no Kodak didn't state the grain was too similar, they stated the overall performance of the film was too similar. You are being very arrogant when you think you know more than the professional engineers at Kodak. I am not saying Kodak is god or anything or that big companies don't make mistakes (remember the "new" coke?) but for you to say the engineers at kodak are so blind or are only looking at one film parameter is absurd. Why do you think TRI-X still exists?, with your so called theory they would have dumped it years ago in favor of TMAX1600 (or is it 800?).
JCO -----Original Message----- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 6:50 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 ?? >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. You are basing your entire premise on this alleged information from Kodak, with no proof whatsoever. There are a lot of photographers, myself included, who lament the demise of Panatomic, simply because T-Max is not a replacement film. It has a different grain structure, colour response and exposure slope. Apparently, T-Max 100 has a similar granularity RMS, which Kodak (and apparently you as well) think is all that is important when choosing a film. > > 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. >From the recent past: ------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: The meaning of f > Just think of how much more money you > could have made if you actually had a frickin' clue? > Good pros & hobbists test their new equipment before using > it for an assignment/project, a simple concept you cant seem to grasp. -------------------------- We'll keep this in mind when we are doing it ourselves? Or is it just others who have to mind their manners? William Robb
