Fuji Neopan Presto 400 and Legacy Pro 400

Tom A

Tom A

RFF Sponsor
Local time
9:19 AM
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,124
Going on the "road" for three weeks (Europe- Germany,Sweden and Finland) I decided to try out if the Presto 400 and the Legacy Pro 400 are really the same films. Well, sometimes you have to have a goal when travelling.
I took 25 rolls of Presto 400 and 30 rolls of Legacy Pro (one bag in the freezer held 25 Fuji and the other 30 of Legacy Pro)
I did shoot them mixed up and all at rated speed of 400. Coming back I developed them in 4 of my primary "soups". HC110 dilution 1:60/12 min, Rodinal 1:50/12 min, Pyrocat HD 12.5min and the 5 last one in Beutler !:!:8 for 12 min. The developer tanks held Fuji/Legacy mixed.
It is the same film! Even the edge markings are the same - only difference is that the Neopan has a discreet Fuji on it.
It is a very good film,it might not have the absolute edge of the Tma2 400 but is quite a bit more "forgiving" than that film. Grain is finer than Tri-X but slightly less latitude when it comes to exposure.
Two of my bodies had meters in them (R4M and MP) and one was a "sunny f16" body (a M2) - lenses were 15f4.5 M-mount, Nokton 35f1.4 SC and C-Sonnar 50f1.5.
I did scan in 345 shots as a "set" on Flickr if anyone is interested and the films are "tagged" with developer/times.
Considering that the Legacy Pro is 1/2 price of the Fuji - it is a very attractive alternative.
OK, for my next act - do the same thing with Arista Premium 400 and Tri-X - no travelling, just local shooting though.
Someone asked me a while ago why I develop for 10-12 min, rather than more concentrated solutions and shorter time - force of habit I have to admit. Over the decades I have done 10 000's of rolls in D76 1:1 so my "darkroom" habits are geared to this!
The 1:60 HC 110 is my own take. I hate the confusing letters that Kodak has "B" - "F" etc. I simply pour 25ml in a graduate, dump it in the beaker (1500 ml), rinse out the graduate and pour that in the beaker. Not as precise - but after 100's of rolls with this combination - any "loss" of HC110 has been compensated by my times and/or exposures.
 
I think I'm right in saying that Presto 400 is what is labelled in this country (Australia) as Neopan 400. Here it's not a cheap film, but is is a very good film. I use it all the time in 35mm and 120 except when I get distracted by something else temporarily, such as Delta 100 for copy work, and Rollei 25 for lens testing, and Neopan 1600 for a bit more speed, and Delta 3200 for lots more speed.
 
Actually Delta 3200 is not that much faster than Neopan 1600, just to be accurate :). It has an ISO sensitivity of about 1000-1200. I haven't found a source for the real ISO sensitivity of Neopan 1600, but I am assuming it is also designed for push processing and would be around 800 or so. T-Max p3200, which I greatly prefer over the Delta, is also around 800-1000 depending on the developer.

Neopan 1600 however, is not a T-grain film like the Tmax and Delta, which would be an advantage I guess.

I tried some Neopan 400 earlier and kind of liked the film. Reminds me of Trix, but has less grain, which I am not sure if I like or not :). I had some problems with drying the film with a hair dryer, which I am used to and noticed that the emulsion had some problems with that. Never happened with Trix, but happened with Neopan 400 even when I was careful with the heat. I got kind of really distracting puzzle-like effect on the grain... So be careful if you happen to use warm or hot air for drying it I guess.
 
Svitantti said:
...

Neopan 1600 however, is not a T-grain film like the Tmax and Delta, which would be an advantage I guess.
...
Click to expand...

This is the main reason why I switched from Delta 3200 to Neo 1600 as my standard very fast film. Neopan 1600 works very well in Diafine due to its classical grain structure and it delivers a real EI 800 in Diafine which is usually enough for me.

Regards,
Philipp
 
Thanks! I often wondered why Kodak insisted on those HC-110 dilutions beyond the fact that it used "standard U.S. measurements" to get a quart of soup.
 
I could never figure those HC110 and kodak's dilutions. The 1:60 works fine - particularly once you have established the process of filling the graduate, rinsing it and dumping and mixing with the required volume of water. Also makes the "raw" HC 110 last longer. Another year and my bottle can vote and drink!!!!
As for Neopan 1600 - I tend to rate it at 1000-1200 asa and process it in Rodinal 1:100 with continious agitation for 14-15 min. Looks fine and both scans and prints well.
 
Svitantti said:
Actually Delta 3200 is not that much faster than Neopan 1600, just to be accurate :). It has an ISO sensitivity of about 1000-1200. I haven't found a source for the real ISO sensitivity of Neopan 1600, but I am assuming it is also designed for push processing and would be around 800 or so. T-Max p3200, which I greatly prefer over the Delta, is also around 800-1000 depending on the developer.

Neopan 1600 however, is not a T-grain film like the Tmax and Delta, which would be an advantage I guess.

