Anyone using Neopan 400?

[Graybeard]

For years I've been using Tri-X, processed in 1:1 D-76 originally and more recently in 1:1 Xtol. The price of Tri-X has increased quite a bit over the past year (since Kodak consolidated production in a single US plant) and I'm considering alternative emulsions.

Is anyone using Fuji Neopan 400? I'm interested in your opinions and experience with this film. I've seen some mention that Neopan 400 is less tolerant of overexposure than Tri-X and wonder what experience Forum members have had with this aspect. Some posts on the web seem to like the results of Neopan 400 in Rodinal - this seems counterintuitive somehow to use a fast film with fine grain characteristics with a coarse grain developer but, here again, comment is welcome.

I've substituted Ilford FP4, processed in Xtol, for Plus-X with good results when I use a slower emulsion. Pretty much a direct replacement so far as I can tell.

 

[peter_n]

I use all the Neopans - 100, 400 and 1600. All get developed in XTOL by a local lab. I can tell you that Neopan 400 and XTOL work very well together and I get low grain, good tonality and terrific contrast. If you want to check out my results with this combo take a look at my gallery, all of the 20 or so recent pics taken on vacation were souped in XTOL. Most of them are Neopan 400 - a few are Acros 100 & Neopan 1600.

 

[pshinkaw]

I use Neopan 400 developed in D-76. I am very pleased with the results. Keep in mind my prejudices. I have never been very good with Ilford 400 speed films (FP-4 and HP-5) and I really liked the old Tri-X.

-Paul

 

[Roman]

You had better asked 'anybody NOT using NP400?', it seems to be the favorite film of lots of people on RFF (me included).
BTW, it is not sensitive to overexposure, but it is slightly more sensitive to overdevelopment, compared to TriX or HP5+ - highlights block up more easily (making pushing a bit more tricky).
It used to be finer grained than TriX, almost as good as Delta and TMax 400, but with the 'fat' middle tones of TriX or HP5+; now, with new TriX being much finer grained, the two are almost indistinguishable.
As for developers, I have yet to find one that does not work well with NP400 - I tried ID11 1+1, XTOL, Ilfosol S, and liked them all, but my favorite combos are:

EI 250, Rodinal 1+50 for 9.5 min. (20°C, 2 inversions every full minute) - VERY sharp, and with that special 'moody' Rodinal tonality (that is caused by the fact that Rodinal puts a dent into the lower part of the negs' curve - a friend of mine measure that with his densitometer); in 35mm grain will be visible, but it is very nice grain 😉

EI 320 to 400, Calbe A49 1+1 (also sold as Adox ATM49), 13 min. (20°C, 2 inversions every 30 sec.): very fine grain, very smooth skin tones with portraits, though acutance/sharpness is not as good as with Rodinal.

EI 400, Barry Thornton's Metol 2-bath developer (homebrew), 4+4 min.: as sharp as in Rodinal, but with finer grain and full film speed.

Roman

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Actually I'm not using Neopan 400 at the moment; I still have some 120 format rolls left, but haven't been using my Franka or Hasselblad lately. I *love* Neopan developed in Rodinal 1+50.

 

[taffer]

Indeed Roman is right, you'll find a lot of Neopan 400 users (and lovers) here, myself included. Just for the record, it looks very well souped in Diafine, and it also gives it a slight push to 640 which comes in handy in dim light situations.

 

[fredus]

Most of my B&W at http://www.400iso.com were shot using neopan 400. This is my primary film and I couldn't live without it ! Cheap too !

Fred

 

[phototone]

I love Neopan 400. Most of the images in my gallery here (link below), were shot with it.

 

[fraley]

Hi Graybeard,

Most of my b&w in the gallery is Neopan 400, quite a bit with a 1.5 yellow filter. I take it to a lab that used Ilford developer until January this year, when they switched to Xtol.