I have never had good success with the more modern films. I shoot mostly landscapes, and tended to use Plus-X in the winter - because of it's soft shoulder and ability to hold detail in highlights, which you get a lot of in the snow - and I used TRI-X in the summer, because I had better luck holding detail in the shadow areas which you get more of in the summer time. Then two things happened in relatively rapid succession - Kodak changed the formulation of Tri-X, requiring that I do retesting of the film, and they discontinued Plus-X (I shoot sheet film). As a result of this I shifted all of my shooting to HP5, which I am becoming more and more comfortable with. I still have not found a good substitute for Plus-X. For me the decision to switch was largely motivated by my belief that Harman/Ilford have a greater commitment to continued supply of film and paper for B&W photography. I think that Kodak is much more fickle in their support. --- Ýbrahim Pamuk <ibrahim.pamuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I have used HP3 and FP4 once upon a time and swiched > to Tri-X and Plus-X. Then somewhat used Tmax100 & > 400. I always preferred to use Kodak HIE. I was > wondering comparison between Tmax and Delta films. > Any reccommendation about these? I believe it is > hard to prefer after one being use Tri-X and then > switch to HP5 for example. Nevertheless it will > worth to hear the experience in comparison with > Tri-X vs HP5 and Tmax vs Delta? > > > > Regards > > > > Ibrahim Pamuk > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.