Why is there a need to get 'the exact same look' as Neopan 400? Hey, I loved it too, but I have fantastic images off so many films as to realise that while you might get used to a look, its not a biggie to adjust to something a little different.
After the Ilford wobble some years back I decided to test and become confident with at least three films in each speed (for 400): D400, HP5+, TriX (TXT) and Neopan 400. Once I had exposure and development sorted out, I went to India for a significant trip and shot twenty rolls each of the first three. All produced images that made the final cut and although some seemed to excel for certain subjects, I realised I could shoot any without too much bother. I took these three as an experiment and to prove this point, but since have shot Neopan 400 as my staple. I also realised that you cant take four films and tailor them to the scenes they excel at and there is no point. Nobody looks at a great shot and wonders how it would be a fraction 'better' on another film i.e. our appreciation of a print is not usually a relative thing - there is no comparison and so you dont know what you are missing.
PS Most of the images we admire so greatly were almost certainly NOT shot on Neopan 400, but TriX, HP5+, FP4+, and dozens of oldie emulsions, so it cant be that bad to face using some of these classics instead!
