In article <4f15ld$fio@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, sachse@msc.cornell.edu says...

>In the 1960's I was a pretty serious amateur photographer
>and my B&W films of choice were (shot with Nikon F and Nikkors):
> For really fine grain, crisp; moderate contrast
> 16X20 enlargements no problem; Made prints up to 50-70X
> (that's enlarging a 35 mm negative to 5 ft X 42 in wide size.)
> ===> Kodak Plus-X shot at ASA 160 developed in Agfa Rodinal.
> For tight grain, low-light applications;
> a great people-in-action film.
> ===> Kodak Tri-X shot at ASA 650, developed in D-76 (1:1)
>Now my question:
>I'm getting back into photography. What's out there that you
>would recommend I look at to get the same results that I loved
>30 years ago? I'm interested in people pix, landscapes and
>especially, Cornell Women Fencing!!!
>I've picked up a couple of rolls of Tri-X and developed it as
>before. And it looks quite good.
>But I wonder... What's all this Tmax stuff? Tmax-100; Tmax-400;
>Tmax-3200??? What about Ilford? Anything there to explore?

IM(NS)HO, T-Max is one of the biggest commercial scams foisted upon
us poor photographers. Kodak has tried to make us believe that
silver-poor films (which must be specially and VERY CAREFULLY
processed in order to overcome their disadvantages [low true speed,
with poor shadow detail] -- but that special processing negates the
potential advantages [finer grain and improved sharpness]!) are an
improvement over silver-rich films like Tri-X and Plus-X. While I
find T-Max 100 at its true speed of 40 in D-76 superb (when a common development failure doesn't destroy the useability of the negatives!),
in the faster film area, it is still hard to beat Plus-X at 100 in
D-76 and Tri-X at 400 in D-76 for reliability, fine grain and
sharpness, and excellent tonal characteristics (Tri-X at 800 in
Acufine is a good alternative when extra speed [with slightly
reduced quality] is needed). T-Max 400 can be useful in flash work,
and in some large-format work, since it has a very long linear
response curve (which is why it has blank shadow and highlight
rendering in most 35mm applications) - but reduced development
combined with additional exposure (which usually works to tame
a contrasty film) is a losing proposition with both TMY and TMZ.
TMZ may be useful to you, if you can accept its contrast, but its
true speed isn't much higher than that of Tri-X, so I have never
found it really worth the bother. High speeds (up to about 2500ASA)
can be achieved with TMZ if you are willing to accept low quality
negatives (enormous grain, poor sharpness, and rotten tonal quality).
BTW, I would avoid Rodinol where fine grain and nice tones are desired
(except with Agfa films). I found the Ilford Delta 400 to be a ringer
for Tri-X, so of limited use as an alternative. Some people like HP-5, but I can't get enthusiastic about it, either. I do like Fuji 400 (at 250, when excellent shadow detail is needed, or at 400 when a slightly inferior ringer for Tri-X is useful - at 250, Fuji has some uniquely wonderful shadow characteristics.
Hope This Helps