Life after Neopan 1600

JPSuisse

JPSuisse

Well-known
Local time
7:28 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
434
Dear All So, with the disapperance of Neopan 1600, what options do I have? I liked to shoot this film between 600 and 1000 and develop in DD-X for punchy, low grain, good results. What is the closest option I'll have? Any suggestions would be welcome! Kind regards, JP
 
I hate to sound like an ass, but what is punchy and good? I would think Tri-X or HP5+ or Delta 400 or T-Max 400 pushed to 800-1000 would give you something you like.
 
I can understand people's dismay at Fuji axing 1600 Neopan but luckily they left us with 400 which is pretty good pushed to 1600.

Neopan 400 pushed two stops and developed in Xtol has very little grain and it's certainly punchy.


PCYC05R.jpg
 
I just bought 20 rolls from a place on Amazon that is still selling it; or seems to be, we'll see if it arrives.

I like to shoot it at 800-1000 and develop in Xtol or divided D 76. It's darker than Tri-X I think; which is an odd way of putting it. I guess what I mean is that the blacks are heavier, the highs not as high. I love Tri-X at 400 in Xtol so perphaps I'll like it pushed to 800 but somehow pushing feels to me like one is losing something while pullilng feels like gaining something. Is there any validity to that?
 
Stocking up only lasts us so long- the stuff starts to fog before the expiration date even if frozen.

I'm thinking now that HP5+ at 800 in HC-110B is going to be my "replacement". I shoot that now, not often, but occasionally, and though the grain isn't anywhere as beautiful as Neopan at 1000 in Rodinal 1:25 that is the "closest replacement" I've got. I'll give Delta 3200 a good testing as my stock of Neopan reaches the end (I've got 40 rolls left, may buy another ten if I can swing it). I've liked the grain I've seen from Delta 3200, but have never really played with it much myself.

As to pulling & pushing- I like to think about gaining grain when pushing a 400 film (HP5+ is my preferred)- and Neopan 1600 is all about the grain for me. I shoot it with a ND filter when the grain is the game.
 
Pushed Neopan 400 is NOT anything like, Neopan 1600.

If in your desired developer you rate the Neopan 400 at 320, you will get something like 500-640 from the Neopan 1600 with the same developer developed to the same density/contrast index. Neopan 1600 without question makes very obviously more speed and has slightly coarser grain and reduced resolution. It makes nowhere near a true 1600 in anything, so looks pushed, but one stop less than Neop 400. Resolution of Neopan 1600 is in my experience quite a bit higher than TriX at a stop slower. Grain is about the same.

Neopan 1600 makes more true speed than TriX or HP5 etc in the same developers (as above) and stands smack between these regular 400 films and D3200/Tmax 1600 in terms of speed.

Now that it is gone, I recommend semi stand with one of the 400 film speeds to eek out more film speed for a true increase, while keeping highlights in check. Wont be smart with smooth skies etc due to possible inconsistencies in density but fine for anything else. You should be able to get a solid 500-640 out of TriX and similar from Neopan. For one stop higher you are looking at D3200/Tmax 3200.
 
Last edited:
Hi Luna: you hit the nail on the head, punchy means contrasty. And of course, hi to all the rest: I appreciate your feedback. I think Turtle summed my opinion about Neopan 1600 up pretty well. The crux is I'm probably going to have to change developers. Errrgh. Start all over gathering expereince... Thanks for all for the feedback! JP
 
semilog said:
That's like me with... well, with anything developed in HC-110.
Click to expand...

I like HC-110b for HP5+, and HP5+ at 800, and sometimes for FP4+- when I want "to spice up" the grain.

