photophorous
Registered User
Hi Everybody,
Info on this topic is all over the place and I'm confused, so I was hoping some of you experts could provide some suggestions. I need to find a good high speed film/developer combo to use at a wedding. It's a friend's wedding, not a paying gig, and I'm only doing this to add something different to what the "real photographer" will be providing. Still, I want to do my best. I'll be doing mostly candid shots in low light, on 35mm.
I've developed a lot of slower film in D76, but I have very little experience shooting high speed films. I have tried one roll of Neopan 1600 in D76 and one roll of TriX at 1250 in Diafine. I didn't like the look of the TriX/Diafine shots, but the highlight control was nice. OTOH, Neopan 1600 looked very nice, but I'm afraid I won't be able to control the contrast in bad lighting.
So, I just ordered some Delta 3200, Tmax3200, and more Neopan 1600. I want to try the Neopan at 2400 in Diafine, but I'm looking for suggestions on the other two. I only have time to try one new developer (in addition to D76 and Diafine) so I'd like one that will work with all these films. I don't think a loss of shadow detail will hurt people shots, as long as mid tones are good and grain is reasonably well controlled. Any suggestions?
Thanks for your help. I know I need to do a lot of experimenting, but I want to start off in the right direction.
Paul
Info on this topic is all over the place and I'm confused, so I was hoping some of you experts could provide some suggestions. I need to find a good high speed film/developer combo to use at a wedding. It's a friend's wedding, not a paying gig, and I'm only doing this to add something different to what the "real photographer" will be providing. Still, I want to do my best. I'll be doing mostly candid shots in low light, on 35mm.
I've developed a lot of slower film in D76, but I have very little experience shooting high speed films. I have tried one roll of Neopan 1600 in D76 and one roll of TriX at 1250 in Diafine. I didn't like the look of the TriX/Diafine shots, but the highlight control was nice. OTOH, Neopan 1600 looked very nice, but I'm afraid I won't be able to control the contrast in bad lighting.
So, I just ordered some Delta 3200, Tmax3200, and more Neopan 1600. I want to try the Neopan at 2400 in Diafine, but I'm looking for suggestions on the other two. I only have time to try one new developer (in addition to D76 and Diafine) so I'd like one that will work with all these films. I don't think a loss of shadow detail will hurt people shots, as long as mid tones are good and grain is reasonably well controlled. Any suggestions?
Thanks for your help. I know I need to do a lot of experimenting, but I want to start off in the right direction.
Paul
venchka
Veteran
Xtol
or
Rodinal, semi-stand development, Tri-X at 24,500. Search the forum. The recipe is here somewhere.
or
Rodinal, semi-stand development, Tri-X at 24,500. Search the forum. The recipe is here somewhere.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I tried Neopan at 2400 in Diafine. It came out rather thin, thinner than Tri-X at 1600 in Diafine. But still useable. Later i used the Neopan at 1600-to-2000 and it was okay.
More contrasty than the tri-x+diafine in any case.
Delta 3200 is quite nice but it grows big funky grains. I used to give it to a lab who dev'ed it in agfa refinal and sometimes x-tol - full speed, but big grain. When they dev'ed the neopan at 1600 though, it all went out of scale with contrast. Extremely harsh; maybe it was overdeveloped.
I must say i also used lots of d3200 in 6x6 format, and it looks EXCELLENT. There really is a quality leap from 35mm.
I also tried (35mm) TMZ but only at 1250-1600 in rodinal special. Looks nice, visible grain the size of neopan at 2000 in diafine, but nice tones. Less contrast (which can be enhanced in photoshop, since i scan my film).
So i'd say if u r happy with speeds under 2000, base your decision on how much built-in contrast you want to have on that negative.
PS: i kinda like tri-x and diafine.
More contrasty than the tri-x+diafine in any case.
Delta 3200 is quite nice but it grows big funky grains. I used to give it to a lab who dev'ed it in agfa refinal and sometimes x-tol - full speed, but big grain. When they dev'ed the neopan at 1600 though, it all went out of scale with contrast. Extremely harsh; maybe it was overdeveloped.
I must say i also used lots of d3200 in 6x6 format, and it looks EXCELLENT. There really is a quality leap from 35mm.
I also tried (35mm) TMZ but only at 1250-1600 in rodinal special. Looks nice, visible grain the size of neopan at 2000 in diafine, but nice tones. Less contrast (which can be enhanced in photoshop, since i scan my film).
So i'd say if u r happy with speeds under 2000, base your decision on how much built-in contrast you want to have on that negative.
