pvdhaar
Peter
Just completed a test roll of Neopan 1600 shot 1/3 of a stop slower than the lightmeter said.. and developed by a lab 
I asked about Neopan about two weeks ago, and you all told me it has an enormous contrast..
Well, here are some scans, and how shall I put this? Neopan doesn't like to be overexposed. Even a little over and it loses all contrast. It's less forgiving than I expected..
Now for the pictures:
1. Wood: FED-50 at f4
2. Cat: 50mm M-Hexanon at f2
3. Bin: CV25/4 at f4
4. Wheel: 50mm M-Hexanon at f2 (excuses for the shallow dof)
I asked about Neopan about two weeks ago, and you all told me it has an enormous contrast..
Well, here are some scans, and how shall I put this? Neopan doesn't like to be overexposed. Even a little over and it loses all contrast. It's less forgiving than I expected..
Now for the pictures:
1. Wood: FED-50 at f4
2. Cat: 50mm M-Hexanon at f2
3. Bin: CV25/4 at f4
4. Wheel: 50mm M-Hexanon at f2 (excuses for the shallow dof)
Attachments
MadMan2k
Well-known
It doesn't look bad, you could use that style for some high-key type shots, the shadows and low-mids look good.
P C Headland
Well-known
It is a really nice film, and does well at EI1600 even in Rodinal. The biggest problem with it is that it is only available in 35mm!
It may pay to ask the lab what they processed the film in. If you know this, and are going to continue using them to develop the film, you can tailor the speed at which you shoot this film to suit their process. The other option is to sacrifice a roll, and shoot a series of shots of the same scene at 2 stops under, 1.5, 1, 0.5, 0, then 0.5 over, 1.0 etc. That way you'll see what works best.
The best option though is to develop it yourself. Get a one shot liquid developer like Rodinal or HC110, or a re-usable one like Diafine, and start from there.
It may pay to ask the lab what they processed the film in. If you know this, and are going to continue using them to develop the film, you can tailor the speed at which you shoot this film to suit their process. The other option is to sacrifice a roll, and shoot a series of shots of the same scene at 2 stops under, 1.5, 1, 0.5, 0, then 0.5 over, 1.0 etc. That way you'll see what works best.
The best option though is to develop it yourself. Get a one shot liquid developer like Rodinal or HC110, or a re-usable one like Diafine, and start from there.
Last edited:
irq506
just curious
Well I think they look lovely.
Neopan 1600 is actually a 1000 iso film and shoots extremely well at this speed. As said above, try developing it yourself. I think KODAK XTOL is an extremely good match for Neopan 400 and ACROS rendering a full grey tonal range with deep rich blacks and finely piqued whites. http://www.flickr.com/photos/devtank/251071592/ This is an example of Neopan 400 under XTOL at 21c for 8'15''.
Getting back to 1600 though, its a beautiful film and can be processed in a number of ways. Can be rated sucessfully at 400, 800, 1000, 1600 and 3200, though I wouldnt recommend anything higher.
Neopan 1600 is actually a 1000 iso film and shoots extremely well at this speed. As said above, try developing it yourself. I think KODAK XTOL is an extremely good match for Neopan 400 and ACROS rendering a full grey tonal range with deep rich blacks and finely piqued whites. http://www.flickr.com/photos/devtank/251071592/ This is an example of Neopan 400 under XTOL at 21c for 8'15''.
Getting back to 1600 though, its a beautiful film and can be processed in a number of ways. Can be rated sucessfully at 400, 800, 1000, 1600 and 3200, though I wouldnt recommend anything higher.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i had similar look from the lab dev'ed neopan. A danish know-how guy told me, it looks overdeveloped, not overexposed. If i look on the neg itself, it does indeed look very harsh, with very black highlights.
Your highlights also look shot. I would expect the development affects them more than the exposure.
Especially that you only overexposed by a third stop.
I was told that labs generally use 20% more dev time for black and white films of customers, erroring on the underexposed side. This "trick'" works well with general slow or medium speed films but neopan1600 is a very fast-developoing film (fuji commercialize it as "you can develop it together with the 400iso version since it needs the same dev time) therefore it is more sensitive to extended development time.
Or something like this.
I will try it with diafine at 2400 as soon as I get that damn package from freestyle.
Here's an example on neopan (sorry not rf but it shows the high contrast, especially the blown-out highlights)
Your highlights also look shot. I would expect the development affects them more than the exposure.
Especially that you only overexposed by a third stop.
I was told that labs generally use 20% more dev time for black and white films of customers, erroring on the underexposed side. This "trick'" works well with general slow or medium speed films but neopan1600 is a very fast-developoing film (fuji commercialize it as "you can develop it together with the 400iso version since it needs the same dev time) therefore it is more sensitive to extended development time.
Or something like this.
I will try it with diafine at 2400 as soon as I get that damn package from freestyle.
Here's an example on neopan (sorry not rf but it shows the high contrast, especially the blown-out highlights)
Attachments
V
varjag
Guest
That's a beautiful shot Pherdinand.
Never Satisfied
Well-known
Hello, I've used Neo 1600 at 1600 for years and developed it in T-Max dev per instructions and have never had an issue. I would be more inclined to balme your lab than this film, Fuji is renown for consitancy, labs aren't. Buy a tank and do it your self, cheers Andrew.
pvdhaar
Peter
So far, the consensus seems to be that I have to develop the film myself, as the labs are too inconsistent...
Trouble is, I've not that much confidence in my own consistency.
I can't even prepare rice twice the same, notwithstanding the completely straightforward instructions on the pack and a digital timekeeping device..
That, and I'm hesitant about mucking around with chemicals.. Maybe I should try something that's more forgiving, like 100 ISO colour print film or so
But first, there's a couple more rolls lying around, and I'm sure I can factor in some of the overdevelopment..
Trouble is, I've not that much confidence in my own consistency.
I can't even prepare rice twice the same, notwithstanding the completely straightforward instructions on the pack and a digital timekeeping device..
That, and I'm hesitant about mucking around with chemicals.. Maybe I should try something that's more forgiving, like 100 ISO colour print film or so
But first, there's a couple more rolls lying around, and I'm sure I can factor in some of the overdevelopment..
Bill58
Native Texan
Pherdinand:
Awesome shot!!!!!!!!!!!!! The damn stuff is big bucks here (Korea)--about $8.00 a roll of 36. What do ya'll have to pay for it?
Bill
Awesome shot!!!!!!!!!!!!! The damn stuff is big bucks here (Korea)--about $8.00 a roll of 36. What do ya'll have to pay for it?
Bill
wyk_penguin
Well-known
Eeeeck, excuse me, but 'poorly developed' is really an understatement. It looks totally blown out. I like my Ilford Delta3200 more. They seem to be able to withstand my inconsistencies better.
V
varjag
Guest
Peter, color stuff is much harder to develop at home, requiring to maintain temperature to a fraction of degree, and is not really economical.
Classic BW on the other hand is easy: after your first roll you'll be wondering what you paid the labs for. It allows for some sloppiness as in cooking, you'll still get something just the results won't be optimal.
Classic BW on the other hand is easy: after your first roll you'll be wondering what you paid the labs for. It allows for some sloppiness as in cooking, you'll still get something just the results won't be optimal.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Bill: Here in NL in a real shop it costs about 5,50 euro per roll. I can buy on the net and then it's 4-something. Still affordable, i would say.
Peter - if you are afraid of consistency and forgetting to watch the time, try to find some diafine developer. With that, the time is not important as soon as it is over 3 minutes for each solution. And it is supposed to hold back the highlights.
Come on, it's really easy to do it (as long as you manage to load the reels, hehe)
Peter - if you are afraid of consistency and forgetting to watch the time, try to find some diafine developer. With that, the time is not important as soon as it is over 3 minutes for each solution. And it is supposed to hold back the highlights.
Come on, it's really easy to do it (as long as you manage to load the reels, hehe)
kully
Happy Snapper
I am the same with cooking, but B&W I can now do.
I had the same problem taking a roll to Jessops and getting back negatives and prints which were horrifically developed (pretty much completely pure black and pure white) and for which they charged me £15!
I had the same problem taking a roll to Jessops and getting back negatives and prints which were horrifically developed (pretty much completely pure black and pure white) and for which they charged me £15!
goo0h
Well-known
I'm about the same way in the kitchen. However it's not so bad with developing, and I'm still learning. So far the hardest part with XTOL was in mixing it into the stock solution; it wanted to cake up on me. But eventually with enough stirring it was OK. It's nice not having to wait on a lab.pvdhaar said:Trouble is, I've not that much confidence in my own consistency.
I can't even prepare rice twice the same, notwithstanding the completely straightforward instructions on the pack and a digital timekeeping device..
That, and I'm hesitant about mucking around with chemicals.. Maybe I should try something that's more forgiving, like 100 ISO colour print film or so
ffttklackdedeng
Registered User
I wouldn't go the underrate-to-compensate-for-probable-overdevelopment route.. Developing yourself is easier than rice cooking
.. although I must admit that the first time (after shaking of the previous HP-5 film for 16 minutes) I went out of the bathroom after 8 minutes to check the digitaltruth data for the Neopan 1600 just to see that I should shake for 6 minutes :bang:
.. although I must admit that the first time (after shaking of the previous HP-5 film for 16 minutes) I went out of the bathroom after 8 minutes to check the digitaltruth data for the Neopan 1600 just to see that I should shake for 6 minutes :bang:
R
rich815
Guest
I personally do not find this film all that contrasty (even indoors with flash) but I tend to shoot it more towards it's true speed (@ 1000) and then still pull back and slightly "under-develop" it. Labs are notorious for overcooking negs, somehow with some mentality that just a little more is better than too little development, which is actually the opposite of what's best, IMO.
Some examples of my use with it:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=130866629&size=o
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=130866684&size=o
Some examples of my use with it:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=130866629&size=o
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=130866684&size=o
Last edited by a moderator:
peter_n
Veteran
Fantastic pic Pherdinand! Kodak HC-110 is also good for NP1600 if you soup at home.
Russ
Well-known
I really like Neopan 1600. I burn it @ 1250 and the lab soups it in X-Tol. The negs are always nice and consistent. I think if you souped it yourself, or tried another lab, you'd get better results. I love the neoapn 400 & 1600 films.
Russ
Russ
Russ
Well-known
pvdhaar said:
boilerdoc2
Well-known
pvdhaar, I'd fire your lab. They really screwed up that roll. Whew! Develop yourself. Have it scanned or print in a real darkroom. Irq506 has pictures that show what Neopan can do. Try again. Fuji is in the game with us film shooters until the end, so support them by buying their film.
Steve
Steve