B&W at 1600 -- Best Choice?

[vincentbenoit]

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.

I've had good results with Tri-X developed in Adox ATM 49 1+1 (21 min at 20C, constant agitation for the first min then 1 inversion per min). This developer gives finer grain and slightly more shadow detail than D76 with pushed Tri-X.
Vincent

 

[goo0h]

Here's another related question from a newbie.

If I have a roll of Neopan 1600 shot at 1600, will it come out OK in Diafine, or should I really use Xtol instead? (I think I read that Neopan 1600 comes out OK in Diafine if shot around 1200 or so.)

I'm just now getting back to playing with photography (have a new Bessa R3A) after not touching it for a long time. I've developed two rolls (Tri-X) in Diafine, so at least a bit familiar with that. Though, I plan on trying Xtol eventually too.

Amos

 

[kaiyen]

"OK" is relative. You will get more shadow detail as you add exposure. Presumably, if folks recommend NP1600 at 1200 in Diafine, that means that you'll be slightly underexposing at 1600. So less shadow detail. Since you can't increase development time with Diafine, you might notice the midtones are a bit depressed, too.

allan

 

[sf]

Neopan 1600 is beautiful film.

I actually shot alot of Delta 3200 in Europe - and it performs also very well.

and Neopan 1600 : http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=29131&cat=500&ppuser=2147

and delta 3200 (at 1600) : http://www.shutterflower.com/street scene gallery/pages/private-gardenRFF.htm

 

[wdenies]

I think Neopan 1600 @1200 means overexposure not underexposure.

Wim

 

[kaiyen]

Wim,
Yes, it does. My presumption is that, if people recommend 1200 in Diafine, that that would be appropriate shadow detail. So exposure at 1600 would be underexposure.

allan

 

[kully]

I see that not many people are recommending the Ilford devs.

I've developed Delta 3200 and Neopan 1600 in DDX and it may be that I was only swirling the film instead of inverting or that the DDX was old (last bottle in Jessops, no date) but I got super grain - much more noticeable even at the posted sizes than the examples.

I've got a roll of HP5+ in my Oly RC which I'm rating at 1600, I'll see how that comes out in DDX.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I like Neopan 1600 rated at ISO 1000. Also: if possible a tripod helps, or any other kind of brace.

Ben

 

[varjag]

I think Neopan 1600 @1200 means overexposure not underexposure.

It indeed means underexposure, since true speed of Neopan in a speed-enhancing developer is around 800 ISO.

 

[markinlondon]

I see that not many people are recommending the Ilford devs.

I've developed Delta 3200 and Neopan 1600 in DDX and it may be that I was only swirling the film instead of inverting or that the DDX was old (last bottle in Jessops, no date) but I got super grain - much more noticeable even at the posted sizes than the examples.

I've got a roll of HP5+ in my Oly RC which I'm rating at 1600, I'll see how that comes out in DDX.

HP5 is great at EI1600 in DDX.
Here's one from a roll shot at 3200. I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of shadow detail.

Mark

 

[Russ]

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.

I love Neopan 1600 @ 1250 or 1600, souped in X-Tol. Great stuff.

Russ

 

[sf]

Neopan 1600 is the best at its label rating, in my opinion. I'd use it more if it weren't so pricey.

 

[Jonathan_100]

I like the TMax 3200 metered for 1600. Lately I've been shooting TriX at 1600 and processing in Diafine. Yes, the Diafine cult on this particular list has their hook into me.

jonathan

 

[RObert Budding]

Neopan 1600 is nice film, but I no longer use it as it is only available in 135. So now I shoot Delta 3200 EI 1600 developed in DDX 1:15 for 14min @ 68 deg F with 2 inversions each minute.

 

[Magnus]

I second Delta 3200 at 1600, or Tri-x at 1600 in HC110 or D76. If you want to be adventurous and test some effects don't forget to try Tri-x at 1600 developßed in rodinal.... both stand development as 1.25 and probably every range inbetween will give you another effect. Not suitable for every composition, but very suited for some ....

 

[jonasv]

I like Delta 400 at 1600 in microphen stock.

 

[Magnus]

... I read through the thread and as to be expected quite a few idea's and solutions. I would just go ahead and test 2 or 3 rolls and try them in different developers, this will at least give you some insight upon which you can continue your quest for your perfect image....

 

[peter_n]

Neopan 1600 is the best at its label rating, in my opinion. I'd use it more if it weren't so pricey.

I think that is just a function of the current exchange rate. Even Megaperls is expensive today - a bulk roll of NP1600 is $38.73.

 

[sf]

Neopan 1600 is nice film, but I no longer use it as it is only available in 135. So now I shoot Delta 3200 EI 1600 developed in DDX 1:15 for 14min @ 68 deg F with 2 inversions each minute.

Neopan 1600 is available in 120. I bought some a couple months ago.

 

[sf]

Ah! You're right. I mislabeled my negs. Those are Neopan 400.

I do have some Delta 3200 @ 1600 in D76. Those negs look great.