Just another 2 cents - Melanie - I think that there are real differences in these films. After using Ilford Delta 400 exclusively for about 5 years, I switched to Neopan. I use Xtol or a home-made Phenidone brew made from lye, Vitamin C and borax. The Xtol is a reasonably fine-grain developer. The home brew is pretty high accutance (no solvent), but grainier. I find that Neopan has a more pronounced grain structure than the Delta 400 (or even Tri-x). I find the grain very pleasing, but it gives a very different look than Tri-X in Xtol or D76. Maybe it is closer in feel to Tri-X in Rodinal. That said, the differences between Neopan and Tri-X or a tab grained film like Delta 400 can be demonstrated in side by side prints . . . I dunno about scanning/showing on monitors.
Now I know that Allan has said that a discussion like this trends towards the technical, and I guess that's true (reading the above posts). But I think that is because the differences in aesthetic look between films have a technical basis. I see the kind of grain I am talking about in the mid-tones of both of the pics you posted above. Having said that, I think 1) that these differences are dependent on many, many variables (developer choice, paper choice, paper developer choice and so on) and 2) as good as the Internet is for sharing information, it is really not well suited for showing these differences (differences between scanners, programs, monitors, gamma settings, limitations of monitors blah, blah, blah).
Whew. Now to contradict myself completely, in terms of the tonality of the pictures that you posted, it seems that you have good technique. I'd say, just go shoot the film and keep doing what you're doing.
Oh - and the reason not to use your teeth as tools to routinely bend metal is that your teeth have to last a lifetime. ;-) I just use my fingers on cannisters from all companies (force into the light trap and pull back . . .). But if that doesn't work for you a $0.98 can opener will save your pearly whites.
Jaffa_777 - (& at the risk of much spirited retort) Although it is also dependent on the film developer you choose, I'd rate native graininess of b&w films in the 200-400 ISO range (most grainy to least):
1) the current Eastern European traditional non-tab like Ekfe, Forte and Bergger (French? Someone help me out here) (very grainy);
2) Non-tab modern emulsions; Neopan, Tri-X, HP5+;
3) Tab-grained emulsions Delta 400, T-Max (developed correctly); and finally
4) C-41 dye-cloud films like XP2 and TC400
All subject to caveats about the size of the final print (larger=grainier). And there are other differences among these films (many find the look of the C-41 films to be like a desaturated color pic -- I have been using XP2 recently, though and loving it).
Ben Marks
