Why shoot Fuji Neopan 400?

[Roger Hicks]

I think that "znapper" was speaking of TMX, not TMY.

My mistake. I'd be astonished if I were right and you were wrong. I meant TMX, so substitute that in my comment.

Sorry!

R.

 

[Highway 61]

I meant TMX, so substitute that in my comment.

My comment to your comment : TMX and Acros don't play within the same resolution-grain league, and this is very clearly and seriously shown here.

Yet - I wonder who would really see tangible differences between either TMX, Delta 100 and Acros 100, or TMY, Neopan 400 and Tri-X on A4 sized wet prints done with a good enlarger and an excellent enlarger lens.

Me, I can't (and this is the size I wet print at).

IMO the main concern with the definite death of Neopan 400 is that we're now left with a very narrow 400 B&W good films market, with two classic films only (Tri-X and HP5+), and two tabular ones (Delta 100 and TMY).

And with, on one hand, an uncertain future for the Kodak products, and some darn inflating prices for the Ilford ones.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I wonder who would really see tangible differences between either TMX, Delta 100 and Acros 100, or TMY, Neopan 400 and Tri-X on A4 sized wet prints done with a good enlarger and an excellent enlarger lens.

Me, I can't (and this is the size I wet print at).. .

You suffer from the crippling disadvantage (as least as far as the internet is concerned) of knowing what you are talking about.

My own feeling is that if a particular film suits you, be it TMX, Delta 100 or Acros 100, it will give you gorgeous pictures. And if it doesn't: well...

Cheers,

R.

 

[f16sunshine]

You suffer from the crippling disadvantage (as least as far as the internet is concerned) of knowing what you are talking about.

My own feeling is that if a particular film suits you, be it TMX, Delta 100 or Acros 100, it will give you gorgeous pictures. And if it doesn't: well...

Cheers,

R.

..... it may give you gorgeous pictures anyway? (just finishing up for you there. Hope I got it right 😀 )

 

[Roger Hicks]

..... it may give you gorgeous pictures anyway? (just finishing up for you there. Hope I got it right 😀 )

Only if you're lucky (been there with Acros. Gorgeous, but not reliably for me).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Highway 61]

My own feeling is that if a particular film suits you, be it TMX, Delta 100 or Acros 100, it will give you gorgeous pictures. And if it doesn't: well...

My own feeling is that we can describe B&W films like Duke Ellington described (with great reason) all music works : there are the good, and there are the bad.

Ilford, Kodak and Fuji all make (used to) excellent 400 films and fool would be (have been) the photographer who would choose (have chosen), on purpose, to shoot, say, Agfa/Efke/Foma/Rollei/Adox products while TMY, Tri-X, Delta 400, HP5+ and Neopan 400 are (were) available around.

NB : this personal feeling regards 400 films.

Neopan 400 had nothing to envy to any of the 400 films made by the other two manufacturers.

But it had nothing superior, either.

 

[f16sunshine]

Only if you're lucky (been there with Acros. Gorgeous, but not reliably for me).

Cheers,

R.

Acros hooks my elbow sometimes as well.
Those upper zones for me. I just landed 400 rolls if the stuff in July.
Should be enough to figure it out or quit it for good!

Cheers!