't quite follow you on the higher dillutions and
shorter times, I print with a VC haed, wich is of course a diffusor.

A friend already advised me the Acros 100 for the finer work. Did you run
tests on that?

Yes, and it comes in about 1/2 stop slower than FP4 and a little finer
grain. It takes about 8-10% longer to develop than FP4.



Jan


"UC" schreef in bericht
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.
|

Don't get me wrong: There's nothing wrong with Tri-X. It's just that
some people were saying it had been improved. It has NOT been improved,
just moved to new production facility, as Kodak says. It looks exactly
the same as always.

My point is that if you do like Tri-X but wish it had finer grain, and
find TMY unacceptably fussy or unsuitable, Neopan 400 may be of
interest to you. Neopan does take about 10% less time, however, at
least in some developers (i.e., Acutol).


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.

I would say that Neopan 400 is just about the best overall 400 speed
B&W film on the market right now.

The grain of this film is very close to TMY.

If the grain level of Tri-X is set a value of 100 (arbitrary scale),
HP5 Plus is about 98, Neopan 400 is about 95, and TMY is about 90.
Anyone who hates TMY is in for a shock if you try Neopan 400. You may
prefer it in FX-39, at 1+17 dilution for about 8 min, on
grade 3 Galerie w/condenser.

Jan T wrote:
Hm, UC, unless you own a portfolio of shares of Fujifilm ;-) , the fact that
you keep repeating the qualities of that film makes me wanting to test some.
I am a Tri-X lover for it's tonality, but the characteristic grain, how
lovely it can be, is indeed sometimes a little coarse for some kinds of
jobs. As soon as my stock of Tri-X runs out, I could maybe switch from the
yellow to the green box.
Fuji defenitely has something! I'm using the Neopan 1600 with pleasure, and
since I developped it according to your advice in Acutol, my prints look
better. I must admit I don't quite follow you on the higher dillutions and
shorter times, I print with a VC haed, wich is of course a diffusor.

A friend already advised me the Acros 100 for the finer work. Did you run
tests on that?

Yes, and it comes in about 1/2 stop slower than FP4 and a little finer
grain. It takes about 8-10% longer to develop than FP4.

Jan T wrote:
Hm, UC, unless you own a portfolio of shares of Fujifilm ;-) , the fact that
you keep repeating the qualities of that film makes me wanting to test some.
I am a Tri-X lover for it's tonality, but the characteristic grain, how
lovely it can be, is indeed sometimes a little coarse for some kinds of
jobs. As soon as my stock of Tri-X runs out, I could maybe switch from the
yellow to the green box.
Fuji defenitely has something! I'm using the Neopan 1600 with pleasure, and
since I developped it according to your advice in Acutol, my prints look
better. I must admit I don't quite follow you on the higher dillutions and
shorter times, I print with a VC haed, wich is of course a diffusor.

A friend already advised me the Acros 100 for the finer work. Did you run
tests on that?

Jan


"UC" schreef in bericht
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.
|

On 2006-01-16, 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.


Switching before Kodak cease production (and whilst cessation hasn't even
been suggested by EK) only hastens the end for the rest of us though.


Thanks to UC for the info though. Nice work.

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

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?

--
"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

Jon Rogers wrote:
On 2006-01-16, 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.


Switching before Kodak cease production (and whilst cessation hasn't even
been suggested by EK) only hastens the end for the rest of us though.

I have switched for no reason other than I like the Nopan better. I
have also tested lford Delta 400 and HP5. They are all good products,
but Neopan 400 is the best overall in grain (other than TMY) but with a
similar charchter to Tri-X.

One interesting point is that the grain of Tr-X looks 'dark', whereas
the grain of Neopan 400 looks light. I don't know how else to describe
this, except to say that on a grey neutral sky, Tri-X looks like pepper
was spilt on it, whereas the grain of Neopan 400 looks like salt was
spilt on it. It's very subtle, but of course the irregularities that we
call 'grain' are actually the holes between the grains. Somehow, Fuji
has plugged the holes that Tri-X leaves. The grain isn't really a whole
lot smaller, but definitely less intrusive.




Thanks to UC for the info though. Nice work.

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

Jon Rogers wrote:
On 2006-01-16, 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.


Switching before Kodak cease production (and whilst cessation hasn't even
been suggested by EK) only hastens the end for the rest of us though.

I have switched for no reason other than I like the Nopan better. I
have also tested lford Delta 400 and HP5. They are all good products,
but Neopan 400 is the best overall in grain (other than TMY) but with a
similar character to Tri-X.

One interesting point is that the grain of Tri-X looks 'dark', whereas
the grain of Neopan 400 looks light. I don't know how else to describe
this, except to say that on a grey neutral sky, Tri-X looks like pepper
was spilt on it, whereas Neopan 400 looks like salt was
spilt on it. It's very subtle, but of course the irregularities that we
call 'grain' are actually the holes between the grains. Somehow, Fuji
has plugged the holes that Tri-X leaves. The grain isn't really a whole
lot smaller, but definitely less intrusive.



Thanks to UC for the info though. Nice work.

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