Neopan 1600. How do I process?

P

psychokiller

Member
Local time
7:34 AM
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
49
Ok folks...well I just got back from the opening of the new Apple store in Sydney.....it was mayhem...like being in Times Square, NYC...great stuff!

..anyway, I shot a roll of Neopan 1600 rated @1600.

How do I develop this film so I achieve an even balance of dark, midtones and highlights? I've seen many images with blown highlights using this film.

What developer, development time and agitation process are people using to achieve a nice balance of tones?

Thanks.
 
I use XTOL 1:2 (Usually 1:1 but with 1600 at the 25 degrees I work at my time goes below 5 mins). I use the time of the Massive Development chart, which is 10 mins at 20 degrees, and use time graphs printed from a spreadsheet to convert the times. Given I cant upload the spreadsheet here is a pic of the graph. I used data points from Ilford then calculated continuous functions for the graphs.

Everything here except the first shot is Neopan 1600 in XTOl 1:2 at 25 degress Fuij Neopan 1600

As for agitation all I do is first 30 seconds then 3 times every minute until time remaining is less than 3 minutes then twice every 30 seconds for the remainder.
 
I process all my Neopan in HC110 (dil. B, 7 mins, 20°C), with agitation for the first 30 seconds, and two inversions every minute thereafter. With the 1600 especially, I'm quite gentle with the agitations.

It's worth noting, though, that there are people on the forum who have had trouble with the Neopan/HC-110 combo. I'm probably not the most hyper-critical person in terms of my processing, but I've yet to encounter a roll that was problematic in its development.

Good luck and enjoy that Neopan grain!
 
I'd minimize the agitation whatever developer you choose- this stuff gets contrasty fast at ISO 800 and above. It does print well if contrasty at low grades, though I've had some prints too contrasty even at grade 0.

At 1600 shadow detail will be elusive.
 
Be careful not to overdevelop it!! and not to shake it too much, as sepiareverb says.

I used it many times in diafine, 1600 to 2400, it comes out nice (albeit grainy, but good tones and sharp).
 
Re: contrastiness. Every time I have the need to shoot at high iso's like 1600, the lighting is always very harsh and contrasty. I try to use that to convey the scene rather than attempting to make the shot look like there was just normal light.

I use DDX for 6 mins at 20 degrees C.
 
Thanks for your comments..

I haven't done much processing before and it seems D-76 seems to be more readily available. Is there a particular time and agitation process for this particular developer? Or is this not suitable for Neopan 1600/prone to blown highlights?
 
psychokiller said:
Thanks for your comments..

I haven't done much processing before and it seems D-76 seems to be more readily available. Is there a particular time and agitation process for this particular developer? Or is this not suitable for Neopan 1600/prone to blown highlights?
Click to expand...

Here's a write up I did on this combo. I would not call it perfect by any means, but it should help you find a starting point. You should be able to read it but I think you'll have to log in to see the examples. http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=39070

Here are some shots from the same roll:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photophore/tags/neopan1600/

Paul
 
i shoot neopan regularly rated at 1600 and soup it in d-76
1+1 dilution at 28c for 9mins agitated for the first minute(very gently) then 3 times every minute.
But like everyone else has already said, shadow detail with 1600@1600 is very very elusive.
 
Neopan 1600 is rumoured to be about 640ISO. This goes a long way in explaining the harsh contrast of this film. If you want/need it fine.

I only developed in Diafine so far, rated at 1600 Neopan works very well for concerts and the like. But I like Tri-X at 1250 in Diafine more.

Have a look at my site, you can find examples there.
 
My only attempt (so far) with Neopan 1600 was somewhat disappointing in that I did my usual "trick" of increasing the development time by 10% because I like more contrast in my negs. Well, I got it in *****s! Almost totally blocked out.
My initial conclusion was that i should have rated it at 800 and stuck strictly to the listed development times or even a bit less.
So I can't give you a clear answer except to reinforce what others have said - don't over-develop it!
 
Now everyone is wondering what that dreadful word is, I'll spell it backwards and see if the technology is up to the mark It is spelt - sedaps
 
Well, I used the word *reggins*, that is also censored. But *edaps*, like *reggin* are derogatory terms for our fellow photographers of the black persuasion ;)
 
Words, words, words!

Words, words, words!

Well, I understand the "n" word being a problem but I've never heard of the "s" word being used in any sense other than agricultural - similar to shovel.
Not here in Oz, anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom