Neopan 100 vs Delta 100 vs FP4

[montaggio]

Wondering if anyone has any experience using Neopan 100? I currently bounce between Delta 100, FP4 and HP5, with good luck in processing. I've noticed that Neopan is a bit cheaper here than the others. Anyone have any experience with it, including developing?

 

[FPjohn]

Acros is very like Delta 100 in my limited experience. Neopan 100, which is not the same as Acros*, is a more traditional but advanced emulsion. Unfortunately I've no experience with it. Anyone?

yours
FPJ

*Acros is the cheaper of the two here in the frozen north.

 

[martyryan]

Neopan 100 SS is a very good old stlye emulsion with a grain simular in size to that of FP-4. It appears to be a true 100 iso. Acros 100 is very fine grain and sharp modern film.

Marty

 

[martyryan]

Here is a photo on neopan 100 ss taken with a industar 61ld lens. Pretty much a straigt scan with sharping for output.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I found Neopan 100 SS to be quite tolerant of variations in exposure and development. Just as you would expect from an older film. And the price is certainly right.

The downsides are that the grain seems to be what I get from Neopan 400. And supply is sporadic. It's all grey market here in the US, so sometimes you can find it, sometimes not.

The downsides caused me to abandon using it. But then you may love it.

 

[montaggio]

Pricing here in Canada is attractive and availability seems good. Going to give both a try. Thanks folks.

 

[NickTrop]

Neopan 100 vs Delta 100 vs FP4

If it was a WWE "Triple Threat" match in a steel cage for the "Intercontinental Belt", I think FP4 would win the match with a "figure four" leg lock!

 

[rich815]

Do you mean Neopan Acros 100 or Neopan 100 SS?

 

[montaggio]

To be honest, wasn't that familiar with the Neopan line. Just sparked a bit of an interest by the price difference. Looks like Acros that they carry.

 

[martyryan]

I certainly think that Acros is superior in most ways than the SS, but here in the US the SS is very cheap, so I gave it a try.

 

[montaggio]

Had another look at my shop's website. They have both SS and Acros - both better priced than the Ilford stuff I have been using. Also noticed that the Agfa Silvertone is even cheaper yet. At what point is it false economy though?

 

[back alley]

there is an ebay seller named 'hunt's photo and video' and they have good film prices. i have ordered a few times from them.

on the average, if i order 10 rolls of film, even with shipping costs, it's about 20 bucks cheaper than buying locally.

also, in canada, another ebay seller, 'photocan', sometimes has film at good prices - great prices on camera bags too!

joe

 

[montaggio]

Thanks for the tip, I'll check that out.

 

[rich815]

I certainly think that Acros is superior in most ways than the SS, but here in the US the SS is very cheap, so I gave it a try.

Saying Acros is superior to SS is like saying Tmax 100 is better than Plus-X, or Delta 100 than FP-4+. Different? Yes. Superior? VERY subjective, especially in the world of B&W photography. The films have completely different characteristics.

Personally I find 100SS and Acros to be wonderful films. I shoot a lot of Acros for night photography in medium format as it has a wonderful lack of a need for reciprocity adjustment and scans beautifully, 100SS is great for more "silvery" older style shooting like street, or even portraits where you do not want your B&W imagery "too smooth" in tonality.

That said you cannot go wrong at all with the Silvertone film either (if you can still find it), which is Agfa APX100. In Rodinal it simply sings....

 

[NickTrop]

Wanna know what I think? (Don't answer that...)

IF you scan, especially big DNG files from the scanner using Vuescan (which are more like TIFF but that's another topic), and you use Lightroom or Photoshop, a lot of this stuff having to do with contrast, sharpness, "signature", curves, tonality, doesn't really matter all that much because you can do soooo much in post to get whatever look you want, and the latent signature of the film is largely lost - or altered to your taste. Very little of the latent signature remains.

If you scan, buy whatever...
|

 

[sepiareverb]

Saying Acros is superior to SS is like saying Tmax 100 is better than Plus-X, or Delta 100 than FP-4+. Different? Yes. Superior? VERY subjective, especially in the world of B&W photography. The films have completely different characteristics....

Well said Rich. They are all different animals. I've been becoming quite a fan of the Fuji Neopans myself, I especially like the 400, but ACROS is indeed wonderful stuff, giving quite luminous high values.

I'll admit to preferring the lok of the grain in the 'traditional' films to the newer, so shoot a lot more FP4+ than Acros.

 

[rich815]

Wanna know what I think? (Don't answer that...)

IF you scan, especially big DNG files from the scanner using Vuescan (which are more like TIFF but that's another topic), and you use Lightroom or Photoshop, a lot of this stuff having to do with contrast, sharpness, "signature", curves, tonality, doesn't really matter all that much because you can do soooo much in post to get whatever look you want, and the latent signature of the film is largely lost - or altered to your taste. Very little of the latent signature remains.

If you scan, buy whatever...
|

Wow. I could not disagree more...