Fuji Neopan 400 vs Tri-X Grain Questions

Reach for the sky

H
Reach for the sky

  • 0
  • 0
  • 2
Agawa Canyon

A
Agawa Canyon

  • 2
  • 2
  • 58
Spin-in-in-in

D
Spin-in-in-in

  • 0
  • 0
  • 42
Frank Dean,  Blacksmith

A
Frank Dean, Blacksmith

  • 13
  • 8
  • 238

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,862
Messages
2,782,091
Members
99,733
Latest member
dlevans59
Recent bookmarks
0

gone

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
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.

smallframe 18.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TareqPhoto

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
1,171
Location
Ajman - UAE
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
OP
OP

gone

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bill Harrison

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
138
Location
Shokan, NY
Format
35mm
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

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
548
Location
Hendersonvil
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
782
Format
Large Format
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

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
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?
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GarageBoy

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
992
Format
35mm
Why IS there such an adverse reaction to TMAX? Tri x is too grainy but tmax is too digital? (Whatever that means)
 

Bill Harrison

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
138
Location
Shokan, NY
Format
35mm
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

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
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

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
1,697
Location
Mission Viejo
Format
127 Format
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

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
3,151
Location
North Caroli
Format
35mm
One word: TMY.

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

StoneNYC

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format
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

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
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
 

mauro35

Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
219
Location
Finland
Format
35mm
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.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
495
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
563
Location
Portland, OR
Format
4x5 Format
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.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2003
Messages
4,924
Location
San Francisco
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom