Nope, I shoot mostly LF and they all look pretty good and virtually the same with respect to grain or lack thereof. I have been using both Tmax 100 and Tmax 400 for years now 35,MF, and LF because it took me a long time to figure them out and I can consistantly get what I want out of the them. I do not assume they are the same or better as other BW films. With regards to color neg, I keep changing because they keep getting deleted. I hate that. Currently I have been using Portra 160NC but not because I think it is the best for everything but because I am familiar with it at the moment. JCO
-----Original Message----- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:14 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 ?? > faster films with same quality as older slower ones are not > something > new > and not something just hypothetical. > And when you get a faster film with same or better > quality as old slow one it isnt a "six of one/half dozen of other" > situation. The faster speed is going to be huge > advantage the vast majority of the time while the old slower one > will be an advantage very seldom IMHO. I think we can safely assume that you have absolutely no sense of esthetic when it comes to determining which film to use. To me, it appears that you base your film choice purely on granularity RMS, and all other considerations are subsumed by that parameter. William Robb
