I think this is a really good description of the difference between them. At least my eye sees it similarly. I don't have a consistent preference---some subjects work better for me with the "weight", others without.
Originally Posted by white.elephant
Fomapan 400 is underappreciated, I think. I rate it at 400 in PC-TEA (I would assume it would work in Xtol 1+2 as well), and while the results are never going win any prizes for fine grain, dang if it ain't sharp.
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
Yup. I agree. Tri-X is a bit "lighter" (not tonewise, but contrast/mood wise) in my experience, due to the spectral sensitivity's effect on the shadows in daylight. I love the look for some things, and when I want it, I still use Tri-X, even though I have switched to HP5 as my general purpose film. I think HP5 flatters skin more than Tri-X, so usually use it for portraits, when I must do them.
Originally Posted by ntenny
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
Hi Keith, it depends on what I'm photographing but currently I switch between TriX400 and Delta400 for 120mm and same including Neopan 1600 for 35mm - and develop mostly in Xtol. Delta usually for a lighter tone, softer grain and Xtol for when I like it dark and moody, but again, it all depands on the circumstances.
Last edited by Nicole; 03-24-2009 at 05:39 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Tri-X 400. But switching to Tmax 400 because I want the same emulsion in all formats. In sheets, Tri-X 400 isn't available.
A little less grain, but I believe I can achieve a similar tonality to Tri-X, or close enough.
I don't think I've ever tested an ISO 400 emulsion that I didn't like - Ilford HP5+ (wonderful 'light' tone, sharp), Ilford 400 Delta Pro (nice grain, very sharp), Tri-X 400 (wonderful 'bite' in the prints, well defined tonal shifts), Tmax 400 (smooth grain but very very sharp), Foma 400 (I have to rate this film at EI 100-160, so doesn't really count, but beautiful tonality, love the grain), Forte 400 (fantastic grain), Lucky SHD 400 (like old Tri-X but without antihalation, nice grain), Neopan 400 (crisp, sharp, beautiful highlights), and I'm sure I'm missing some...
But I am doing away with all of them, except for TMY-2.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
I also like T-max 400.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I've always liked HP5 Plus.
I am sure the others have great characteristics (I remember being suprised at the lack of grain in TMY) but I'm not unhappy with what I have so I'll just keep using it. Tried Neopan 400 and it seemed fairly similar... or was it that I couldn't tell the difference?
I use Tri-x in 120mm and HP5 in 4x5 since Kodak doesn't make the 400 in sheet film.
My limited expreience with Foma 400 in 120 would make me go over to the darkside if that was all that was available. For me, it curled like a soda straw, Tri-X is always flat.
Thanks for the replies.
TMY-2 followed closely by Tri-X. I have only returned to B+W within the past year so do not have the breadth of experience as others posting here. Previously when I had a darkroom most all I shot was Tri-X - loved it then and love it now. However, now I prefer TMY-2 for its great tonality and "lightness" versus the more "somber" Tri-X. Perhaps, this is an age thing or maybe it better suits my tastes at the moment.
I will also say that, I greatly prefer 400 ISO B+W films and shoot them exclusively right now (save the 3 rolls of Adox CHS 100 that I am trying out now. Postings here of this film show a really interesting look and feel.)
Nobody has mentiond Ilford XP2 Super. If you like fine grain, lots of detail and smooth tones it is worth a punt. Also benefits from a wide exposure latitude, and copes with contrasty scenes well (keeping highlight and shadow detail well). Pics from 35mm are so smooth they almost look like medium format.....
It is C41 process, though, which some may not like.