Is that because your an EK employee? Or pondering jumping off
a bridge once you can't get EK product,....or both? :)

I have switched for no reason other than I like the Nopan better. I
have also tested lford Delta 400 and HP5. They are all good products,
but Neopan 400 is the best overall in grain (other than TMY) but with a
similar charchter to Tri-X.

One interesting point is that the grain of Tr-X looks 'dark', whereas
the grain of Neopan 400 looks light. I don't know how else to describe
this, except to say that on a grey neutral sky, Tri-X looks like pepper
was spilt on it, whereas the grain of Neopan 400 looks like salt was
spilt on it. It's very subtle, but of course the irregularities that we
call 'grain' are actually the holes between the grains. Somehow, Fuji
has plugged the holes that Tri-X leaves. The grain isn't really a whole
lot smaller, but definitely less intrusive.

I have switched for no reason other than I like the Nopan better. I
have also tested lford Delta 400 and HP5. They are all good products,
but Neopan 400 is the best overall in grain (other than TMY) but with a
similar character to Tri-X.

One interesting point is that the grain of Tri-X looks 'dark', whereas
the grain of Neopan 400 looks light. I don't know how else to describe
this, except to say that on a grey neutral sky, Tri-X looks like pepper
was spilt on it, whereas Neopan 400 looks like salt was
spilt on it. It's very subtle, but of course the irregularities that we
call 'grain' are actually the holes between the grains. Somehow, Fuji
has plugged the holes that Tri-X leaves. The grain isn't really a whole
lot smaller, but definitely less intrusive.

My apologies for the double posting, but there seems to be a slight glitch
between Norton Firewall and Outlook Express.

I developed all three rolls together in the tank at the same time, and
because I did not have my own data for TMY or Tri-X, I used the time I
have established for Neopan 400 (8 minutes in Acutol 1+14). It would
appear that Tri-X might look better at 8.5 or 8.75 minutes, and that
TMY would take about 9. Adding a bit of time on Tri-X and TMY would
increase the grain on those films a bit, I suppose. The way the
comparison was run, it favored Tri-X and TMY, because they received a
bit less development than I think they should have, if the contrast
were to be matched with Neopan 400. In other words, the Neopan was
developed proportionally a little more. The Kodak films do look the
same as they always have, however.

http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa090202c.htm

"FUJI NEOPAN 400

A good alternative to Tri-X, which Fuji appear to have set out to match
- and have done with perhaps slightly finer grain and higher
resolution. Combined with a wide exposure latitude and excellent shadow
and highlight detail, this is one of the best conventional 400ASA
films. It pushes even better than Tri-X, remaining useable up to
6400ASA. It's a film I used for years with students, and occasionally
for myself."

This matches my experience.

Then, of course, we get morons like this who write about film:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/galleries/essays/070600.htm

"

Special Features

Van Riper    Frank Van Riper on Photography

WHEN NEWER IS BETTER

By Frank Van Riper
Special to Camera Works

In the course of running a test camera through the hoops recently, I
shot two rolls of black-and-white film under nearly identical
conditions.

Yet despite the similarity of shooting conditions, there were dramatic
differences between the two films - even though each had the same
nominal ISO and even though each was processed identically by the same
custom lab.

The films in question were Kodak's T-Max P3200 (TMZ), which has been
around for years, and Ilford's Delta 3200, a comparative newcomer to
the ranks of high-speed BxW emulsions. To my eyes and contact sheets,
there was simply no comparison: the Delta 3200 ate TMZ's lunch in terms
of snap, shadow detail and D-Max (richness of blacks).

Oh, the TMZ gave me pictures, all right, but the crispness of the Delta
3200 images was almost unfair by comparison. Kind of like setting beef
Wellington next to a Wendy's hamburger. (Sorry, Dave.)

In both cases, I was shooting by available light, to test my camera's
meter, but also to compare the two films. Each time, I rated the film
at 1600 and had my lab, Chrome Inc., of Georgetown, pull the film one
stop. I did this deliberately and, frankly, out of habit. Whenever I
work at the edge of the technological envelope - in this case with two
of the highest-speed emulsions on the market - I tend to take
manufacturer's claims with a grain of salt. So I had the lab pull the
film to compensate for the fact that I was allowing more light onto the
film than theoretically was necessary. (Here I have to admit: If I
really took speed claims with a grain of salt, I would have shot the
film at 1600 and had it processed normally - but that's another story
and another column.) "

Look, Mr. Van Riper, NEITHER of these films is faster than 800-1000 AT
MOST. Shooting these films at 1600 does not call for a 'pull' at all.

In my experience, the Ilford Delta 3200 is FAR, FAR granier than TMZ. I
did careful comparison tests several times, and it was not even close.

Ah ! The dynamic duo that created Xtol is still in action !

==
        John - Photographer & Webmaster
     www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

UC sent me the same 3 scans - and I saw exactly the same thing you saw.

In controlled tests performed by qualified professionals, new TX shows
less grain than TMY. Which film is more or less grainy in practice
depends on too many factors to go into here, but suffice to say that
blanket statements of fact by one unnamed person without qualifications
of any kind should not be taken too seriously. UC has offered nothing
of more substance than his opinion of a few 400 speed films. His claim
that pyro developers are too grainy for 35mm film, even though he's
never used one, is very telling. He is clearly relying upon outdated
literature as the basis for his pronouncements. Modern staining
developers produce no more grain, and often less grain than comparable
non-staining, acutance developers. UC's film speed ratings might work
very well with his system and condenser enlarger, which exaggerates
contrast, requiring a reduction in development, which in turn reduces
fim speed, but those who use a diffusion enlarger might require less
exposure, and more development  for easy printing negatives. Since
we're noting our favorites, mine is TMY.