sahe69
Well-known
One vote also from here for Fuji Neopan 1600.
ISO 1600 Film
- Thread starter JeremyLangford
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 55
- Views 7K
jolefler
Established
What developer...
What developer...
Does your school lab provide?
What developer...
JeremyLangford said:
Does your school lab provide?
Assaf
Well-known
Neopan 1600
Neopan 1600
I like Fuji Neopan 1600. It has a reasonably fine grain (if developed correctly) and nice shapness for such a fast film. I also pushed it to 3200 and the results were satisfying.
In addition it's not hard to find and reasonably cheap.
However, from my experience this film doesn't live peacfully with wide open apertures. The out of focus regions mess up the grain and the results might look a bit dirty.
For night time street photography I eather use Neaopan 1600 and close the aperture to 4, or use TriX and open aperture to 1.7 or 2.
The attached examples were shot using Neopan 1600 and a Canonet QL17 camera at f4 handheld.
You might also want to have a look in this link
http://d-spot.co.il/forum/index.php?&showtopic=116957
Ignore the Hebrew if you can't see it.
These were also shot in Neopan 1600 by my friend Dotan using an old Yashika camera. The guy holding the camera is yours truely.
Neopan 1600
I like Fuji Neopan 1600. It has a reasonably fine grain (if developed correctly) and nice shapness for such a fast film. I also pushed it to 3200 and the results were satisfying.
In addition it's not hard to find and reasonably cheap.
However, from my experience this film doesn't live peacfully with wide open apertures. The out of focus regions mess up the grain and the results might look a bit dirty.
For night time street photography I eather use Neaopan 1600 and close the aperture to 4, or use TriX and open aperture to 1.7 or 2.
The attached examples were shot using Neopan 1600 and a Canonet QL17 camera at f4 handheld.
You might also want to have a look in this link
http://d-spot.co.il/forum/index.php?&showtopic=116957
Ignore the Hebrew if you can't see it.
These were also shot in Neopan 1600 by my friend Dotan using an old Yashika camera. The guy holding the camera is yours truely.
Attachments
Last edited:
kully
Happy Snapper
I don't like Delta 3200, I find it needlessly grainy.
I really like HP5+ @ 1600 in DDX (box times) and also Neopan 1600 in DDX.
Ach, I've added to the list of suggestions, sorry.
I really like HP5+ @ 1600 in DDX (box times) and also Neopan 1600 in DDX.
Ach, I've added to the list of suggestions, sorry.
palec
Well-known
You can push Neopan 400 to 1600 in Xtol and have smaller grain and contrast than Neopan 1600 at 1600. Example:
Assaf
Well-known
Another thing
Another thing
Thinking a bit more, I think you might like to measure light again and see if you really need 1600.
Note:
1) for 50mm in SLR you can shoot as slow as 60 and usually 30. On RF I shoot regularly on 15 with no problems.
2) If you have a fast lens use it. You said you have 50/1.4 so try it on 1.4 to 2.8 and see how the out of focus regions look like for close and far objects.
3) Measure light correctly. This is the most important tip. A default average metering will take into account the dark parts in the frame (plenty of them in tough lighting conditions) and will tell you that you have less light then you really have. Measure light from the palm of your hand when put under the strongest light in the scene.
All in all, from what I know and my experience, 400 can be enough. But, If you don't need large prints and you don't mind grain, Neopan 1600 can be fantastic.
Another thing
Thinking a bit more, I think you might like to measure light again and see if you really need 1600.
Note:
1) for 50mm in SLR you can shoot as slow as 60 and usually 30. On RF I shoot regularly on 15 with no problems.
2) If you have a fast lens use it. You said you have 50/1.4 so try it on 1.4 to 2.8 and see how the out of focus regions look like for close and far objects.
3) Measure light correctly. This is the most important tip. A default average metering will take into account the dark parts in the frame (plenty of them in tough lighting conditions) and will tell you that you have less light then you really have. Measure light from the palm of your hand when put under the strongest light in the scene.
All in all, from what I know and my experience, 400 can be enough. But, If you don't need large prints and you don't mind grain, Neopan 1600 can be fantastic.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Jeremy -sorry but there's no free lunch in photography.
35mm film at iso 1600 looks grainy.
Of course if you don't enlarge over 10x15 cm (4x6") the grain size will be ignorable, both on fuji neopan 1600, on tri-x pushed to 1600, or even on kodak tmz 3200 at 3200 or delta 3200 at 3200.
Choosing the developer might help reduce grain BUT grain reducing developers mostly cut the speed of film too.
I personally like the somewhat grainy fast films for dark subjects, it adds to the value of the image i think. Not everything has to be smooth.
I would say try them with the develo0pers you can use there: try fuji neopan 1600, ilford delta 3200 and kodak tmz 3200, and see which you like most.
35mm film at iso 1600 looks grainy.
Of course if you don't enlarge over 10x15 cm (4x6") the grain size will be ignorable, both on fuji neopan 1600, on tri-x pushed to 1600, or even on kodak tmz 3200 at 3200 or delta 3200 at 3200.
Choosing the developer might help reduce grain BUT grain reducing developers mostly cut the speed of film too.
I personally like the somewhat grainy fast films for dark subjects, it adds to the value of the image i think. Not everything has to be smooth.
