[Leica] Film snobs and Tri-X

[pklein at 2alpha.net (Peter Klein)]

Could someone describe in a nutshell the difference between Tri-X and 
Neopan 400?  I've heard that Neopan has a bit finer grain.  But what about 
tonal rendition, shadow vs. highlight detail, contrast, etc.?

I love Neopan 1600 when it's really dark.  But I've always gravitated to 
Tri-X for the normal available light stuff.  I've tried Neopan 400 a couple 
of times, but not enough to really understand the differences.  And the 
Neopan 400 was developed in D76 1:1, whereas my Tri-X is usually done in 
Xtol, so I was comparing apples and oranges.

(and then of course there's T400CN and its successors, which are another 
can of worms entirely.  Great for convenience, a beautiful long-scale tonal 
range, and very little grain when the shadows are not too dark.  But it 
gets scratched if you so much as look at it harshly, and deep shadows are 
mud and grain unless you rate it at 250 or 200. )

--Peter
Seattle, WA

At 02:08 PM 8/2/04 -0700, Slobodan wrote:
>You can call me a snob also, but I prefer T-max for 120 and Neopan for 35mm.
>S. Dimitrov