Fuji Neopan 400: In the same league as Tri-X or HP5?
Moderator: Keith Tapscott.
Fuji Neopan 400: In the same league as Tri-X or HP5?
It's a buck a roll cheaper than Tri-X or HP5 at $2.69 at B&H. I know film quality can vary, so I wonder if anyone's got any experience with this film.
-
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:33 pm
Yes, it's good stuff. I shoot quite a bit of it and I've never had a QC problem with it, but neither have I had a problem with Kodak or Ilford.
When you buy one of these three films it's like buying chocolate ice cream. You've got Breyers, you've got Ben & Jerry's. Both are great, both might be a little different, but both are chocolate ice cream.
When you buy one of these three films it's like buying chocolate ice cream. You've got Breyers, you've got Ben & Jerry's. Both are great, both might be a little different, but both are chocolate ice cream.
Re: Fuji Neopan 400: In the same league as Tri-X or HP5?
I like it better than either Tri-X or HP5 Plus. Better tonal quality, slightly finer grain too.kcf wrote:It's a buck a roll cheaper than Tri-X or HP5 at $2.69 at B&H. I know film quality can vary, so I wonder if anyone's got any experience with this film.
-
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
- Location: Plymouth, England.
All of those films will produce good results, but whether you like one more than the others will come down to your own personal preference. There are two types of Tri-X in 120 size rolls just to add confusion, the regular 400TX and another which is 320TXP, although I have not tried the latter. The new T-MAX 400 (TMY-2) is second to none in this speed group for fine-grain, sharpness and resolution, although the one with the highest resolution isn`t necessarily the one which you will find the most aesthetically pleasing.
Personally, I like HP5 Plus for general use and TMY-2 for studio portraits but wouldn`t argue one way or the other as to which of any of these films is the absolute best, as only you can decide that.
Personally, I like HP5 Plus for general use and TMY-2 for studio portraits but wouldn`t argue one way or the other as to which of any of these films is the absolute best, as only you can decide that.
Last edited by Keith Tapscott. on Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
- Location: Peoria, Illinois
neopan 400
I also have used Neopan 400 for several years, both 120 and 35mm. I don't find it a particularly "exciting" film to use, but as you say, it is a buck or so cheaper. I also find it to be a fine grain film in most developers, not overly responsive to more than a one-stop push.
All in all, just there, and less expensive.
Jim
All in all, just there, and less expensive.
Jim
-
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
- Location: Plymouth, England.
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:43 am