Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
Any recommendations for B&W film to be shot at 1600 and developed in D-76? Better to go with Tri-X or 3200 Tmax? Will Tmax work in D-76? Should I be considering offerings from Ilford or Fuji? I'm looking for high contrast and (relatively) low grain. Thanks for any advice.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
So you want high contrast? Then you'll want to either push a slower film (TXT, probably) or perhaps use Fuji Neopan 1600, which is a very contrasty film, considering its intended EI range.
Shooting TMZ @ 1600 would give you relatively low contrast results (well, perhaps normal contrast is a better desc).
D76 is _not_ a great developer for pushing, keep in mind.
allan
Shooting TMZ @ 1600 would give you relatively low contrast results (well, perhaps normal contrast is a better desc).
D76 is _not_ a great developer for pushing, keep in mind.
allan
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
if you're going to pull T-max 3200 to 1600; I would suggest D-76 or Tmax developer.
If you want to shoot Neopan 1600 (an awesome 1600 film imho) then you can use Xtol.
I have a couple rolls of Neopan to dev today that I shot @ 3200 - I'll post some scans once I dev and dry them.
Cheers
Dave
If you want to shoot Neopan 1600 (an awesome 1600 film imho) then you can use Xtol.
I have a couple rolls of Neopan to dev today that I shot @ 3200 - I'll post some scans once I dev and dry them.
Cheers
Dave
sunsworth
Well-known
Fuji Neopan 1600 in Xtol. Contrast with low grain.
Steve
Steve
S
Skinny McGee
Guest
Tri-x in Rodinal 1:50
sunsworth
Well-known
Tri-X pushed 2 stops and Rodinal for low grain???
peter_n
Veteran
Neopan 1600.
R
rami
Guest
try something in xtol
something = hp5+ / trix / neopan 400 / neopan 1600
ClayH
Diana camera, coffee
TMZ in FX-39 1:9 for 14 min@72deg. Plenty of shadow detail, reasonable and very sharp grain. Also keeps highlights from going nutso.
Dave H
Established
As always depends on how you want the end result to look and subject matter, for me Tri-x and HP5+ in D76/ID11 give me the results I'm usually after. Photo below from my gallery was tri-x at 1600 in ID11 straight, I think.
Last edited:
einolu
Well-known
When developed correctly and exposed at ISO 2000 (shot #1) (though sometimes it seems like 2400 looks better (shot #2)) in Diafine, Neopan 1600 looks great.
Last edited:
S
Socke
Guest
This is Tri-X in ID-11 1+3
back alley
IMAGES
delta 3200 shot at 1600 or 1000 in ddx is great.
billwheeler
Established
HP5+ is reasonably priced and produces excellent results.
sfb_dot_com
Well-known
Wow! looks good. I'm eagerly awaiting my first ever roll of Neopan back from the developers, but am really hoping to start developing my own.
Xtol eh? How does the resultant neg scan using a good film scanner, does anyone know?
Andy
Xtol eh? How does the resultant neg scan using a good film scanner, does anyone know?
Andy
sunsworth
Well-known
Scans very well. Here's one from Bruge on a cold night.
Steve
Steve
GeneW
Veteran
Tri-X pushes to 1600 pretty nicely in HC-110 (example attached)
Gene
Gene
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
Thanks for all the suggestions. I think I'll try Neopan 1600 in Xtol and compare it to Tri-X at 1600 in D-76 (because I've got plenty on hand).
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
My sister is on the court for Winterfest (the high school winter royalty thing) and I'll be taking some photos with the rangefinder. I'm taking the Canon with me. I'll be using HP5 shot at 800 and dipping it in Diafine. May shoot a roll of Tri-X, too, probably at 1250. Dunno yet.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
As promised, Neopan 1600 @ 3200 dev'd in Xtol @ 19C - Canon 50mm @ 1.4, Leica IIIc, I believe it was 1/15 or 1/10.
First image is overall shot, second image is 100% crop of scanned neg; subject's left eye in detail.
Dave
First image is overall shot, second image is 100% crop of scanned neg; subject's left eye in detail.
Dave
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.