PS: i kinda like tri-x and diafine.
foto_fool
Well-known
Been happy lately with the results with Delta 3200 (rated at 3200) in DDX. With this film I have found that it really makes a difference 1) how fresh the film is and 2) how quickly you can finish a roll and get it into developer. Best of luck.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Neopan 1600 on D-76 only takes 7:30 minutes. That, to me, is fast, whereas Kodak ISO 3200 in the same soup has to be run for 15 minutes. That's too long for a film that's NOT being push-processed.
Have you tried T-Max developer? It seems to speed up things a bit... At least in my experience. Some stuff that takes, say, 7 minutes in D-76 gets done in 6 using T-Max. Let's see what others say.
Take care!
Have you tried T-Max developer? It seems to speed up things a bit... At least in my experience. Some stuff that takes, say, 7 minutes in D-76 gets done in 6 using T-Max. Let's see what others say.
Take care!
photophorous
Registered User
Thanks for the comments. I guess I should have mentioned that I'll be scanning my film. I thought Neopan 1600 in D76 had better looking grain than TriX in Diafine, but I've only done one roll of each.
I'm hoping Diafine can tame the Neopan contrast and keep the nice grain. I guess when I try it, I'll experiment with speeds from 1600-2400 to see what works best. I think I want to stay at 1600 or higher, whichever combo I pick.
I may shoot some TriX at 1600, for diafine processing too...just to see if I change my mind.
I'll read up on Xtol and DDX.
Thanks again!
Paul
I'm hoping Diafine can tame the Neopan contrast and keep the nice grain. I guess when I try it, I'll experiment with speeds from 1600-2400 to see what works best. I think I want to stay at 1600 or higher, whichever combo I pick.
I may shoot some TriX at 1600, for diafine processing too...just to see if I change my mind.
I'll read up on Xtol and DDX.
Thanks again!
Paul
photophorous
Registered User
SolaresLarrave said:
I wasn't planning to develop Delta or Tmax 3200 films in D76 because I've heard that doesn't work well. I'm looking for something that will minimize grain and give me the nicest skin tones, even if I have to shoot it at 1600. I'll read up on Tmax developer too. Thanks for the suggestion.
Paul
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
Hi,
've used neopan 1600 but it was too contrasty for me in xtol. I now shoot it at 1000 and it is oke.
At the moment I'm experimenting with d3200 in ddx and xtol. Botht developers seem to do a very good job. I do however use longer times then recomended by Ilford. for the DDX which I use at this very moment I develop for 11 minutes at 20C. First minute agitation and then every minute 4 times.
When I finished this project I think I will try some more Neopan with DDX.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
've used neopan 1600 but it was too contrasty for me in xtol. I now shoot it at 1000 and it is oke.
At the moment I'm experimenting with d3200 in ddx and xtol. Botht developers seem to do a very good job. I do however use longer times then recomended by Ilford. for the DDX which I use at this very moment I develop for 11 minutes at 20C. First minute agitation and then every minute 4 times.
When I finished this project I think I will try some more Neopan with DDX.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
afaik neopan1600 is made specially to develop for the same time as neopan 400, so that you can mix them. That's why it develops faster than one would expect.
At least this is what they say in some kind of description/commercial that i have read...somewhere, some time ago.
At least this is what they say in some kind of description/commercial that i have read...somewhere, some time ago.
lawrence
Veteran
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
examples
examples
yeah i could post some as well.
first one is tmz in agfa rodinal special (=studional) at EI 1600, full frame
second one is neopan 1600 at EI 2000 in Diafine (cropped on bottom only)
third one is tri-x at 1600 in Diafine
all scanned on epson v700 at 2400 dpi 16-bit grayscale and downsampled; of course some photoshop like levels, curves and USM was applied, but you can still see the stronger contrast of the Neopan.
examples
yeah i could post some as well.
first one is tmz in agfa rodinal special (=studional) at EI 1600, full frame
second one is neopan 1600 at EI 2000 in Diafine (cropped on bottom only)
third one is tri-x at 1600 in Diafine
all scanned on epson v700 at 2400 dpi 16-bit grayscale and downsampled; of course some photoshop like levels, curves and USM was applied, but you can still see the stronger contrast of the Neopan.
