Neopan 1600 in HC-110 ?

[alexz]

Finally going to process my first bulk-loaded Neopan 1600 in HC-110.
Massive Dev. Chart suggests 7 minutes in dill. B. I used to soup Tri-X in dill. H so would still prefer H over B. For Tri-X that meant 12.5 minutes with moderate aggitation (20 deg. C) - this is what I came to after some extensive trials with Tri-X and HC-110.

Should I also just double dev. time to 14 minutes for Neopan 1600 (relatively to dill. B in Dev. Chart) ? Of course, 20 deg. C, that is..

What does common wisdom advises on this combo ?

Thanks in advance, Alex

 

[amateriat]

Giving your inquiry a bump, largely because I'm curious about this one too. 🙂


- Barrett

 

[pfoto]

Recommended HC110 dilution for Neopan 1600.

 

[alexz]

Thanks guys.
Well, did that roll, as I said: 14 minutes, dill. H, 20 deg. C, moderate aggitation (at least by my Tri-X standards - 3 inversions each 2 minutes).
The results turned to be hit and miss, actually muh more misses then hits.
Contrast looks extremely exxagerated, in many frames to an unusable levels. I'd consider that as a failure, check the attached examples which look typical throughout the entire roll. Grain also looks a bit too much for my liking...

Now I need to figure what manifests itself in such blown contrast: too long dev. time or yet an excessive aggitation ? Does such level of grain natural to Neopan 1600 or that also result of inadequate processing ?
I tend to believe dev. time was too long, perhaps just plain doubling the time for dill. H relatively to the recommended time for dill. B doesn't work that much as it did with Tri-X. Perhaps decreasing dev. time by some 20-30% should produce more adequate resuslts ?

 

[Teus]

exposures are a bit off. Try a push-dev like DD-X, Microphen, XTOL or TMAX, they'll give better contrast and shadow detail.

I like HC110 a lot, but not for pushing. it did work well, for like Tri-X at 1600, but it was too contrasty alright

 

[John Bragg]

These look underexposed and over developed. I would back off on the dev time and do test for your Ei. Most likely exposing at Ei800 and developing for about 10 minutes will improve the results dramatically.

 

[alexz]

Thanks guy.
Teus: that was Neopan 1600, not Tri-X pushed. In fact, I didn't considered shooing and processing Neopan 1600 at 1600 as pushing, just applied regular dev. time for particular dillution.
John, do you think the real speed of Neopan 1600 is a stop slower then rated by manufacturer ? That can happen, but by full stop ?
Xmm, in fact, I considered that film for its nominal speed, it will be a bit dissapointing is it will turn out to be 800 in realty because one can push Tri-X to 800 and obtain a very reasonable results.
I'll arrange for a test roll to establish its real EI in HC110 and Microphen...

 

[Teus]

Neopan has a true ISO of about 1000. That's less in HC110, and more in a push dev.

Try Microphen. Check your negatives, can you tell if your exposures were consistant and good?

 

[oscroft]

Here's a couple of recent shots on Neopan 1600 in HC-110 dil-H, 15 mins @ 20C, agitation 5 secs per minute. Conditions were a bit hazy, but I did like the shadow detail.

 

[MCTuomey]

alan, did you rate the neopan 1600 at 1600? the exposures look very good.

 

[oscroft]

alan, did you rate the neopan 1600 at 1600? the exposures look very good.

Yes, I did (in an OM1, using a Zuiko 100-200/5)

 

[alexz]

Neopan has a true ISO of about 1000. That's less in HC110, and more in a push dev.

Try Microphen. Check your negatives, can you tell if your exposures were consistant and good?

Thanks, understood.
Looking at the negs after development I see most of then look either thin or the other end of the scale, through some have both very dark and bright areas but very little in-between...
I'm not sure whether I can judge about the exposure based on these observations, at least bearing in mind my little B&W experience yet...

Alan, your images look quite convincing. If this is what can be achieved with of Neopan 1600 at 1600 in HC-110 at even longer time that I did - makes me to believe there are chances I screwed up with my exposures...

I think I'd better to shoot another roll paying more attention on exposures, probablu to shoot at both 1600 and 1000 and develop in HC-110 and Michrophen...

 

[John Bragg]

Thanks guy.
Teus: that was Neopan 1600, not Tri-X pushed. In fact, I didn't considered shooing and processing Neopan 1600 at 1600 as pushing, just applied regular dev. time for particular dillution.
John, do you think the real speed of Neopan 1600 is a stop slower then rated by manufacturer ? That can happen, but by full stop ?
Xmm, in fact, I considered that film for its nominal speed, it will be a bit dissapointing is it will turn out to be 800 in realty because one can push Tri-X to 800 and obtain a very reasonable results.
I'll arrange for a test roll to establish its real EI in HC110 and Microphen...

Hi Alexz,

Film speed depends very much on the developer you are using. As a rule most manufacturers determine speed with D76 / ID11 type as standard. HC-110 can be a little more aggressive in the high values. In the real world however, most films benefit from "Adequate" exposure to record shadow detail and this can very often be one stop more. This is no big deal as all of us meter differently. It is also true that under exposure is more of a disaster than over exposure. Detail lost off the bottom of the scale is lost forever, whereas a denser negative can still be printed or scanned to show highlight detail.
I would firstly do a test for your personal effective speed with this developer in more even and controlled lighting, taking care to meter precisely. If you still get trouble with excessive contrast, then consider a different developer. I think Rodinal 1:50 (minimal agitation) is a good choice and D76 1:1 would be hard to beat too.....

Good luck, John.