Neopan 1600 vs. TriX & 800

pau3

pau3

Well-known
Local time
2:22 PM
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
206
Location
Barcelona
View My Gallery
Hi, folks,

here there is a question I shoudn't ask. What would you do,
Neopan 1600 & 800 or TriX & 800?

I normally use TriX & 320, but I'm pretty confident about the results
I would get & 800 (that is, a not very serious lose of shadow detail).
Next week I will probably need a little more speed, and I haven't
done my homework and I haven't tested Neopan 1600. But I wonder
if the results at 800 will be better, in terms of shadow detail and
grain to those of TriX & 800.

Please, seeking advice!

Pau
 
I have run into the same dilemma. I chose to go with Tri-X at 800 because I was much more familiar with Tri-X. I lost more shadow detail than I hoped, but that was probably due more to the lighting conditions than the film.
 
I've yet to use TRI-X as a film but I did push some Neopan 400 to 1600 recently and was very impressed with the result. Previously I had done the same with HP5 but I think the Neopan came up better. I developed in straight D76 for 13 mins.
 
I shoot Neopan 1600 as my fast B&W film simply because it's the cheapest (name-brand) stuff I could find. My Yashica GX can only go up to 800 ISO, so it came down to pushing Neopan 400 (my default B&W) or pulling Neopan 1600. The way I heard it explained was that pushed 400 will yield smaller grain, but pulled 1600 will give better tonality.

Neopan 1600 is generally slower in most developers anyways, so burning it at 800 might only be 2/3 stop overexposure.
 
Tonality of Neopan 1600 at 1000 in D-76 should be more even and smoother than Tri-X in Diafine at 800-1000, IMO.
 
'Real speed' of Neopan 1600 is said to be about 640. Neopan is very, contrasty at 1600, little shadow detail left.

Only started developing myself, but I'm positively thrilled by Tri-X 400 at 1250 in Diafine. Neopan 1600 has an advertised speed of 1200 (on the Diafine box), but it wasn't nearly as nice as Tri-X. Buy as always YMMV.
 
Thank you for the inputs. I had already read elsewhere that Neopan1600 is
in fact a 640 ISO film, which is much better than the 250 or 320 I can get
from TriX in D76. In the end, I will go with the known option, that is, TriX.
It will depend on the light. I will be shooting around sunset, so I will be changing
the speed as soon as it gets dark.

Pau
 
I'm still pinning down Neopan 1600- my next step is to run it in Perceptol, then in Microdol-X. I'm hoping these will help tame the contrast. That said, I just printed some stuff this morning on Neopan 1600 @ 1250, run in ID-11 1:1. At grade 1 things were very nice. I also keep the agitation to a minimum when developing Neopan 1600.
 
I haven't tried Neopan, but I ofte use Tri-x at 800. Developed in D76 1:1 for 12:30 mins it creates wonderful results. I really love Tri-x. You can expose it at pretty much any speed between 100 and 3200. At 3200 the loss of shadow detail is significant, but the results are still good in their own way.
 
trix and neopan at 800 respectively couldnt be more different, you should test both and see what you like. The neopan has no grain and no midtone information in comparison to trix, relatively speaking. The mids in pushed Trix are in my thinking an inverse of what I usually get pulling neopan 1600, using the same developer for both, typically ddx. VERY different looks, both fully awesome, all depends what you are after.
 
Keith said:
I've yet to use TRI-X as a film but I did push some Neopan 400 to 1600 recently and was very impressed with the result. Previously I had done the same with HP5 but I think the Neopan came up better. I developed in straight D76 for 13 mins.
Click to expand...
I've had the same experience with Neopan 400, even developed in diafine. Lazar, another member, works with Tri-X at 800 and is quite happy with the Diafine results he receives at 800 in sunny Israel. I routinely use Tri-X at 1250 and have been happy with my results. I will be comparing Diafine, Rodinal and DDX shortly. I'll post some shots after the Rodinal arrives. 😀
 
sepiareverb said:
I'm still pinning down Neopan 1600- my next step is to run it in Perceptol, then in Microdol-X. I'm hoping these will help tame the contrast. That said, I just printed some stuff this morning on Neopan 1600 @ 1250, run in ID-11 1:1. At grade 1 things were very nice. I also keep the agitation to a minimum when developing Neopan 1600.
Click to expand...

Sepia, you may wish to try also Rollei RHS for taming the Neopan 1600 contrast @800. I tried it many times and Neopan looks nothing like what you usually get in other developers, incl. ID11, D76 or DDX. One thing I had to ask myself after using the RHS/Neopan combo, was why did I purge Neopan of its unique character? It's a different looking film, and bringing it near TriX territory was not that useful to me at the end of the day.
 
My favorite speed film in 120 Delta 3200. The bigger neg solves a lot of problems. But if I have to shoot 35mm, then it's Neopan 1600. It seems to go to 1600 easily with a one stop push from the datasheet times. I use DDX and have no contrast problems. I agitate two inversions per minute.

But, do not decide on an e.i. until you meter the scene. Use you maximum lens opening and you minimum shutter speed to determine what e.i. you need to shoot at. No need to push another stop if all you have to do is open the lens.
 
like mine situtation

like mine situtation

recently i use neopan 1600 ei 800
with tmax developer

result is fine, i like it 🙂

xpan_post5-1.jpg
 
telenous said:
...It's a different looking film, and bringing it near TriX territory was not that useful to me at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

I too am a real fan of the Neopan 1600 grain, it is indeed 'different looking'. My hope is that the fine-grain/pulling developers will keep the grain structure somewhat similar but even out the contrast. I've had much luck pulling HP5+ to 50 with Microdol-X 1:3 in extreme contrast situations- bare lightbulbs in dark places type of stuff (think coal mine)- so suspect this should work with Neopan. I need to wait for the leaves to come out so I can test this- so I've got a few months left to keep pondering.🙄
 
Tri-X is amazingly versatile... or forgiving, depending on whether or not you intended it.

I routinely shoot TX at 1250 in Diafine. Sometimes 1600. 800 is no problem in XTOL.
 
Neopan 1600 vs. TriX & 800

I did a nice test for the ISO 1600 territory that may interest the reader. I printed 4 prints by the size of 24 x 30 cm from 4 different films rated by me as 1600: Tri-X, Tmax400, Tmax3200
(i.e. "pulling), and Neopan 1600. All films where processed accurately (my own times) with Tmax developer. Then I glued all 4 prints on a white board for straightforward comparison. Most of the photographers that have seen my test, me including, agree that the Neopan print is the best. The following best is controversial: Tri-X for its rich tones and contrast, or Tmax 400 film (pushed to 1600) for its finer grain. No controversy that Tmax3200 pushed to 1600 is the worst far and large.


Regards:
Hank Freid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom