Neopan 400 Reminds me of "OLD" Tri-X.

[John Bragg]

Hi, All.

Just looking at some recent photos of mine, and I cant help thinking how Neopan 400 has a very similar tonal rendering to "OLD" Tri-X. I loved the feel of the old stuff and it took a long time to get the "NEW" formulation to behave as I wanted it to....... I think that my next order from 7dayshop.com will be Neopan, and that it will be my film of choice from now on.....

 

[chair_man]

I like it.

I like it.

I agree with you. In my remembrance, Neopan 400 has a little difference from old Tri-X. But it will gives equivalent results with several developing condition adjustment.
I think Neopan 400 is suitable for ascorbic acid based developer, like Xtol.
Especially, DS-12 which invented by Ryuji Suzuki gives a marvelous tonality just like Bresson's gray.

 

[John Bragg]

I agree with you. In my remembrance, Neopan 400 has a little difference from old Tri-X. But it will gives equivalent results with several developing condition adjustment.
I think Neopan 400 is suitable for ascorbic acid based developer, like Xtol.
Especially, DS-12 which invented by Ryuji Suzuki gives a marvelous tonality just like Bresson's gray.

Hi, chair-man.

I develop mine in HC-110 Dilution "H" and I love the wonderful rendition of skin tones. It also seems razor sharp, with well controlled grain (regular but not too obtrusive).

 

[JCT]

I concur completely --- I'm a recent returnee to film and I "started" with Neopan 400 (both 35mm and MF) due to the good price and availability. Needless to say, though I also use Hp5+, I keep drifting back to the Neopan. I actually have to go to B&H and grab some soon because my teenager finished school for the year and went through my stock!

I also use HC-110 dil H (9.5 min at 20 deg via inversion). A great (and easy) combo!

JT

 

[John Bragg]

I concur completely --- I'm a recent returnee to film and I "started" with Neopan 400 (both 35mm and MF) due to the good price and availability. Needless to say, though I also use Hp5+, I keep drifting back to the Neopan. I actually have to go to B&H and grab some soon because my teenager finished school for the year and went through my stock!

I also use HC-110 dil H (9.5 min at 20 deg via inversion). A great (and easy) combo!

JT

Hi JT.

I dev mine for 9 mins @ 20c. I rate it at Ei200 same as Tri-X. I do both for the same time, so (for my usage), they are interchangeable. highly desireable should there be a shortage of one or the other.

 

[charjohncarter]

Now, you're talking. I've never tried it, but I've been on a search for the 'Old Tri-X' since it was changed, thanks John Bragg. I've made notes of your times.

 

[Nick De Marco]

Well said. I'm a neopan 400 man these days too.

 

[JCT]

Hi JT.

I dev mine for 9 mins @ 20c. I rate it at Ei200 same as Tri-X. I do both for the same time, so (for my usage), they are interchangeable. highly desireable should there be a shortage of one or the other.

Hah, shows what a rookie I am (though I did *start* with film...35 years ago)-- I had been meaning to try an EI200 with the Neopan, thanks for reminding me. I'll also give the 9 min a try, it's actually the time I started with. May have increased it for HP5+ -- time to check those darkroom notes.

JT

 

[nixarma]

Hello!

I haven't shot with Neopan 400 yet but I have a roll waiting to be used once I'm done with the Acros roll currently in my camera.

Here's a beginner question for you:

When you say you rate it at EI 200, do you mean that -

you also set the ISO/ASA on your camera for 200 and/or expose assuming that the film is 200;

or

do you expose at ISO/ASA 400 and then develop assuming it is 200 film?

Thanks,
Nikhil

 

[Turtle]

neopan gives a decent 400 with DDX using TTL on my eos 3s. I like the film, but prefer new TriX a touch. Great film though it can lack acutance that seems inherent in TriX and HP5+...but then again it is finer grained. Really easy to handle in DDX and no problem delivering full box speed.

 

[John Bragg]

Hi, Nikhil.

I set the meter to ISO 200 and shoot away as normal. Then dev the film with a time less than the "NORMAL" 400 time. in this case 10% less though it varies according to the film in use and is established by testing. I do not posess a densitometer, and I therefore use the MK1 eyeball to assess my prints, aiming for printing on grade 2.5 multigrade. Hope this clarifies things.

Regards, John.

 

[rich815]

Neopan 400 is really a nice film as even more so than many films it seems the look can really vary depending on technique and developer, and it can look great in so many different developers.

