Thjis is probably a tired question but I see no direct answers to it on a trawl through Dejanews. I was wondering if anyone has a more scientific (i.e. properly tested) comparison between 400 ASA emulsions than my own. My sense is that there is a three-way trade-off between fine, sharp grain and smooth rendering of tonal graduations. To be specific, Fuji Neopan gives (me) the sharpest look but also the least pleasing tonality, Ilford HP5+ gives mid-way sharpness and smoothness, and Tri-X is not very "sharp" and can indeed seem soft and sludgy, but the soft grain gives lovely smooth rendering of tonal graduation, and it remains excellent on texture (fabric etc). It also seems the most flattering for caucasian faces (extended red sensitivity?)giving a lovely glowing quality. Ilford picks up on skin texture in a way which may be unflattering, and Fuji "flattens" skin tone and texture. All of this applies whether developed at standard times in ID11 or Xtol (though the generic differences between the two developers apply - and Tri-X seems to LOVE straight Xtol in which it can be pushed without any visible grain increase - but also not much speed gain). I do not use flat-grain emulsions as I find them gritty.(posted 8625 days ago)If this all sounds woefully impressionistic please set me right - in this world of rampant partisanship real hard evidence will be especially admired. I was impressed by Geoffrey Crawley's (as ever) impeccable report on the new Delta 400 in the recent BJP - but while showing illuminating graphs of Ilford grain sizes, and insights into the push capacity of the various emulsions it did not address the issue of tonal and spectral rendition.