Neopan 1600

kaiyen said:
oh no! Megaperls is out of the 1600 bulk, it appears. argh. now I'm not sure what to try...

allan
Click to expand...

not to gloat...but i just got a mailer from Megaperls with one 30.5M can of SuperPresto1600....feels like it was the last can sold:( , as i went back to the site several hours later and there was no more listing...
i hope PeterN is right and there will be more yet before the march cut-off
 
I double checked with Dirk, and my two rolls are goin' out:p

Hope he gets some more in. Have three rolls in the deep freeze.
 
I have never liked Neopan 1600, but recently dropped a roll in some Diafine and I liked the results. I shot at 1600 too by mistake, my intent was to shoot at 1000 and use Diafine. I liked it enough to want to try the combo some more.
 
Bjorn,
What characteristics are you seeing that you prefer in pushed NP400 as compared to NP1600 at, presumably, the same speed?

From examples I've seen, I'm not particular optimistic about NP1600 as a truly high speed film. TXT handles my higher contrast needs up to 6400, and I have used Delta 3200 in the past. And I think TMZ is close enough to Delta for me to try that as well, in terms of contrast control. But the availability of NP1600 in rolls is tempting.

Then again, having a bulk roll of high speed film just means more fogging as it takes me longer to shoot.

allan
 
Somewhat on the topic of NP1600, how long do folks develop it when shot at 800 and developed in XTOL(1:1)? The massive dev chart has 6.75 min, which I guess is where I'll start at.

And on the topic of fastness, while browsing around at the DR5 site, I noticed quite a lot of praise for HP5+ and it's push-ability:

http://www.dr5.com/hp5.html

Has anybody tried HP5+ pushed to 1600? How does it compare with others, like say NP1600?
 
HP5, in my opinion, does not push well. However, the definition of "push well" is extremely subjective, especially here on RFF. Usually, a film that pushes well retains shadow detail even as you decrease exposure. For instance, TXT at 800 looks almost the same as 400, and in some developers you can push it to 1600 or 3200 with more shadow detail than other films.

So...HP5 blocks up in the shadows pretty quickly as you decrease exposure. Contrast goes way up quickly. Some people like this look quite a bit. I personally would rather shoot TXT, have a bit less contrast, and then add it if I want in PS.

Some examples at 3200 of HP5:
http://www.pbase.com/romosoho/image/22567337/medium
http://www.pbase.com/romosoho/image/23089848/medium
http://www.pbase.com/romosoho/image/23089849/medium

allan
 
I'm sorry if this is a thread hijack, but... You guys are making me want to buy a bulk loader. Is there one kind I should get/avoid. There seem to be plenty of used ones in stores around here.

Ron
 
Kaiyen:
It just looks better to me, it's cheaper and I find it easier to get good results with pushing Neopan 400. The midtones look a lot better too, and the contrast has a tendency to run away with Neopan 1600.

I even found a scan of a photo taken with pushed Neopan 400 on my computer. It's exposed at 1600 and developed in T-max dev, can't remember the time and my I don't got my notes nearby, but the temperature was probably 20C and when pushing I agitate for ten seconds every second minute.
 

Attachments

  • danviktor.jpg
    danviktor.jpg
    81.9 KB · Views: 0
drewbarb said:
I don't want to start any wars, here either, but I like Neopan 400 shot at E.I. of 1600 and processed in Microphen (straight). It has full detail across the range. In fact, it looks so good, I don't carrying faster film. I just use 400 speed film, and adjust my E.I. and processing regimen to suit the light. Depending upon the chemistry, temp, and needs I get good printable negatives at E.I. 200 through 1600, carrying one emulsion. SOMETIMES, if I'm feeling fancy, or just HAVE too, I will even change speed mid-roll. I shoot an empty frame, remembering which one, and cut the roll in the darkroom later, against a template I made. This is getting silly, though, and it's far easier to shoot the whole roll at on E.I.- but I digress...

I am currently without a scanner, or I'd post some examples, (and I'm an obsessive printer; I really like to show prints rather than digital images); but I'll see what I can do if anyone is interested.
Click to expand...

Yes i'd like to see some result too. Carrying 1600 and 3200 films through multiple Xray machines is a non starter for me.
 
Well, carrying 400 speed film pushed out to 1600 and 3200 isn't far off from using 1600 film in the first place, in terms of x-rays.

anyway. I still got one more bulk roll of TXT to finish.

allan
 
visiondr said:
I'm sorry if this is a thread hijack, but... You guys are making me want to buy a bulk loader. Is there one kind I should get/avoid. There seem to be plenty of used ones in stores around here.

Ron
Click to expand...
My only experience is with an old fashioned Alden 74. Very reliable, foolproof light trap (even for an idiot like me) and won't scratch the film...
 
kaiyen said:
Well, carrying 400 speed film pushed out to 1600 and 3200 isn't far off from using 1600 film in the first place, in terms of x-rays.

anyway. I still got one more bulk roll of TXT to finish.

allan
Click to expand...

Please correct me if i'm wrong here but i always thought if i'm exposing 400 film at 1600 then i'm underexposing by two stops which is only taken into account when i process the film. Surely 1600 film is more senistive to xrays as it's ISO is already 1600? :confused:

I know film is more sensitive once exposed but then the 1600 would be even more senstive once it had been exposed especially to Xrays. :confused:

TriX in my experience (especially recently where i had to undergo 8 Xrays in several airports back to back) copes extremely well with the current Xray machines.

just a thought and not wishing to take the thread OT :)
 
Visiondr:

Watson bulk loader. Excellent and lasts forever. I've had mine for ten years and if there's a scratch on a negative it came from a reusable cassette, not the Watson. My system with the cassettes is to load them twice and then toss them. They're not that expensive, especially if you buy a bunch at a time. That way you avoid schmutz build-up on the velvet lips of the cassette.

Ted (lots of dust down here)
 
tedwhite said:
Visiondr:

Watson bulk loader. Excellent and lasts forever. I've had mine for ten years and if there's a scratch on a negative it came from a reusable cassette, not the Watson. My system with the cassettes is to load them twice and then toss them. They're not that expensive, especially if you buy a bunch at a time. That way you avoid schmutz build-up on the velvet lips of the cassette.

Ted (lots of dust down here)
Click to expand...

thanx for the tip on cassettes! i just got my Watson loader today...and some cassettes:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom