Kentmere Pan 200 VS Fomapan 200 Creative

mshchem said:

Sharp, but more noticeable grain. Grain on modern Kodak films isn't very easy to see. Even Tri-X, the current version is so much tamer than the old stuff.
For some reason the Kentmere 200 is jogging a memory of 1970's Kodak cubic grain films.

It's probably false memory syndrome, I'm just connecting with the Kentmere offering right now

Click to expand...

I don't think so. When I compare Tri-X negatives from 30 years ago to Tri-X today, they are very different films. It is most noticeable in 35mm. Modern Tri-X seems to straddle the distance between "classic" Tri-X and TMax 400. I think I read somewhere (unconfirmed, no citation) that modern Tri-X is a hybrid emulsion of both cubic and T-grain, which could explain it.

In any case, I've just printed some 8x10s from 400TX negs I shot a week or so ago. I don't recall the old Tri-X having this little grain or being this sharp. Scans of silver prints:

GOT A BUNCH OF OLD SCHOOL LEICA BRASS CASSETTES FROM A SHOP. THIS STUFF REMINDS ME OF THE FILMS THAT I USED AS A KID. ALL I'VE SHOT UP TILL NOW IS 120.