pggunn
gregor
Jaans,
I've had trouble loading reels with Neopan 400 and 1600, and the curling problem just as you described. I found that it seemed to load much better when I cut the film leader off square rather the dog-earing the corners as recommended in the book I learned from. I'll have to admit that it may just be coincidence, but I never dog-ear the corners any more. Maybe I just got better at loading the reels with more experience. I've only been processing my own for about a year now.
Still have problems with curling and solved that by putting the cut and dried film strips in sleeves, then placing them between the pages of a phone book with a heavy unabridged dictionary on top, then scanning the next day. Anyone have a better method? And BTW, I never seemed to have any trouble with Tri-X or the Arista 400 equivalent.
I develop Neopan exactly as Keith, XTOL 1:1, same time and methods. I love the look, especially when I don't scratch the film, which usually happens, I think, in the process of removing it from the reel. Any tips there would be appreciated as well. I learned most of what little I know from this forum, other web sites, or library books.
Here's one example I didn't scratch:
BluesFestival_BW 29 by pggunn1, on Flickr
I've had trouble loading reels with Neopan 400 and 1600, and the curling problem just as you described. I found that it seemed to load much better when I cut the film leader off square rather the dog-earing the corners as recommended in the book I learned from. I'll have to admit that it may just be coincidence, but I never dog-ear the corners any more. Maybe I just got better at loading the reels with more experience. I've only been processing my own for about a year now.
Still have problems with curling and solved that by putting the cut and dried film strips in sleeves, then placing them between the pages of a phone book with a heavy unabridged dictionary on top, then scanning the next day. Anyone have a better method? And BTW, I never seemed to have any trouble with Tri-X or the Arista 400 equivalent.
I develop Neopan exactly as Keith, XTOL 1:1, same time and methods. I love the look, especially when I don't scratch the film, which usually happens, I think, in the process of removing it from the reel. Any tips there would be appreciated as well. I learned most of what little I know from this forum, other web sites, or library books.
Here's one example I didn't scratch:
BluesFestival_BW 29 by pggunn1, on Flickr
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
No problems loading Neopan 400 or ACROS, or the Legacy equivalents, and they are flatter (curl less) in my hands than HP5+ or TMAX. Haven't shot Tri-X in over a decade.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The only time I have film curling issues is when the humidity is very low here ... which isn't too often thankfully!
I developed some 120 Adox the other day and it was near impossible to scan ... I'm seriously considering some newton glass inserts for my Epson from Better Scanning for 35mm and 120!
I developed some 120 Adox the other day and it was near impossible to scan ... I'm seriously considering some newton glass inserts for my Epson from Better Scanning for 35mm and 120!
Fawley
Well-known
I would agree with this. The only thing that has dried as flat for me is Delta 400. I think this is why I have my problems with negative popping in a glass less carrier. But the film base of the Legacy also feels thinner to me. The dried film is more flexible than anything else I have seen. I had no problems loading in a Paterson real though.
The only casette I've had open more easily is Adox. I have actually been keeping the Adox to see if I can reuse them for bulk loading.
I plan to continue to work with Legacy. Other people have confirmed my suspicion that the grain is finer than HP5. And its a whole bunch cheaper than Delta, the 400 film I go to when I want smoother tones and finer grain.
x-ray
Veteran
I primarily use Fuji 35mm B&W and have used a great deal of 400 in the Fuji brand and recently been shooting the Legacy Pro. I guess I've shot several hundred rolls of each and see no difference in image quality or in the base. I run on stainless reels and run in HC Ilford or HC110 (same as HC) at 1:31 as per data sheet. Contrast, density and grain are superb. I wet print and rarely scan as this is what the film was designed for. IMO the results scanned are very different than wet printed.
Ilford HP5 is superb and I use it when I need to push but generally like Fuji in 35mm.
Absolutely no problems with Fuji/Legacy Pro.
Ilford HP5 is superb and I use it when I need to push but generally like Fuji in 35mm.
Absolutely no problems with Fuji/Legacy Pro.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
When I get home I'll get out the micrometer and compare the base thicknesses of the Neopan and Legacy Pro films. My guess from working with both is that there's no difference at all.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
About 98% of the film I have shot over the last 10 years has been Neopan 400 / Legacy Pro. I did shoot about 10 bricks of the Tri-X / Arista Premium when it was cheaper than Neopan 400 (before Legacy Pro). I also shot many bricks of HP5 one year when Neopan 400 was in short supply.
I would be hard pressed to point any real differences in any of them. I expose them the same, process them the same. And I cannot tell prints made from one from prints made with any other. No one else can tell a difference either.
I would be hard pressed to point any real differences in any of them. I expose them the same, process them the same. And I cannot tell prints made from one from prints made with any other. No one else can tell a difference either.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I still can't believe the incredible value of this stuff. The current price of the 400 ISO short dated 100ft rolls is $25.99! At this price a 24 exposure roll costs $1.08 when you bulk load!
In todays inflated economy where an 18 megapixel digital rangefinder costs over seven big ones that's phenominal!
In todays inflated economy where an 18 megapixel digital rangefinder costs over seven big ones that's phenominal!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
This was me, in response to a claim that the base thicknesses are different for ACROS and Legacy Pro:
Well , this took a bit longer than I'd hoped. All measurements are +/- ~2 µm.
TMAX400-2 143 µm
Neopan 1600 133 µm
Neopan ACROS 132 µm
Legacy Pro 100 133 µm
Conclusion: within my ability to measure them, there is no difference between the base thicknesses of ACROS and LP100.
Well , this took a bit longer than I'd hoped. All measurements are +/- ~2 µm.
TMAX400-2 143 µm
Neopan 1600 133 µm
Neopan ACROS 132 µm
Legacy Pro 100 133 µm
Conclusion: within my ability to measure them, there is no difference between the base thicknesses of ACROS and LP100.
Last edited:
setyotomo
Established
i once have 2x100' of lp400, and i love it.
as for the curling, i don't find it makes my life more difficult.. and i am living in a very humid country (Indonesia)
here is one on 400
watching tv by Dion Setyotomo, on Flickr
here is pushed to 1600
Her mother is more excited about this. by Dion Setyotomo, on Flickr
as for the curling, i don't find it makes my life more difficult.. and i am living in a very humid country (Indonesia)
here is one on 400
watching tv by Dion Setyotomo, on Flickr
here is pushed to 1600
Her mother is more excited about this. by Dion Setyotomo, on Flickr