Pentaxuser - Ha...just had an e-mail about the updates to this, yes, 4 year old thread! As I think you know, since then I've moved on a lot and even gone to medium format and the amazing world of Hasselblad.I hadn't realised this was a 4 year old thread. So Ted are you still of the opinion that the chromogenic Neopan produces better prints than Ilford FP4+ now that you have had 4 years to consider and evaluate or was it just down to the lab being less able to handle FP4 negs and possibly using RA4 paper?
Reading back through it, I feel like a bit an idiot now! Back then, I'd only just started to use B&W films and was expermienting and it turned out that my lab just did a better job with the Neopan than they did the FP4, not helped by the batch of FP4 not being an especially dense set of negatives due to how I'd exposed it - I'd not even grasped the zone system and "expose for the shadows, print for highlights" ideas. Since then, I've used several Ilford B&W films with great success, and in addition I now send all of my 35mm to Harman Tech! I've had some amazing sets of prints produced by them, and they're very helpful too (the times I've had to call them). So, the stuff I said 4 years ago - I take it all back (though I do feel Neopan 400NC is a great film). The problems I had with the FP4 was just me and how I'd exposed the shots. In fact, I've just bought a load of Ilford Pan F 50+ (35mm for my Nikon F5 and 120mm for my Hasselblad) and will be shooting it over Christmas and I'll be sending that to the Harman lab too. Though I'm not sure if they dev 120?
All of the above said, I do still rate the Neopan film and Fuji's films generally. To date, my favourite B&W films are still Fuji Acros 100 and Fuji Neopan 400. I've bought the batch of PanF 50+ because I've read and heard about its smooth silky results with the unusual contrasty punch. That might become my Acros successor if I get good results with it. Who knows.