Artem
Member
Recently, I went out at night, round 6 or 7 o'clock and took these in my town. This was my first time with Neopan 1600. I wanted to try something with high contrast; however, I think my mistake was coupling high contrast film (or film with little shadow detail) with very high contrast situations, such as the tram works. The shots are respectively of a small fountain in the high street, the railway station and the tram works nearby. I apologize for the rather banal subjects! I'm looking for any advice and general opinions. Thanks.
Attachments
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Nothing wrong that I can see, Artem. Just what are you after?
pvdhaar
Peter
I don't think there's anything wrong with using a high contrast film in high contrast situations, and that's proven by the pictures you've shown. The main thing I've figured out about Neopan 1600, is that it doesn't handle rating at a lower ISO very well. But of course, that may be linked to how I meter a scene..
You've done pretty well here, especially given that scenes like these are prone to burning out the highlights..
You've done pretty well here, especially given that scenes like these are prone to burning out the highlights..
kathytoth.ca
ktoth.ca
I'm just not a big fan of Neopan myself, althought I did have it developed at a local shop and they did a piss-pore job of it and it was grain as hell @ 400iso. I would not even think of trying trying 1600 iso film but I am fan of 100 TMAX and Acros so this smoothness must have something to do with it.
foto_fool
Well-known
Kathy - Like your work and see why you might not be a fan of the Neopan, but I am of a different opinion.
Artem - I love the brooding quality to your shots, and the lack of blown highlights. Here is more like what I get:
I have these done in a local lab, where they routinely use Xtol. Your shots show significantly less grain than I am getting with Neopan - how were they developed?
I'm with Peter on not rating Neopan at less than 1600 - have not had any luck with that regime. I have not tried rating it higher and developing longer yet, but that's next.
- John
Artem - I love the brooding quality to your shots, and the lack of blown highlights. Here is more like what I get:
I have these done in a local lab, where they routinely use Xtol. Your shots show significantly less grain than I am getting with Neopan - how were they developed?
I'm with Peter on not rating Neopan at less than 1600 - have not had any luck with that regime. I have not tried rating it higher and developing longer yet, but that's next.
- John
R
rich815
Guest
I find Neopan 1600 @ 1000 in Diafine to be quite nice in contrasty situations. Shot some images of my little boy playing soccer a few weeks ago using my 100-300 Vario-Sonnar with Tokina 2x teleconverter on my Contax RX. I wanted some fast shutter speed but knew extended out to 300 at f/5.6 before the compensating factor for the teleconverter would have me needing a fast film to stay at 1/125th or 1/250th at least. Used the Neopan 1600 as mentioned above (And this was bright, late morning spring sunshine in an open grassy field with a dark forest of trees in the background). Came out surprisingly nice in terms of contrast, grain and tonality. Will post some examples later.
gregg
Well-known
Artem - what developer and base time did you use? Your shots are fine to my eye...