In article <31167482.7DE1@media.mit.edu>, rsilvers@media.mit.edu says...
(about Bob Neuman post that was less than enthusiastic about T-Max)
>Interesting post. Perhaps TMAX was just a scam to save money on silver
>and they were able to do it by stressing fine grain over anything else.
---That's what I think.
>I just bought one of each B&W film to test them (including Agfa).
>Have you tried TMAX 3200 at its true ISO speed of 1000? Or at the best
>EI of 800? I love it for high speed. (...)
---I do not find it normal, at least in D-76, though it is pleasant.
---It looks good at 800 or so, but so does Tri-X at 800 in Acufine -
---and it's cheaper and easier to use. In Acufine, its response curve
---at 800 is normal - the price is in slightly worse grain, sharpness.
>I think I want to settle on TRI-X or HP5+ for a 300ish film and maybe
>FP-4 for a 100ish film. I have never really liked Plus-X. There is
>something about it that looks weak. I have never proven this though.
---Tri-X below 400 is too flat for me. I find Tri-X a true 400 in D-76.
---Plus-X looks great at 100 with D-76 pulled some from normal (I use ---D-76 1:1 for almost all developing - it is hard to beat it.).
---FP-4 seems a bit contrasty for my taste. Gamma is not just
---controlled by development - some films have inherently poor shadow ---end: TMY, TMZ, FP-4 are some - changing dev. doesn't change the ---shadow end much.
>How can Delta 400 be a ringer for TRI-X? It is supposed to be a
>new-fangled film. Don't you mean HP5+?
---No - It sure looked the same to me.
---Hope This Helps