I've recently started shooting B&W again and run a few test rolls of different films. I was hoping some of you could add some insights. My subject matter is semi-formal, natural light, portraits of children, some to be hand colored.(posted 9127 days ago)My first tests were using Ilford HP5+ printed on warm tone paper. I was really pleased with the results. The only down side is they seem a bit graining at 8x12 (from 35mm negs). From reading some of the comments on other questions in this forum, and the rms values from the film tech. sheets I'm guessing that TMAX 3200 shot at ISO 800 would produce similar results grain-wise (and give me one or two more stops in low light). Is this true? Would I lose midrange tonality on the skin tones? (The HP5+ had nice soft tonality.) (I'm assuming too from other answers given in this forum that Tri-X and HP5+ are very similar, so I've lumped them together for convienence sake.)
I've also shot a roll of Kodak T400CN and been very impressed. I was going to compare this to TMAX 400. From what I've read though I suspect the TMAX would be less forgiving and likely to lose mid range tonality. Any advice on comparing TMAX 400 to the chromogenics? (Ilford and Kodak) Would Ilford XP2 Super be better for portraits than T400CN? (I'll be printing on warm tone B&W paper.)
Also, any info on archival quality of chromogenics. Yes it is a dye process, but without colors to shift what types of changes over time will you see in chromogenic negs?