Having used it quite extensively I'd not exactly paint it broadly as always being like old Tri-X though I've seen it sometimes look somewhat like that. However I find it too often too creamy and smooth in comparison to old Tri-X. This is not a bad thing, just different. I more call it a slightly grittier and grainier Acros look.

Perhaps my favorite results from Neopan 400 has been with Microdol-X seen in these examples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/104448025/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/104022024/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/111424572/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/104448114/

A different look with more bite, and perhaps a bit more contrast and less smoothness in tone can be had in Rodinal (and here it's more like older Tri-X, IMO):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/66082129/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/165071145/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/94117983/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/165071172/

And as I said one thing I like about Neopan 400 is how it can look good in so many developers.

D-76:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/128417268/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/436068366/

HC-110:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/129637540/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/82560114/

All this said, if anything my links show it's that oftentimes the exposure and lighting can have a major impact in the end for the final "look" even more so than which developer you used....

 

[John Bragg]

Nice Photos Rich. All developers work well and there is a subtle difference to all of them. This is indeed a versatile emulsion.....

Regards, John.

 

[vincentbenoit]

A different look with more bite, and perhaps a bit more contrast and less smoothness in tone can be had in Rodinal (and here it's more like older Tri-X, IMO):

Very nice, Rich. Just curious, at what speed did you rate the frames developed in Rodinal?

Cheers

Vincent

 

[rich815]

Thanks for the nice comments guys. I almost always rate it at 400. Occasionally I'll set the camera for 320 if I think I'll be shooting something in which shadow detail will be paramount. But I'd say 95% at 400.

 

[nikon_sam]

The gal at Samy's was just explaining that Neopan 400 is similar to T-Max 400but the Neopan 100 is not...I do like the 400 in 120 format but prefer the 100 in 35mm...
I'm using D-76 1:1 11 min. Minimum agitation...

How does it look developed in HC-110 and what dilution/time???

I tried developing in T-Max and was not happy with the results...seems I could have doubled the developing time and maybe gotten negs worth printing...Fuji website has their 400 developed in T-Max for 6 minutes @ 68*... 20 minutes would be more like it...(although I must confess, I've had this bottle of T-Max Developer for awhile)

Anyone else use T-Max???

 

[goo0h]

I think Neopan 400 is suitable for ascorbic acid based developer, like Xtol. Especially, DS-12 which invented by Ryuji Suzuki gives a marvelous tonality just like Bresson's gray.

I don't know about DS-12, but I haven't really noticed any problems with NP400 in Xtol. Lately, though, I've been playing with HP5+. I wonder if HP5+ has a touch more tonality than NP400, but then again I like the dark blacks of HP400.

 

[rich815]

The gal at Samy's was just explaining that Neopan 400 is similar to T-Max 400but the Neopan 100 is not...

I don't think that gal knows what she's talking about....

Tmax 400 and Neopan 400 are very different and I've never heard them compared before. And Neopan 100 Acros (assuming she means that one and not Neopan 100SS) while definitely more like the Tmax films (than say FP4+ or Plus-X) is still a far cry from being "like" them. Actually Acros IMHO is much better than either Tmax 100 or 400, but that's just me. I find the Tmax films too digital-like myself. Too smooth, tonal curve too straight, highlights too often a bit too much.

 

[chair_man]

I have used acrobatic density measurement technic. You can press negative to the light of bathroom. Maybe the light is covered by frosted glass? It will be a good diffusive light souse. Then you can put a incident light meter on the negative closely. Read the EV (exposure value) prefer. The EV is converted to the optical density (OD) as, OD = -(EV-EVo)*0.301. Where EVo is background EV can measured at some unexposed region, and 0.301 is log(2). Surprisingly the values are consistent with the data sheet of manufacturers published. If the negative is prepared as a series of zone exposure, you can make a characteristic curve easily.

 

[Tom A]

In February this year I shot about 50 rolls of neopan 400 for a project that I invented. I have a largish stash of nikon Rf's and I decided to shoot at least one roll with each body and lens and the final tally came to 50 rolls. It is a very "Tri-X" like film and i could use as that and process TX and NP 400 in the same run. Our Flickr site has about 250 shots from this project. I used a variety of developers on the film too.
In March I was in Japan and used some Presto 400. the NP 400 is more forgiving and the Presto has more of an edge to it.