I would say try them with the develo0pers you can use there: try fuji neopan 1600, ilford delta 3200 and kodak tmz 3200, and see which you like most.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Very important: Check what kind of developer you have there at the lab and check the correct development time for the film you will be using.
It can be VERY different from the normal 6.5 minutes you mention!! If a dev time is 18 minutes and you develop it only 6.5, the result will be..well..less than perfect🙂
It can be VERY different from the normal 6.5 minutes you mention!! If a dev time is 18 minutes and you develop it only 6.5, the result will be..well..less than perfect🙂
steamer
Well-known
Fuji Neopan 1600 is my favorite fast B&W film, depending on how you develop, the grain is pretty smooth. I often shoot it at 1000 to 1200. Here is one example developed in diafine.
Last edited:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
steamer - caol ila 25 years?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
steamer
Well-known
It was look but don't touch, I was drinking Cheiftain Caol Ila 13 year old Sauterne finished, it was mighty good. These days any thread seems in danger of turning into a Scotch thread.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
erikhaugsby said:
Rodinal is not terribly good at pushing film.
Xtol, Ilford DD-X or diafine are better choices for that.
That said Tri-X in Rodinal 1:50 @400 asa is beautiful
Harry Lime
Practitioner
In my experience Neopan 1600 is relatively fine grained, but loses shadow detail at 1600. It's true speed is about 640 asa, so you are pushing almost 3 stops, thus the increase in contrast.
Delta3200 gives better shadow detail at 1600. Grain is pleasant in appearance, but isn't quite as tight as Neopan. At 1600 it looks a lot like older incarnations of Tri-X at 400 (think 1960's or 70's Tri-X). I develop it in ilford DD-X @ 1600, which seems to be a perfect match. The true speed of Delta3200 is about 1200 asa. It works best between 1200-2000 asa.
Tri-X pushed to 1600 isn't all that bad if you use the right developer. You need something like Kodak Xtol, Ilford DD-X, Diafine etc. that will give you full filmspeed and keep grain under control.
Same for Tmax 400. it can easily be pushed to 1200.
As has been already mentioned the built in meter of your Minolta will probably give you a reading that is about a stop over what you can get away with. I had a Minolta and on average, when it said 1.4@1/30th I got a reading of 1.4@1/60th with a handheld incident meter.
Delta3200 gives better shadow detail at 1600. Grain is pleasant in appearance, but isn't quite as tight as Neopan. At 1600 it looks a lot like older incarnations of Tri-X at 400 (think 1960's or 70's Tri-X). I develop it in ilford DD-X @ 1600, which seems to be a perfect match. The true speed of Delta3200 is about 1200 asa. It works best between 1200-2000 asa.
Tri-X pushed to 1600 isn't all that bad if you use the right developer. You need something like Kodak Xtol, Ilford DD-X, Diafine etc. that will give you full filmspeed and keep grain under control.
Same for Tmax 400. it can easily be pushed to 1200.
As has been already mentioned the built in meter of your Minolta will probably give you a reading that is about a stop over what you can get away with. I had a Minolta and on average, when it said 1.4@1/30th I got a reading of 1.4@1/60th with a handheld incident meter.
Chris101
summicronia
If you are using film and want high iso, I would suggest that you learn to embrace grain rather than fight it. It will be a losing battle otherwise. To get the most even and controlled grain, I too would suggest that you use the Delta films from Ildord. They are a T-grain film, that are optimized for well structured grain. Delta 3200 can be pulled to 1600 with no apparent loss of contrast, and will develop correctly in many developers.
Check out that Massive Dev Chart mentioned by Archie, it's the penultimate authority..
Check out that Massive Dev Chart mentioned by Archie, it's the penultimate authority..
JeremyLangford said:
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
Man oh man.
Ive gotten so many different responses that I have no idea which one to choose.
I am not scared of the grain, I just simply want a 1600 combination that will have the least grain.
So for the most part, is a manufactures 1600 film, just a 400 film with a longer developing time written on the box?
Ive gotten so many different responses that I have no idea which one to choose.
I am not scared of the grain, I just simply want a 1600 combination that will have the least grain.
So for the most part, is a manufactures 1600 film, just a 400 film with a longer developing time written on the box?
nikola
Well-known
Last few rolls I'm spontaneously shooting @1600 (23min in Rodinal 1+50, these is really long and borring)... ilford pan 400... after developing I'm scanning in canon 4400f... there is no obvious difference in grain... probably due to scanner blurring 😀
this one is cropped to ~60%, and sharpened heavily 🙂
for online publishing I really don't care... I really only want to shoot 🙂
this one is cropped to ~60%, and sharpened heavily 🙂
for online publishing I really don't care... I really only want to shoot 🙂
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
So for the most part, is a manufacturers 1600 film, just the same manufacturers 400 film with a longer developing time written on the box?
sweathog
Well-known
I'm going to throw in my vote for Neopan 1600. it is quite possibly my favourite BW film. Excuse the sloppy scan.
Olympus OM20, Zuiko 50 f1.8
Olympus OM20, Zuiko 50 f1.8
nikola
Well-known
This looks really grainy! 🙂
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Tmax 3200 is NOT a 400 speed film with 3200 written on the box. It's real speed is 1000, and it gives excellent results at 1600 developed in Tmax Developer.
Here's a photo shot with Tmax 3200 at 1600:
and another:
Here's a photo shot with Tmax 3200 at 1600:
and another:
Similar threads