Attachments
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
some more
some more
first one: neopan at EI 2400 in Diafine (was REALLY dark, serious levels adjustment was needed to get back some shadows)
In comparison, here's also a second scan: full frame 6x6 on delta3200 exposed at 3200 souped in xtol. At 5300x5600 pixel size, the v700 can resolve the grain. Not at 700x700-ish. (uncoated tessar lens)
EDIT: i metered the above scenes all with the same quantum calculight xp incident meter.
some more
first one: neopan at EI 2400 in Diafine (was REALLY dark, serious levels adjustment was needed to get back some shadows)
In comparison, here's also a second scan: full frame 6x6 on delta3200 exposed at 3200 souped in xtol. At 5300x5600 pixel size, the v700 can resolve the grain. Not at 700x700-ish. (uncoated tessar lens)
EDIT: i metered the above scenes all with the same quantum calculight xp incident meter.
Attachments
Last edited:
lawrence
Veteran
Pherdinand, the Tri-X in Diafine is wicked for 1600 -- that's definitely the next combo I try.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
yup, i liked it too, Lawrence, and tri-x is cheaper than neopan 1600, and scans easier as well. Depends on the subject matter, but for my niece i don't need the charcoal contrast of the neopan (which i DO like for other stuff).
sorry for promoting family :angel: but i don't like to shoot brick walls
sorry for promoting family :angel: but i don't like to shoot brick walls
photophorous
Registered User
Pherdinand, I agree about your TriX/Diafine shot. The grain and tones look nice and smooth...very good for skin, which is what I'm looking for. My TriX/Diafine shots (@1250) look much more gritty. Any idea what could cause that?
Thanks,
Paul
Thanks,
Paul
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
just for fun
just for fun
here's an older shot i made on neopan 1600 at box speed, lab-dev'ed in agfa refinal (overdeveloped, or so I was told):
just for fun
here's an older shot i made on neopan 1600 at box speed, lab-dev'ed in agfa refinal (overdeveloped, or so I was told):
lawrence
Veteran
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
I would add my voice to those touting Diafine. You get speed increase from box speed, reasonable grain, somewhat reduced contrast (good for artificial lighting indoors) compensating effect (tough to blow out highlights) and it's basically idiot proof to develop. The last two are the best reasons for me. Consider the simplicity of Diafine as a plus when you're shooting in unknown lighting conditions. You want a good majority of your shots to turn out well since you're shooting at a wedding. It would really suck to look at your negs and wish you had a second chance because you won't!
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
photophorous said:
No idea but here's what i do in a 2-reel plastic tank (all 20 degrees C and chemicals mixed with distilled water, except final long wash with tapwater):
Diafine A 3 minutes + pour in-pour out time; tapping against bubbles, but no shaking
Diafine B 3 minutes plus pour in-pour out time; tapping against bubbles, two inversions in the beginning, two more inversions every minute
3-4 times rinsing (fill, shake, empty tank) with 20 deg tap water
fix 1+4 Amaloco fixer; if fresh mix, then 2:30 minutes + pour in/out times (i reuse a liter for about 10 films, increasing fixing time at the end and testing with film leader before to make sure)
rinse with tap water a few times (fill/shake/empty), then open lid, check film, and leave for about 10 minutes under very weakly flowing tap water, sometimes shaking it a bit if i am not too lazy; this long wash is with water cold as it comes out the tap - 12-14 deg only this time of the year, but the water in the tank only slowly changes to this temperature.
Finally, soaking in distilled 20 deg water with wetting agent for 2-3 minutes, and hanging to dry
I scan at high resolution, 16 bit, on epson v700, mostly as negative (if the neg is VERY thin then i try positive, seems to get more shadow details when inverted post-scanning), USM at LOW, gamma around 1.1-1.3, levels adjusted not to crop anything on the sides - fairly low contrast result. In the case of most tri-x frames, "auto exposure" button of the epson scan software works almost good; i take back on the highlight crop a bit and it is fine.
I adjust levels and increase contrast if the subject asks for it, then apply USM (usually strength 40, radius 3, threshold 3) in PS.
I never use "grain reduction" or other built-in scanner software mumbo jumbo.
hope it helps.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
lawrence said:
yes thats where i like it. Just got to be sure i expose for the thing i want to have on the film (highlights in most cases).
When i first time used neopan1600, used lab development and 10x15 prints, high contrast concert scene like yours.
When i looked at the prints i was devastated. All dark gray, except the performers that had completely burnt out faces. Nothing was useable from 36 frames. After some time i looked at the negatives themselves...very thin, of course, but miracle!!! the performers were looking just fine on many frames. (I spot metered them with a reflex and long lens.) All the face details were there just as i wanted.
I went back to the lab, they said, ok, they can print it again, with normal contrast, "black should be black, people less bright). Few days later ig ot back exactly the same ****ty prints...
Lesson learned. No more minilab prints off contrasty black and white negs, thank you.