gb hill
Veteran
I just developed my 1st roll of neopan 1600 in rodinal 1+50 I shot at 1600 for 8 mins just like the Massive Dev. chart suggested. To me the negs look a bit dense, like not quite long enough dev. time. Washing seemed to have helped so mabe they will look ok after drying. Just wondering what are your suggestions for this combination? I got 2 more rolls left & don't want to screw them up.
wafflecakee
Well-known
45 Celsius, 45 seconds, constant agitation. Rise warm to cold so your emulsion won't crack. 
dufffader
Leicanaut/Nikonaut...
For the last few years I've been using stand development with 1+100 Rodinal.
Hang on, if the negatives look dense (i.e. too dark), then isn't it over-developed?
Neopan 1600 are pretty hard to come by nowadays. I still have half a box (10 rolls?) that I bought in Tokyo years back, and I shoot them sparingly...
Hang on, if the negatives look dense (i.e. too dark), then isn't it over-developed?
Neopan 1600 are pretty hard to come by nowadays. I still have half a box (10 rolls?) that I bought in Tokyo years back, and I shoot them sparingly...
V-12
Well-known
If they are looking dense you should work out why before trying again. Dense through incorrect dilution, over development, temperature, lack of fixing, and over exposure, are some suggestions. Think back and consider what could have gone wrong. It may simply be where you take your light readings from, and this may not match the exposure method used by the person who put the details into the Massive Dev Chart.
gb hill
Veteran
45 Celsius, 45 seconds, constant agitation. Rise warm to cold so your emulsion won't crack.
You lost me on this. Don't know what you are talking about.
gb hill
Veteran
Perhaps dense is the wrong term. It's more like the negs are under developed. I know I had everything measured right & my temps right. I'm just thinking the 8 minuets wasn't quite long enough. Don't know, I've got frames, they just look different from what I'm used to seeing. Maybe it's just the film. I'll know better once it dries.
flip
良かったね！
1600 is getting on in age at this point. How did you store it? I find massive dev's times fine for this film.... Even looks nice at 3200....
newsgrunt
Well-known
Might be lots of base/age fog ?
Photo_Smith
Well-known
The opposite of dense? That would be too thin. Take a dried negative and place it on the text of a book. If you can read the text through the highest density (sky light sources etc) your negatives are too thin.
If you cant see your text in the mid tones it's too dense.
take a quick digital snap and post it I'll tell you!
znapper
Well-known
If the negatives are dark to the eye, and have high contrast, they are dense, usually overdeveloped.
Dense/ dark to the eye and low contrast negatives are usually correctly developed, but are overexposed or have a high degree of base fog.
If the negatives are very easy to see trough and have low contrast, you most likely have thin negatives from underdevelopment.
If the negatives are easy to see trough and/or thin with high/normal contrast, you probably have correct development, but suffer from under exposure.
Thin negatives are more difficult to assess (IMO) than thick/dense negatives.
I haven't used Rodinal with neopan 1600, but I've used hc-110 and Spur with nice results. (Dev chart times)
Dense/ dark to the eye and low contrast negatives are usually correctly developed, but are overexposed or have a high degree of base fog.
If the negatives are very easy to see trough and have low contrast, you most likely have thin negatives from underdevelopment.
If the negatives are easy to see trough and/or thin with high/normal contrast, you probably have correct development, but suffer from under exposure.
Thin negatives are more difficult to assess (IMO) than thick/dense negatives.
I haven't used Rodinal with neopan 1600, but I've used hc-110 and Spur with nice results. (Dev chart times)
gb hill
Veteran
Date on film is 7/12. I had it stored in the fridge. This looks nice btw.1600 is getting on in age at this point. How did you store it? I find massive dev's times fine for this film.... Even looks nice at 3200....
gb hill
Veteran
I don't have a digital camera but I looked at the negs once they are dry & looks most of the frames are fine. I think I might could have developed for a minuet longer. I'll scan some in a bit & post some examples. Thanks for your input.
ferider
Veteran
Greg, when I use Rodinal (1:100 stand) with Neopan 1600, I expose at 640 ASA, the film's effective speed. Rodinal is not the best to develop Neopan at full speed. RFF member Ray at a beer and geer:
(BTW, this was shot with a friend's 50/1.1 Zunow, quite a rare lens)
---
At 1600 ASA, DDX 1:4 works quite nicely, one shot, simple in use:
(BTW, this was shot with a friend's 50/1.1 Zunow, quite a rare lens)
---
At 1600 ASA, DDX 1:4 works quite nicely, one shot, simple in use:
gb hill
Veteran
Dark to the eye & low contrast negs. are what I'm used to seeing & because of the low contrast I thought I wasn't quite doing something right. Thanks for the explination of these terms, I'm self taught & recoginize I'm still learning. You have taught me quite a bit here.
ferider
Veteran
Sounds underexposed, Greg, see my post above.
newsgrunt
Well-known
can you post a ghetto shot of the neg ?
gb hill
Veteran
Thanks Roland. those 2 shots are nice. I read where Chris Crawford shoots this film at the same speed as you do. I think I will shoot my next roll at 640. I've been told by a few that I should give stand dev. a try. I have a local friend who is getting excellent results with 1:200 stand with rodinal but i'm not that brave. I may give your 1:100 stand results a go next time. I think you have a post you made when you 1st started stand dev. I'll read through that thread. Merry Christmas to you Roland. I bet you have some lovely shot's made of this season of your family. I always enjoy seeing your post.Greg, when I use Rodinal (1:100 stand) with Neopan 1600, I expose at 640 ASA, the film's effective speed. Rodinal is not the best to develop Neopan at full speed. RFF member Ray at a beer and geer:
(BTW, this was shot with a friend's 50/1.1 Zunow, quite a rare lens)
---
At 1600 ASA, DDX 1:4 works quite nicely, one shot, simple in use:
znapper
Well-known
Dark to the eye & low contrast negs. are what I'm used to seeing & because of the low contrast I thought I wasn't quite doing something right. Thanks for the explination of these terms, I'm self taught & recoginize I'm still learning. You have taught me quite a bit here.
Here is maybe a better ilustration:
http://photographyatnorthern.com/resources/pdfs/070AssessingB&WNegatives.PDF
As a rulle of thumb: exposure usually influence only the thickness of the negative. The development procss though, decide the thickness AND contrast, so it can be hard to judge whats what sometimes.
gb hill
Veteran
I appreciate this. Now I need to study some of my negatives to see if they suffer from underexposure or underdevelopment. I'm going to suspect underexposure. This was a huge help to be able to see examples. I've thought about getting Adam's book on the Negative but was afraid I wouldn't understand it from what I have read from others. This book looks like a treasure & easy to understand.
ferider
Veteran
Merry Christmas to you Roland. I bet you have some lovely shot's made of this season of your family. I always enjoy seeing your post.
Thank you very much, Greg. Today I'll be cooking, rest of the week is for photos .... Merry Christmas to you and your family, too !
Roland.