----- Original Message ----- From: "Henri Toivonen"
Subject: Re: B&W developers and Tri-x ??
I think you're being unfair to JC now, he has mentioned several times that if the films compared were equal in every other way than ISO speed the faster would be generally preferred.
I don't. He started out by quoting an incorrect bit of Kodakbabble, and then morphing it into an "all else being equal" thing.
I agree with that fully, especially since I live in the dark side of the world, even ISO400 is too slow for me for regular photographing.
If there was a film that was as good as tri-x but at ISO1600 that would be my film of choice for all other seasons than the summer.
Now, ofcourse, it's not as simple as that, films vary a great deal, grain structure etc., so fastest doesn't mean the best.
But _IF_..
Bingo, it isn't as simple as that, but because people look at granularity RMS vs. ISO as their sole means of choosing a film, we end up losing a lot of film choices that are better for reasons that have nothing to do with film speed.
William Robb
