Maybe if you like a lot of grain, 35mm tabular-grain films will disappoint you. If you like the curve shape of 320 Tri-X, you'll have a hard time finding that in another film, tabular or not.
{snip}
That said, tabular-grain films are a bit less forgiving of sloppy exposure and processing that many of the more "conventional" products (even the newer, tweaked ones). Sloppy workers are going to have troubles with them by comparison and, since this group is often the most vocal and lazy, will bad-mouth the film and blame it rather than clean up their act.
I think this latter comprises the bulk of the vilification of tabular grain films.
{snip}
When I started shooting medium format my first 50 rolls were acros. I made some very wonderful images with it, but after that, I have only put 3ish rolls of t-grain film threw it. I have bounced all over, and all that been traditional grained films. I just like the look of them.
PS. Stone don't be a troll, and try to get every thread you talk in closed.
The latitude of the film is stupendous, and no other film can do what TX does.
This is hyperbole. Latitude is something that you can measure, and Tri-X does not have "stupendous" latitude. Tri-X does have better latitude than some films, but if you want latitude, TMAX has more. Tri-X does have nice grain, but the grain is very fine...if you want course grain, there are better films for that, and if you want fine grain, there are better films for that. I find that Tri-X is a rather ordinary film. A high-quality film, but not a film with any special qualities. So it's silly to say there's no other film that can do what Tri-X does because it's just not that special.
On the other hand, there really aren't any films that can do what TMAX400 does. Tri-X can be substituted with any number other films with similar qualities, but if you are using TMAX400 for the fine grain, high speed, good sharpness, extreme latitude, and low reciprocity failure that it provides, there's not anything else that really falls on the map in the same place. Delta400 is comparable but not quite as good, in my opinion.
TMAX400 is truely the "Have your cake and eat it too" film. If I had to standardize on a single film, it would have to be TMAX400. The combination of speed, grain, latitude, and sharpness make it the standout choice in everything from my Pen-F to 4x5. If I have one gripe, it's that it's slightly expensive and fixing it is really annoying.
TMAX 100 is also phenomenal but a little less special; I think that Delta 100 and Acros are fine substitutes for TMAX100 in most situations.
people just spew what they heard read or dreamt not what they experienced for themselves.
It's worse than that. Even when they "experience" it they have no idea what they are looking at, and draw preposterous conclusions based on nothing.
OK...so.... which is TMAX400 and which is FP4+? (EDIT: don't look at the file names... I forgot to make them blank...)
I'm not sure what you are trying to illustrate with your examples. It's hard to tell anything from the web, but if I didn't look at the file names, I would not be able to guess which image was shot with which film. The sample images you show look very similar to me. My interpretation is that TMY is just as sharp and fine-grained, and gives similar tonality to FP4+, while being 2 stops faster.
Nothing of value can really be illustrated with silly low resolution negative scans anyway. The excercise serves no purpose.
I love how I literally show examples and you say they are no good, (snip)
(snip)
So in answer to the original question, 'I do not know'.
It's mostly old dogs who don't like new things... Ignore them and find your own way
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?