I like Neopan, is this stuff good?

[_larky]

http://www.digitaltruth.com/uk/stor...-400-ISO-Film-35mm-x-36-exposures-p-1473.html

I really like Neopan 400, it's very punchy. How does this stuff compare, anyone tried it?

Cheers.

 

[Bobfrance]

I like Neopan 400 too. I didn't like Rollei Retro 400 in 120.
The image quality wasn't that great processed in Xtol, there were manufacturing defects in the emulsion of some of the rolls I had and it was very curly, so hard to scan.

Maybe the 35mm is better - worth chancing a roll, but I wouldn't stock up with it until you're sure.

 

[_larky]

OK, thanks for that. I'll chance a roll when I do my next order of the Legacy Pro.

 

[StillKicking]

I would try it. It looked nice when processed in Rodinal. I prefer Retro 80s.. which has a finer grain.. so haven't used the 400s much.

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

there's a difference between retro 400 and retro 400s. I use it (400S) in medium format quite regularly.

here's too many examples:

 

[_larky]

Well they are certainly very excellent. I'll give it a try.

 

[Fotohuis]

Rollei Retro 400 was APX 400 (Agfa Photo) film made from the 35mm 135um material so that's the reason it was curly. Finished business already for some time.
The Rollei Retro 400S is from Gevaert in Belgium, aviation film, extended red sensitive so pretty contrastly but a good film. However the Neopan 400 was my favorite film in iso 400, 135-36 and 120 roll film and it's very sad that Fuji discontinued the roll film version.
In fact I have not decided yet what to do now. I want THE SAME film emulsion in 35mm and roll film so for me the choice can be:

• Fomapan 400 (but it pushes bad and is iso 250 only)
• Rollei Retro 400S (pretty contrastly)
• Rollei RPX 400 (on tri-acetate base, cheap Harman/Ilford emulsion)
• HP5+ (I am not willing to pay the new crazy Ilford prices here)
• Tri-X 400 (So many discontinued products from Kodak, I lost confidence)

.... and Tgrain type films are not my thing apart that only Kodak and Ilford are offering them in the iso 400 range.

So I think I will make a new test with the Retro 400S film for some log D curves in my favorite developers (AM74/RHS, CG-512/RLS, HC-110 and Rodinal). Due to the extended red it seems to be that this film is also suitable on low iso rate for IR photography.

BTW your Retro 400S examples are looking very good.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

there's a difference between retro 400 and retro 400s. I use it (400S) in medium format quite regularly.

Nice. Question(s): What developer do you use? And are these negative or print scans?

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

Nice. Question(s): What developer do you use? And are these negative or print scans?

ilfotec lc29 1+19, negative scans.

 

[skibeerr]

The Rollei RSX looks promising on paper.

I ordered some rolls, we'll see.

 

[Rob-F]

Great shots there, Simon! All of them!

 

[B.J.Scharp]

However the Neopan 400 was my favorite film in iso 400, 135-36 and 120 roll film and it's very sad that Fuji discontinued the roll film version.

and Tgrain type films are not my thing...

I've always been under the impression that all Neopan films are T-grain films. Have I been wrong all this time?

 

[Freakscene]

I've always been under the impression that all Neopan films are T-grain films. Have I been wrong all this time?

The Neopan films are monosize cubic emulsions. They are not flat (T-Grain) or epitaxial (like Ilford Delta) emulsions. Acros and the late Neopan 1600 have a lot of incorporated development accelerants. Neopan 400 does not have as much accelerant used.

Neopan 400, Xtol 1+3

Marty

 

[maddoc]

Marty, did you use a filter here ? great tones !

The Neopan films are monosize cubic emulsions. They are not flat (T-Grain) or epitaxial (like Ilford Delta) emulsions. Acros and the late Neopan 1600 have a lot of incorporated development accelerants. Neopan 400 does not have as much accelerant used.

Neopan 400, Xtol 1+3

Marty

 

[Freakscene]

Marty, did you use a filter here ? great tones !

Thanks - I think I used a B+W 060 (yellow-green) on a newest version 50 Summicron-M. When those lenses (I had several) worked well they were incredible, but I very often got loss of contrast and/or bad ghosting where there were bright light sources outside the frame - both diffuse like the sky, or point sources. Like this:

Neopan 400, Xtol 1+3, 50/2 Summicron-M.

I went through several Summicrons before I figured out that they all do it.

Marty

 

[_larky]

Hmm, the link is dead now :\ Was going to do a massive bulk order...

 

[Fotohuis]

http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/product_tests/400ISO_filmtest_001.php

Just a test between some cubical type iso 400 films. But with one type developer only.

 

[_larky]

I ordered a ton of the stuff. Now I need some Ilfotec, off to Silverprint next week 🙂

 

[DNG]

I just started using Fuji Neopan 400, in Rodinal 1:50, at ISO 320 w/o a time change..
It is a bit contrasty though, I agitate every Min for 10s. I may back off to 2m and 10s and see how it goes.

But, the tonal range is nice, and it has deep lower end DR.. (shadow)..
I think the Highlights can blow out easier, that's why I shoot at 320. but I don't change the times to reflect the slight over exposure.

I come from Acros Country... so I am used to great highlight details... FN/400 has the ability with the right tweaks in exposure and development.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

actually, Agfa 100 and 400 private label are available here (and cheaply too):

http://www.ultrafineonline.com/agapx100bwfi.html
http://www.ultrafineonline.com/agapx400fi353.html

cheers!

raytoei