Fuji Neopan 400 vs Tri-X Grain Questions

[gone]

There's a thread on here about Fuji 400 being on sale for a good price. I've never used it, and Tri-X does everything I want it to do, but for one instance. Often I like to shoot birds in flight when I run upon them, and if I don't nail the exposure (there often isn't a lot of time to get the shot) I get too much grain for this sort of thing. It's a fun challenge w/ a manual focus 90mm lens. You have to be pretty close, and they move pretty fast.

People mention that the grain is a lot tighter on the Neopan compared to Tri-X, but it still gives a similar look. Would the Neopan be a better film for this, or is it less flexible than Tri-X if I don't get the exposure perfect? I also usually use D76 or TD-16 for developer, and I understand that Neopan works better w/ Rodinal or Xtol? Rodinal is gonna give me grain no matter what, but maybe it's tenancy to give it to every object in the frame will unify the composition.

The photo below illustrates the problems I'm often having. I like the grain, but because it isn't present in da boid, it takes your eye away from the main element. The whitest and darkest points are on top of the bird's head, which is where your eye should go, and people will normally look at a face before looking at anything else, but my eye goes right past the bird to look at all that grain in the clouds. There's a hundred ways I could fix the composition, but in my mind the grain is the problem, especially set against a bird that doesn't have any. Anyway, that's what I'd like. Tri-X tonality w/ less grain for this type of shot.

 

[darkosaric]

I see your "problem" as a plus (beautiful grain on this picture you attached), but that is just me .
Neopan 400 and Tmax 400 will definitely give you smaller grain.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I really don't know why many people like Tri-X or prefer it, maybe it is the best for push pull, but if i shoot at box speed and compare it to another films at same box speed then Tri-X is not longer my favorite, and yes, the grain is something annoying me on that film more than other films grain, in fact the best ISO400 film i like to use always is TMAX400 then followed by HP5+, Wish if that Neopan 400 is in production [120/220], i have 1 or 2 of that film and didn't test it and sure i will like it.

Well, in your shot, if you don't like to workflow digitally then you should accept it as it is, just try with different processing if you don't want to change the film, you may get better result negs and less pronounced grain.

 

[gone]

I never shoot it at box speed, since that isn't it's true speed anyway. I shoot it from 100 to 250. Love it. Just too grainy for this particular usage. I don't mind grain and would NEVER shoot or print digitally, especially with B&W (yuck), but am just looking for what I described. For us Tri-X shooters, Tmax is the devil's child :}

There is no better processing that Tri-X in D76. That's not the issue, but thanks anyway.

Thank you darkosaric. My order is on it's way. Have no idea what to develop it in, but I have D76, Rodinal and Acufine (which is a tight grain developer) so some of this ought to work w/ the Neopan.

 

[Bill Harrison]

grain

If you don't like grain, shoot slower film like fuji acros, ilford delta 100, fp4 with stand developing in rodinal or another dev you get good results with after testing. See Iridescent Light by Michael Axel or if you don't want to buy the book(from blurb), check out Jay DeFehr's site…. gsd-10.blogspot.com. By the way, I find fuji Neopan not at all like Tri-x, more contrast and 'bite' …. There's always Microdol X with trix to tame the grain. I suggest buy the book, it will open your eyes, so to speak…..

 

[whlogan]

Or you could shoot TriX at 800 or 1600 and develop it in PyrocatHd for 7 min or 10min and see how the grain looks there. I think you might be surprised.

Logan

 

[Mark Crabtree]

The Fuji always gives me slightly more noticeable, but crisper, grain than Tri-X. I always use Xtol, so don't know if the developer could account for why my experience with this is different from others or not. Slightly sharper than TX, but I still like the TX better overall. The grain from TX is very fine now, at least in Xtol.

 

[NB23]

If you don't like grain, shoot slower film like fuji acros, ilford delta 100, fp4 with stand developing in rodinal or another dev you get good results with after testing. See Iridescent Light by Michael Axel or if you don't want to buy the book(from blurb), check out Jay DeFehr's site…. gsd-10.blogspot.com. By the way, I find fuji Neopan not at all like Tri-x, more contrast and 'bite' …. There's always Microdol X with trix to tame the grain. I suggest buy the book, it will open your eyes, so to speak…..

Please don't misinform people with false infos.

No, stand development doesn't minimize grain. How did you come up with this nonsense?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Fuji Neopan has always given me finer grain than Tri-X, but maybe also sharper grain. In all it doesn't matter much.

If you think Tri-X is too grainy then Neo 400 is going to be too grainy too.

I suggest shooting TMax 400 which has grain finer than FP4+ / Plus-X and is sharper too. Best of both worlds, and TMax has a really organic look when printed that is really hard to beat.

