Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The best way would be to show you prints in hand, and then walk through the differences. But overall, it's Neopan's ability to translate the midrange, and/or specular highlights, the most faithfully to the print. S. Dimitrov > From: Feli di Giorgio <feli@creocollective.com> > Organization: Creo > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: 15 Sep 2004 16:23:33 -0700 > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Tri-X on the cheap > > On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 16:06, Slobodan Dimitrov wrote: >> I'm sure many still feel Tri-X is the cat's meow. >> This past week I had to print material from as far back as twenty+ years, >> ranging from Ilford, Kodak, to Freestyle house brand, along with Neopan. >> It just reinforced how much I liked the look of a print from a Neopan neg. >> On the other hand, Neopan in 120 is about as atrocious as the Freestyle >> brand. 120 Acros is fine, but impossible to get handily, making T-max the >> best bet. >> S. Dimitrov > > What differences are you seeing between Neopan and Tri-X? > I have read that the grain is a little finer and it has a little more > shadow detail, but the highlights are more linear. > > I'm very curious. I love Tri-X, but sometimes wish for a traditional style > 400 film with finer grain. > > Feli > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information