Neopan 400 alternative

I would think it has everything to do with why a particular film looks he way it does. It also makes a difference to someone trying to replace a discontinued film with another to try and attain a desired result.

For one, T-grain/modern grain films have a much better reciprocity failure factor than the older emulsion. That's why if you look up reciprocity factors for Tmax or delta or Neopan 100 acros, they are much lower, barely any for some, when compared to reciprocity factors for Tri-x and etc.

Secondly, which is much more subjective, in general, I find I like the images from Tri-x, neopan, etc. much more than Tmax or Delta. Neopan 100 Acros is the only exception. I know there are many other factors involved, but, as far as I have read, I am not alone in having this impression. This is not provable, it's just a feel.

Therefore, various films have their own feel, and much of it has to do with their emulsion type. If that's not true, why do we bother to have so many different types/brands of film, chemicals, paper, etc. People do like to stick to what they know, but that only goes so far, I don't think it's enough to build an entire industry around.

wblynch said:

I would think it has everything to do with why a particular film looks he way it does. It also makes a difference to someone trying to replace a discontinued film with another to try and attain a desired result.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.

OK. So if I make a print from TMax film, or Acros you'd be able to tell that it was fabricated grain film?
I sincerely doubt it, but you should use what makes you happy, whether that is real or perceived. I can't knock you for that.

I agree about reciprocity, but in this case reciprocity characteristics are better, so that's good.

I should also add that I find no need to use more than one film and one developer, because the various results I'm able to get by changing technique in exposure and processing is enough variety to give many different types of results. I feel it changes the character of the prints more than switching developer or film. But I have really dug into how that film and that particular developer works, pushed the limits, exceeded the limits, just to learn how far I can go with it. Can't say I ever wish I had one more film to use.
(I confess I use one type of film for 120 and another for 35mm, but mostly because I can buy the 35mm film inexpensively. Or else they would both be the same).

- Thomas

mouren said:

For one, T-grain/modern grain films have a much better reciprocity failure factor than the older emulsion. That's why if you look up reciprocity factors for Tmax or delta or Neopan 100 acros, they are much lower, barely any for some, when compared to reciprocity factors for Tri-x and etc.

Secondly, which is much more subjective, in general, I find I like the images from Tri-x, neopan, etc. much more than Tmax or Delta. Neopan 100 Acros is the only exception. I know there are many other factors involved, but, as far as I have read, I am not alone in having this impression. This is not provable, it's just a feel.

Therefore, various films have their own feel, and much of it has to do with their emulsion type. If that's not true, why do we bother to have so many different types/brands of film, chemicals, paper, etc. People do like to stick to what they know, but that only goes so far, I don't think it's enough to build an entire industry around.

Click to expand...

Neopan 400. Nikon 28-105 glass.

https://flickr.com/photos/38463255@N00/sets/72157694068317960

Neopan 400

FOMA/Arista EDU 400 hasn't been mentioned--grainy, but w/a unique look.