Neopan 1600 + Diafine Result/Experiment

E

einolu

Well-known
Local time
1:49 PM
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
776
I just got 100' of Neopan 1600 and wasnt sure what its speed in Diafine was, so I did a simple test. Attached are the results, the first is metered at 1250, the second at 1600, then 2000 and lastly 2400. The camera/meter was a Bessa R and the lens was a Jupiter 3. The camera was exposing for the center part. To the left is a 60 watt lamp and far away to the right is a 40 watt lamp, overall the scene was very dark. I scanned these with a Minolta Dual Scan 3. The scanner figured out the exposure, and I used photoshop to crop and resize the pictures.

From what I can tell, 1250 leads to very over exposed shots, 1600 is better, and 2000 and 2400 are just about tied, giving a nice range of tones. Im sure this film would be usable at 3200 in Diafine as well, if the situation requires it. Not very scientific, but those are my results.

I just needed to be sure because Im going to California on the 16th and am only bringing this and a few rolls of NPS. Its a relief to 'know' how to expose this film.
 
I'd actually say that the 1250 isn't so bad - the shadow detail in the lower right is much better. that's a solid black in the higher EIs.

However, it's hard to know what you should expose at since you didn't specifically meter the shadows.

I'm surprised at how contrasty they are in diafine..

allan
 
What i like about this film in diafine is that it gives some options....i found that 2400 looks great to my eye for those times when i dont care about shadow detail (bars concerts etc) and it can be dropped down to a bit slower for when the shadow detail is needed and the highlights arent so bright....
 
Right... Robert, Diafine is a different kind of critter, a two-part soup that is basically insensitive to changes in time and temp, within reason. So your only control is the original exposure. No push or pull is possible, but it's really easy and convenient.

I'd be interested to see how much highlight detail can be pulled out of the EI 1250 neg by fiddling the scanner exposure. And I'd like to see another series shot in daylight.
 
Hmmm. I've never seen a Diafine neg that I liked. No offense intended, but true film speed is based on proper exposure for low values, i.e., adequate shadow detail. Development is about proper highlight rendition.
 
Doug, I dont have any daylight shots at the moment, but I should after California.

I might play around with the original tiff file for the 1250 shot.
 
Yeah, you've got to watch out for the shadow detail. I've done Neopan 1600 in Diafine at both EI 800 and EI 1600. With 800 the negs do indeed look "overexposed" but I find that my scanner (Scan Dual II) can dig out the highlight detail without a problem. This may accentuate grain, though. These were taken with my Olympus XA:

http://www.photosensitive.ca/index.php/image/0575-45/
http://www.photosensitive.ca/index.php/image/0575-33/

At EI 1600 I had good results too, though after fiddling in Photoshop it's hard to know...

http://www.photosensitive.ca/index.php/image/0547-6/ (may have been overexposed)
http://www.photosensitive.ca/index.php/image/0547-2/
 
May I ask what the actual exposure settings were for each shot? How can you control the exposure so precisely, especially with a mechanical shutter? In between clicks on the aperture?
 
jjthe2 said:
May I ask what the actual exposure settings were for each shot? How can you control the exposure so precisely, especially with a mechanical shutter? In between clicks on the aperture?
Click to expand...

None of the Jupiter lenses have click-stops... there's actually only a few FSU RF lenses that have aperture click-stops, so the aperture is continously-variable.
 
I set the meter on the bessa to the ISO I was testing and tweak the aperture until it is satisfied. Once again, this wasnt scientific at all.
 
Neopan 1600 is a great film. I have not come across a developer in which its true speed has been above 800. It it between 600 and 800. 1600 is a pushed speed. These tests are based upon bracketed Zone I exposures looking for the exposure that gave the first discernable change from black when printed. I know a number of pros who rate it at 800. That speed works well for me in PMK and Precysol.

Barry Thornton's book "Elements" gives a good account of how to determine film speeds and dev times.
 
Diafine gives different true speeds for nearly all films. It really is a critter unlike any others. I know shooting Neopan 100SS at 100 in diafine gives little lumps of coal. I shoot it at 160.
 
Yeah, and most people agree that using standard film speed tests with Diafine is a bit tough. Several have commented that Tri-X comes out at like 640 or maybe slower in Diafine in a "real" test. However, the point of pushing is to get appropriate midtones via overdevelopment in spite of underexposure. So TXT @ 1250-1600 in Diafine gives solid midtones. The fact that it also controls highlights so well is kind of a bonus (and, of course, makes it extra useful in this particular application).

But in terms of Z I density, that's a different story.

I still think 2000 is a bit fast based on these results. But I also feel that the test is a bit wonky in terms of metering. Personally, I would not bring a film with me on an important trip that is either new to me or that I have not yet tested fully. But that's me.

allan
 
hmmmm.....i usually expose neopan at around 1000-1200....when i print in the darkroom i just burn down the highlights....as long as there is detail there, you can get it back...

you may want to try to scan the negs twice....once for the shadows and once for the highlights and make a composite....scanners are like cameras...they trying to find middle grey...but by making some adjustments you can squeeze some more out of the negs...
 
OT,
Where did you get your bulk roll of 1600?
I can only find one place online, Megaperls Webshop, but they're in Japan.

I assume there's somewhere a bit more local?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom