Tim Gray
Well-known
Fuji had a posting around the end of 2010 that said it was discontinued. Translate this:
http://fujifilm.jp/information/articlead_0066.html
B.J.Scharp
Still developing
Diafine gives me box speed.
I've been experimenting with XTOL, but so far it seems to give me closer to 800 when you look at the shadows. Might up the development a bit on the next roll, see if that helps.
Of course, seeing how I only have a couple of dozen rolls left, I might just stick to Diafine for the rest.
znapper
Well-known
This is a scan from a 17cm*24cm (7*9,5 inch) print I made yesterday.
Processed in Spur SLD 1+9 for 9.5 minutes, paper was Adox MCP 312 RC paper.
The scan has been tweaked to look as similar as the print as possible, the whites may have been a little whiter, but that's it.
Grain is most noticeable in the bokeh in the top part of the photo, the lower part of the photo with similar mid-range tones, seems to have less noticeable grain for some reason.
No contrast filters were used on this print, but I've found that grade 2 filters can really make duller exposures pop nicely.
Looks really nice if you ask me, I may try to go even larger (20cm*30cm) and see how it looks, I am sure some grain will creep in, but still....knocks the socks off the Ilford I've tested at 1600 thus far.
Vintage metal film canisters by znapper74, on Flickr
Original fils is 1780*1275 pixels, but since I'm not prepared to pay Flickr yet, the largest size you can see online is 1024px
Processed in Spur SLD 1+9 for 9.5 minutes, paper was Adox MCP 312 RC paper.
The scan has been tweaked to look as similar as the print as possible, the whites may have been a little whiter, but that's it.
Grain is most noticeable in the bokeh in the top part of the photo, the lower part of the photo with similar mid-range tones, seems to have less noticeable grain for some reason.
No contrast filters were used on this print, but I've found that grade 2 filters can really make duller exposures pop nicely.
Looks really nice if you ask me, I may try to go even larger (20cm*30cm) and see how it looks, I am sure some grain will creep in, but still....knocks the socks off the Ilford I've tested at 1600 thus far.
Vintage metal film canisters by znapper74, on Flickr
Original fils is 1780*1275 pixels, but since I'm not prepared to pay Flickr yet, the largest size you can see online is 1024px
lcpr
Well-known
I dev mine in Diafine @ 1600, I quite like it:
charlesburd
Newbie
i have 50 rolls of neopan 1600 that i will not use.
i have stored them in a cool dry place at my home. i live in wilson, wy where it is always cool and dry.
if it is in accordance with the forum rules, i would like to ask if anyone knows what would be a fair price for selling the film. 20 rolls exp 2011.04; 30 rolls exp 2010.01.
i have stored them in a cool dry place at my home. i live in wilson, wy where it is always cool and dry.
if it is in accordance with the forum rules, i would like to ask if anyone knows what would be a fair price for selling the film. 20 rolls exp 2011.04; 30 rolls exp 2010.01.
Brian Puccio
Well-known
If it helps I just bought 15 rolls expiring 07-2012 from a guy in the UK for $160 shipped to me here in NY.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Delta 3200 in Tmax Developer blows away Neopan 1600 when both are shot at 1600. Neopan has no shadow detail and is too contrasty at 1600. I shot it at 640 and developed it in D-76, which gave nice tonality and a gritty grain. Delta 3200 at 1600 has good shadow detail and good highlight tonality too. Much better overall film for low light.
Bill58
Native Texan
Dumb question-I don't develop myself, so if I use 400 or 3200 and expose 1600, do I set my meter/ ASA dial on the camera at 1600, then tell the developer to develop at 1600 also?
Thanks,
Bill
Thanks,
Bill
Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
I've found Neopan 400 in UFG rated at 800 or 1000 gives as close as I'll ever get to Neopan 1600, I used to use and process Tons for both news and wedding work. See my sample at http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/02/24/twirl-st-regis-princeville-hanalei-kauai/
I'm still hoarding my last few rolls....
I'm still hoarding my last few rolls....
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
You do adjust the development to accommodate any changes you made from box speed when you shot the film. You might do this by using a speed-increase developer, or by increasing development time (if you shot higher than box speed). You can't really change the speed of the film (much) this way; about a half stop to 2/3 stop can be gained with a speed increase developer like XTOL, T-Max, or Microphen. Instead, all you are really doing is keeping the density of the negative acceptable--and printable. In the process, you will lose some shadow detail when pushing much above the box speed, and you will increase contrast. So "speed increases" achieved by shooting at an exposure index increase of more than 2/3 of a stop (e.g., shooting an ISO 400 film at 1600) are imaginary. We get a picture, but one with less shadow detail. On the other hand, if you shoot lower than the box speed ("pulling" the film), you will probably develop for a shorter time. If you do this, you will gain shadow detail and reduce contrast.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
How do you know? Did you measure Zone 0 and Zone I densities?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
One way to know, without specialized equipment, is to photograph a familiar scene under normal daylight conditions, at various ISO settings of the meter. It is easier to judge when the negative is normal, than when they were taken under low light conditions. You can judge when the shadow detail is about "usual and customary." If it prints with a #2 contrast filter, and looks normal, then we might conclude that, for all practical purposes, the ISO setting that we used for that negative was the "true" speed of the film in that developer at that time & temperature.
Informal, I know . . . but if it tells us the exposure index we can rely on, it's got to be good enough. Or, as we used to say in the Air Force: "That's close enough for government work."