Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/15

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Tri-X on the cheap
From: s.dimitrov at (Slobodan Dimitrov)
Date: Wed Sep 15 16:20:56 2004

The best way would be to show you prints in hand, and then walk through the
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 <>
> Organization: Creo
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <>
> Date: 15 Sep 2004 16:23:33 -0700
> To: Leica Users Group <>
> 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 for more information

In reply to: Message from feli at (Feli di Giorgio) ([Leica] Re: Tri-X on the cheap)