Comparing BW Film for Scanning: TX/HP5/Neopan 400

Hey All -

 

Sorry if this topic has been hashed through before; a search didn't bring up

good results for me. And I realize there are many, many parameters here.

 

I am scanning with a Nikon V scanner. My film is processed by a lab (Duggal in

NYC) using Xtol (yes, I know I should soup my own!).

 

I use Vuescan software.

 

I am getting quite decent results with Neopan 400, HP5 and TX, mostly all shot

at 400. Initially, I find that differences seem to be driven by exposure

conditions, not by the film, though TX seems very consistently good and flexible.

 

I suspect I need to keep playing around before I am able to converge on ONE

film. There is really no reason I can't keep using all 3 films, but I prefer to

limit all my technical choices so that I can concentrate on exposure, focus and

composition (granted this might stike some as unecessarily severe).

 

So it would be interesting and I think useful to hear what others' experience

with these films and this scanner might be?

 

Many thanks for any feedback.

 

Regards,

-Mark Brennan

Using V, I can't make your comparison because I only use Neopan 400 and Acros, Rodinal 1:50 mostly... though I've been happiest with some Ilford Delta 400 that I had processed in a huge minilab in a Paris RER station...I don't know what chem they used, grrrr. I'm going to explore Rodinal stand/still development 1:100 with both, rating Neopan 400 at 200, 400, and 800 (up till now I've usually pushed fast films).

5-6 years ago I shot enough of all three (35mm & 120) to learn that I could be happy with any one of them when used consistently. I settled on Neopan 400 because it was just a little bit cheaper. I've been happy with that decision.

 

Occasionally Neopan 400 has been unavailable so I've bought a brick or two of HP5. It seems to handle exactly the same to me. Haven't used any TriX lately as it's become too expensive comparatively.

 

FWIW, I scan with a Minolta MultiPro.

 

Mark: just pick one. any one. Buy a few bricks and you'll learn to love your initial decision.

I think Bob's right...and development's more important than film.

Hey, thanks, guys for the feedback.

 

John, thanks also for all your other contributions to this forum. I think it was mostly due to

your postings that I decided on the Nikon V/Vuescan combo, and it's worked great for me.

 

I guess things could be worse and I could be getting crappy results. Instead. all 3 films are

scanning well for me. I still have some of each, but will then try to pick one.

 

Thanks again. -Mark

 

P.S. - here's a TX scan.<div></div>

i've tried neopan 400, hp5+, tri-x and delta 100 - all dev'd with Acculux 2 and scanned with a Minolta Scan Dual. The best scans in terms of grain / pixelation i find are from neopan and delta. hp5 is also ok, but my scanner emphasizes the grain much more than is visible when i print hp5+ traditionally. i just tried my first roll of tx and the scans from it are, comparatively, quite bad. tones seem very compressed and the grain has come out horribly in mid-grey areas. bear in mind though that it is the first time i've used tx, so that's prob more of a factor than anything else.

Grain is adjustable with Vuescan...somehow you can reduce grain without losing grain-sharpness. I usually scan fast films with "slight grain reduction" selected.

 

Mark, I like your black and white readers :-)

Thanks, John.