I never said TMAX400 was exact same as PLUSX, I said kodak claimed it was too similar and the tmax 400 had the advantage of three times the speed. I also stated that they were NOT doing the same thing with tri-x which implies that in their opinion there is nothing similar in their lineup to replace it with. BTW, they discontined panatomic-X years ago after the release of TMAX 100 and if I am not mistaken they claimed the same thing, tmax100 same or better performance as pantomic-x but 3 time the speed.
I don't really think you need to throw in the "ego" comments. Stick to the issues, tossing personal insults adds nothing to the discussion. JCO -----Original Message----- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 3:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: B&W developers and Tri-x ?? ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: B&W developers and Tri-x ?? > If you recall this discussion started because Kodak recently > claimed > that > their newer technology film TMAX 400, offered same image quality at > 3 > times the speed > as their old one PLUS-X. SAME QUALITY, but faster speed. That is > not a > hypothetical, > that is the real world situation that has occurred over and over > again > for decades > as film/processing technology improved both color and BW. The discussion started because you tossed this particular straw man into the ring, and now your ego won't let you back down. The problem with this is that you are basing your arguement on something that is just not true. T-Max does NOT offer the same image quality as Plus-X. It's charachteristic curve is different, the grain structure is different and its colour respnse is different. About the only thing you can say is the same (perhaps) is that the granularity RMS of T-Max is similar. That is one parameter out of 4 that is similar, but not identical. In my world, this isn't even a close match, much less "the same image quality". William Robb