 

[GarageBoy]

Why IS there such an adverse reaction to TMAX? Tri x is too grainy but tmax is too digital? (Whatever that means)

 

[Bill Harrison]

grain

NB23, You are correct. Stand dev with Tri-x would be (and is ) a train wreck. I did not say nor do I recommend it…. I said using Acros et al, might be an answer in stand dev, to using a faster speed film. Before you publicly scold someone on line, read your post and the post of the soon to be berated postee, so you don't make a fool of yourself, and cause others to be gun shy about trying to be helpful to others. By the way, I started compounding my first developers from scratch and was tray dev 4x5 in 1954, how long have you been practicing? Please re-read my post, then buy the book and read further, it will open your eyes too…. Your APUG partner-in-analog, Bill

 

[NB23]

Stand development and quality development are incompatible, in 54 or in 14.
Just the other day i was battling a stand developed negative while printing: bad grain structure. Super flat contrast. Nothing to dodge or burn. A briliant image trapped in a bad negative.

I agree with you: for smaller grain one has to use more modern or slower films.

 

[wblynch]

As much as I love Plus-X, I have found that I just don't get on well with Tri-X at all. I just get mud.

But Neopan 400 gives me the tones and contrast that I like. I have come to really love it.

I run my Neopan 400 in HC-110 dilution B. But most recently used dilution H (1+63) and was very happy. I will stick with H for now.

 

[BetterSense]

One word: TMY.

Do not reject the greatest gift that the Great Yellow Father has given the world.

 

[StoneNYC]

What does this even matter anymore... Neopan400 is discontinued... Once you're out, you'll have to use Tri-X for grain (or switch to HP5+) so Neopan isn't really a long term option.

However, Neopan grain was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen... Sad...

 

[Xmas]

What does this even matter anymore... Neopan400 is discontinued... Once you're out, you'll have to use Tri-X for grain (or switch to HP5+) so Neopan isn't really a long term option.

However, Neopan grain was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen... Sad...

Or eg formapan 400…
or tabular eg D3200…
but sad

 

[RalphLambrecht]

That was my first thought too.Have you tried Tmax 400,which works well in D762+1by the way;tons of tonality and very little grain;almost too little,because some people like B&Wwith a bit of bite to it.

 

[mauro35]

I use Tri-X a lot and I often develop it in Rodinal. I do not see that grain as a problem at all, but actually as a beautiful feature of this film and one of the main reason I use it. Of course, this is entirely personal opinion. If I wanted to have less grain I would use a slower film, like T-Max 100 or Fuji Acros 100 and if I needed more speed I would have to use T-Max 400 or Ilford HP-5, although I don´t really like either of them. Is there a specific reason why some people avoid T-Max? I guess there are plenty of reasons, and none of them is objective and universally accepted.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I use Tri-X a lot and I often develop it in Rodinal. I do not see that grain as a problem at all, but actually as a beautiful feature of this film and one of the main reason I use it. Of course, this is entirely personal opinion. If I wanted to have less grain I would use a slower film, like T-Max 100 or Fuji Acros 100 and if I needed more speed I would have to use T-Max 400 or Ilford HP-5, although I don´t really like either of them. Is there a specific reason why some people avoid T-Max? I guess there are plenty of reasons, and none of them is objective and universally accepted.

I have put prints of small size from 120 and 35mm Tri-X and TMax 400 in front of other photographers who are avid darkroom printers. They are confused by which is TMax 400 and which is Tri-X when they can't see the grain.

My personal opinion is that the choice of film matters so little when there is so much you can do with either of those films. There are differences, sure, but are they ones you really want to focus on?

Stone has a good point. Neo 400 is discontinued, and ADORAMA is selling it inexpensively because they want to get rid of their remaining stock.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Neopan is great but it's running out. It's not terribly sharp either, best for slightly dreamy photos.

If you want sharp B&W photos of birds then TMAX is the best option.

 

[StoneNYC]

Neopan is great but it's running out. It's not terribly sharp either, best for slightly dreamy photos.

If you want sharp B&W photos of birds then TMAX is the best option.

This talking about Neopan400 is killing me... It's the best... I don't have enough room to store more and no money to buy more (and really mostly shoot 120 for the type of images I enjoy from Neopan400 so buying the 35mm would last a while and not make me as happy, so it's HP5+ for me now...

 

[Mark_S]

I used to shoot a lot of TRI-X, and loved it because it has a very long toe, which allows you to bring out detail in shadow areas that is lost on many other films. I shoot large format, so grain doesn't enter into it for me. I liked Plus-X for it's corresponding soft shoulder - allows you to retain detail in what would otherwise be blown out highlights. When Kodak discontinued Plus-X (in 4x5), I ended up switching to HP5+ which I use for all occaisions, and it works for me - it doesn't do as good as plus-X in the shadows, so I give it an extra stop of exposure and try to protect the highlights when I process the film.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Depending on exposure, lighting and development technique I've gotten Neopan 400 to look like Delta 3200 and Tri-X to look almost like Tmax 400, and vice-a-versa. Unless you go to the extremes and blow up largely the nuanced differences are not that much. My point being your technique and development will potentially influence the look more so than the two films would consistently side by side. If you can get a load of Neopan 400 play with it and you might find less obtrusive grain than you do Tri-X, maybe not, because only you can decide what the subjective factor would be. Otherwise perhaps work with the Tri-X and be sure your birds are not underexposed against brighter backgrounds causing a more grainy look than you like, or work with Tmax and see if it might work for you.