----- 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