I tried some Neopan 400 earlier and kind of liked the film. Reminds me of Trix, but has less grain, which I am not sure if I like or not :). I had some problems with drying the film with a hair dryer, which I am used to and noticed that the emulsion had some problems with that. Never happened with Trix, but happened with Neopan 400 even when I was careful with the heat. I got kind of really distracting puzzle-like effect on the grain... So be careful if you happen to use warm or hot air for drying it I guess.
Click to expand...

According to Fujifilm's pdf files of film characteristics, the Neopan1600 is 2/3 of one stop faster than Neopan400. Which makes it perhaps 2/3 of a stop slower than Delta.

Not much difference? Some of us owners of f1.4 lenses have just shelled out for a f1.1 lens. That's only 2/3 of a stop too!

The look of the two films is different. Neopan1600 looks like normal 400 film, and the Delta has its own look, with better shadow detail (at true speed) but more prominent grain (in my experience, anyway). The Neopan1600 has quite high contrast if you try to get more than ei=1000 out of it.
 
Last edited:
I haven't tried the HC 110 1:60 with Acros or Delta 100. It works very well with XX rated @ 250 (11 min) - but then that is a pretty bullet proof film when it comes to "soups".
I would try something like Tmax 100/Acros/Plus-X at 9 min, with standard agitation (30 sec initial and then 5-8 sec/60 sec). Should give a indication in which direction to go as to development/exposure.
For the slower emulsions I tend to use Beutler as it does give better acutance than HC 110.
At the moment I am shooting a bit of a "dogs" breakfast of 100 asa films. Some Agfa Scopix x-ray film, some old Tmax 100 and a couple of wayward rolls of FP4 as well as some Acros. Five rolls will be done in Beutler, but I might do another 5 in HC 110 and see what transpires.
 
Sjixxxy said:
From my bulk roll of Legacy Pro 400. Helps back up the claim a hair.

Click to expand...

I'm still not quite convinced.....:p

The bulk rolls are a fantastic deal for Fuji films, hovering around $30 bucks a can can't be beat. I just ordered some and for me bulk loading is worth saving the extra pennies. I just got spoiled with the even greater prices of the Arista premium stuff.
 
Thanks Tom A, I went to your set and looked though some of them. Very interesting, I couldn't tell the difference between the developers either. Is that the case with you or is it my bad eyes, bad monitor, or just Flickr?
 
Svitantti said:
Actually Delta 3200 is not that much faster than Neopan 1600, just to be accurate :). It has an ISO sensitivity of about 1000-1200. I haven't found a source for the real ISO sensitivity of Neopan 1600, but I am assuming it is also designed for push processing and would be around 800 or so. .

According to my usage D3200 comes in a full stop faster than neopan 1600, although both need to be downrated appreciably if there is contrast in a scene. I rate Neopan at 640 and the Delta at 1200 in Xtol 1+2. All in all I find the delta a stop faser as per the specs although neither come anywhere near their box speeds in normal use. If you are shooting low contrast scenes, they can be stretched with drop out of low values (which might be desirable) but where one needs to preserve a full tonal range, box speed is a disaster.

By contrast I rate Neopan 400 about a stop slower still at 250-320, depending.

IMO the neopan has a fairly classic hard reportage look, whereas the D 3200 can be fairly gentle with a long smooth palette of greys (when downrated). Grain is crisp and tight and in 120 this is an absolute must for shooters of MF RFs along with a tripod for lots of portable flexibility in the early/late hours. I find D3200 produces beautiful 20x16s of 6x7.
Click to expand...
 
charjohncarter said:
Thanks Tom A, I went to your set and looked though some of them. Very interesting, I couldn't tell the difference between the developers either. Is that the case with you or is it my bad eyes, bad monitor, or just Flickr?
Click to expand...

I think the difference is bigger if you wet-print. Scanning and Flickr tends to level everything a bit.
The Beutler does give a pretty distinct grain - but very edgy. The best combination seems to be the Pyrocat HD. Great tones and though the grain is visible - it is less aggressive than HC 110/Beutler. Rodinal, as usual, has distinct grain, but sharp. Not as "edgy" as the beutler though.
 
I really like the tonality that Pyrocat HD delivers. It is marginally slower than Rodinal 1:50 (320 instead of 400). It is not a huge difference though.
Did run some Agfa Scopix/ "vintage" FP4 and Tmax 100/ Acros 100 in Pyrocat HD yesterday. Not very successful - about 2 stops under at 8.5 min.
I did add some Benzo to it as I knew the FP4/Tmax 100 would have some fog - and I suspect my Acros is sensitive to it! Well, you learn every day. Nothing really important on the rolls anyway.
 
Tom,
Did adding the BENZO cut the effective speed? How much do you use? Do you think adding -extra- exposure, above and beyond, would be sufficent compensation, how about adding devtime/exposure with outdated B&W film? Thanks!
 
The trick with Benzo is to drop the speed. I didn't and looking at the negs I should have done the Acros @50 asa. The Scopix reacted with it and would have been around asa 25-32!
I did add a fair bit. About 15 ml of 2% Benzo solution. In retrospect I should have stayed with my usual 10ml of 1%/1000ml developer.
It doesn't change the structure of the film but I would advice testing any old stock before using it for "significant" pictures.
There is a possibility that the Pyrocat and the Benzo reacted with each other too. I have to do some more trials - good thing that I have a lot of expired film!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom