Tri-X vs. Neopan 400

Funny. Neopan and TX ARE different, but there shouldn't be a difference in grain.

At least, directly.

Neopan has a shoulder which lowers contrast in the bright highlights, while TX has a much longer straight line.

Each is designed for a specific purposes. If you were to match the curves carefully by exposure and development, I'd bet a nickel they would be the same (because in my darkroom, they are indistinguishable !)...

And they both load on Hewes reel slick as you could hope for.

df cardwell said:

Funny. Neopan and TX ARE different, but there shouldn't be a difference in grain.

At least, directly.

Neopan has a shoulder which lowers contrast in the bright highlights, while TX has a much longer straight line.

Each is designed for a specific purposes. If you were to match the curves carefully by exposure and development, I'd bet a nickel they would be the same (because in my darkroom, they are indistinguishable !)...

And they both load on Hewes reel slick as you could hope for.

Click to expand...

Thats odd, because I have been using the two side by side for about four years and in various developers and to my eyes the Neopan is significantly finer grained and also resolves much higher. Its not a small difference. Neopan is much closer to Delta 400 in resolution than TriX is to Neopan. Shoot a scene with fine detail and the difference is glaring so much so that when I go back to TriX after Neopan 400, I am quite surprised at how much less the TriX resolves, esp in 35mm. This is not to criticise TriX - its a great film - but they are to my eyes quite different. In 120, Neopan 400 Xtol 1+1 prints at 20x16 have granularity not too far off Fp4+.

It is odd and typical that several people can test the same materials and come up with as many different results. I just ran a Fuji 400 test today in stock Xtol and it showed much more grain than my recent test with Tri-X. I am testing 400 films because I have not made a habit of using them but I am going on a trip where I want to shoot 120 handheld. So far my test shows Tri-x almost as fine grained as TMY and much finer than HP5 and Fuji 400 in between.
Dennis

I also prefer Neopan 400 to Tri-X. I found it finnicky at box speed, but developed in Rodinal 1:50 it just seems to have the edge. I think it is not nescessarily less grainy, just that the grain is more regular in quality.

I use a lot of Neopan 400, and love it. I use Tri-X when I have a change of moods, and love it as well. Both are great films. I wouldn't worry about the differences between them too much. Neopan is my go to daylight 400, while Tri-X is my push film for night time or low light.

Tom Stanworth said:

Neopan is much closer to Delta 400 in resolution than TriX is to Neopan.

Click to expand...

Might be time for me to revisit Neopan, then, except I'm too happy with TMY2.

It's good things change for the better !

Andrew Moxom said:

I agree that Tri-X is grainier than Neopan-400. Sharpness/Acutance wise, they are comparable though. I've found that Neopan does require additional exposure in the shadows more than Tri-X. Both are great emulsions though. In the long run, they are pretty close in performance with Tri-X having a bit more speed and hence a bit more grain as a result. ....
Neopan really sings in Xtol developer and the minor shortcoming of a slight lack of shadow detail can be overcome with a little overexposure and development in Xtol either stock or 1:1 one shot....

Click to expand...

This is my experience also. I've shot many gigs in available light and Neopan and TriX in the same lighting conditions and Tri-X is clearly superior in terms of critical shadow detail when bumping up against maximum aperture at acceptable shutter speeds. It also has less latitude when overexposing as stage lights go up an down. The Neopan highlights blow faster. Neopan is more like a 250 ISO film in comparison. Rule of thumb for me with Neopan is overexpose and underdevelop but I'm still sold on TriX for most of what I like to shoot.

I agree that TriX pushes better and that Neopan handles somewhere between a traditional film and a 'new tech' one. I find that I get comparable speed with both films when developed to the same approx overall contrast. Neopan negs can look a lot higher in contrast than they really are due to the relatively clear base compared to TriX/HP5+ for what IO want to achieve. HP5+ has its look, but it includes the least regular and smooth grain of the lot. I like them all to be honest, but find Neopan 400 the best average of propertie - for me it is the film for (almost) all reasons! I always make sure I keep my eye in with TriX, just as I keep my eye in with both D100, FP4+ and Foma 100, so I can ride out any loss of supply. I got caught twice with Agfa folding then the Ilford wobble. not going to let than happen again!

I would not use Neopan for an old school look. Its just too well behaved. TriX/HP5 are better for that IMHO. Then there is rodinal....

As a result of this discussion I shot a subject in controlled light using both films at an EI of 250. Tripod, mirrror lockup, same camera and exposure settings. Developed in XTOL 1:1, 20c, 9 min for 135 Tri-X and 9:45 for 135 Neopan. The Neopan had more shadow detail. About a 1/3 to 1/2 stop faster. However, the highlights for the Neopan were about one stop denser. Caucasian skin tones went up the scale just a tad and will print lighter. Under a loup the Tri-X negative looks like it has a tad more skin tone separation than Neo.

I can see how you could blow highlights with Neo. But the film has more shadow detail vs Tri-X at EI 250 in XTOL. One can play with the development time to lower highlights.

Everyone says the film is sharper. I'm sure it is but have not printed yet. I like NEOs clear/grey base tint; it reminds me of how Tri-X looked 40 years ago.

I think I will buy more Neo for available light work.

Neopan 400
Nikon 28-105 glass. Straight scans from negs. No post processing.

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

Wow, an old thread zombified. Still, it reminds me I have 60 or so boxes of Neopan 400 in the freezer.

Same here, but only a few roles that I occasionally dip into. For my purposes going forward I have replaced neopan 400 with Delta 400 in DD-X. One comment on neopan 400 grain, unlike Tri-X it seems to react more to poor development. I have some rolls overdeveloped by a lab that are the grainiest 35mm I have shot, Tri-X though seems to vary very little IMHO you have really screw up big time to end up with bad negs.

Geeze -- here I was hoping for a resurrection!

I bought a couple of 120 rolls to try, probably around when this thread started. Took a while to get to it, but shot one roll in my Perkeo II folder and liked what I saw. Seemed as though the negatives were barely dry when its discontinuance was announced. So me being me, I said "no point in learning all about something that won't be available" and moved on.

yes -- i got very good results with Neopan 400 in 120 -- tried my 'Home-Made FX15 formula 1+1' but now all gone !