Neopan 1600 is certainly a film I'll miss. HP5+ at 800 doesn't begin to approach the exceptional beautifully rough, gritty, fibrous grain that I see on my Neopan 1600 negs. I've been shooting it at 1000 and developing it in Rodinal at 1:25. It took me a very long time to pin this film down because I was stuck on shooting it at 1250. In my darkroom, on my subject matter, Neopan 1600 is a 1000 speed film. And it is demanding when it comes to exposure and development. I guess because we're working at the fringe of what silver can do? (Delta 3200 notwithstanding, I've just not shot enough of that to have a handle on it)

I'll certainly give Delta 3200 a good testing. In all kinds of developers. I do find that having the right developer for a film makes all the difference. Yet with Neopan 400 I've never managed to find that right developer in my darkroom. Visiondr gets wonderfully beautiful results with Neopan 400 and HC-110, but despite using his times and temps I never got it to sing like he does. So I guess it really does have more to do with everything in your method than just using this iso and development regime. And that's half the fun isn't it?
 
My experience with Delta 3200 and Tmax 3200 hasn't been very rewarding so far, I find both to be MUCH granier @3200 than Neopan 1600 at 6400 (yep, tried that). Not sure if I should just rate D3200/T3200 at a lower value or push an iso 400 film...
 
umcelinho said:
My experience with Delta 3200 and Tmax 3200 hasn't been very rewarding so far, I find both to be MUCH granier @3200 than Neopan 1600 at 6400 (yep, tried that). Not sure if I should just rate D3200/T3200 at a lower value or push an iso 400 film...
Click to expand...

They are faster films. Pulling them will only do so much - they are inherently grainier due to their speed. TMZ shot at 100 would be grainier than Tri-X shot at 6400.

I will say that in my experience, TMZ grain is a lot nicer wet printed than it is scanned on a Coolscan. Also, setting the blackpoint a bit higher on the scan really cleans up the shadows and gives me something closer to what I get in the darkroom. It is tempting to eke out that last fraction of a stop of tone in the shadows in the scan, but I like my photos more when I resist.

Re: punchy and good. I assumed thats what you meant, but it helps to be a bit more specific in your terminology. If you want more contrast, you can do a couple things:
- print on a harder grade or
- tweak the contrast in photoshop
- extend development to increase contrast in the midtones/highlights
- underexpose to increase shadow contrast (usually in conjunction with extending development)
- find a film that has an inherently limited dynamic range (no suggestions here)

It seems a lot of people feel like its cheating or something to tweak contrast in photoshop on a reasonably normal negative scan. I don't get it. Some pictures look great printed at grade 5, some at 1. Curves is the equivalent. It does NOT have to be super contrasty in the negative. Though it can be :D

Most shots I see of Neopan 1600 at or near 1600 have a lot of contrast and reasonably fine grain. Much finer than Delta 3200 or TMZ. Which makes me think a 400 speed film would suit you. To meet the contrast requirement, if you must have it in the negative and not in the 'printing' stage, then do some combination of underexposure and overdevelopment.

Pick one of the many 400 speed films a, and shoot 6 sets of 5-6 frames from 400 to 1600 in 1/2 stop increments of the same subject. Go into the closet and cut it up into 8 inch strips (or so). Try a **** ton of developers and times. Maybe you find something that you like. If you have some Neopan 1600 still, shoot the same sequence and develop it like you normally do for a baseline for comparison.
 
Last edited:
I don't get it, what do you guys develop Neo 1600 in anyway?

From research, I've found that you should use Spur SLD (I use 1+9 for 9.5 minutes at 20 degrees) or Fuji's Super Prodol (I have 5, 1-liter packs but haven't tested it yet).

So far I've shot Neo 1600 at EI 1600 and the results are great in Spur SLD, a little starker (more contrast and blacker blacks), but the grain is really awesome, so all in all, shooting it at 1600 produce great results in Spur SLD.

I would not even consider using HC-110, D76 or even Ilford Microphen with that one (I plan to use Microphen for Neo 400 only).

How do you get the effective speed ratings you guys mention in this thread?
(Enlighten me, I have no idea on how do do it, except from looking at my negs and see if they give me what I want at at given EI).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom