In article <441eia$jnq@d2.tufts.edu>, jrozes@gumbo.tcs.tufts.edu says...
>In article <43ukc0$ifi@chnews.ch.intel.com>,
> dnelson@sedona.intel.com (Donald Nelson -FT-~) writes:
>>In article <43siaq$65r@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Bob Neuman) writes:
(...)
>>Personally, I've found that Plus-X makes a poor landscape film. Consider
>>TMAX100, TMAX400 and/or TriX as alternatives. (You may decide that
>>you like the tonality of Plus-X though).

Hey, be careful of attributions, already, huh? It may get complicated
keeping them straight, but you have attributed to me the opposite to what I said (and would have said). So, to correct things: I suggested Plus-X as a good landscape film (which it is); as a film that would not be troublesome to a beginner (as T-MAX anything would be, let alone Tech Pan); and as a film that would provide high technical quality for landscapes (as Tri-X and Fuji Neopan 400 would not, much as I like them for people work).
So, there, already!
Hope this helps.