Neopan 400

I went with Noserider cause I often surf a longboard, for the Noseriding. Still surf little boards tho' but only when the waves are better than average quality.

Yes, you are right, forcefull agit can and does increase contrast. However, and I won't get all technical on this point, smooth yet gentle agit (and perhaps even Less than you think) With This Film really helps tame that 'harsh' look. (Not to belittle that look, I find for some subjects and light that looks works really well).

The secret to this is doing a full, constant motion in everywhich way, yet gentle and even a bit slower, complete first minute. Yes, I know that everybody reccomends only 30 sec or whatever, With This Film, doing so prevents any uneven developing, which will show in skies etc. Then you do the light touch each min, I do 3 or even 2 light agits per min.

The analogy to this is cooking marshmallows over a fire. You can stick it in close, quickly, without turning it and setting it ablaze is distinct probablity. Or, get it hot by keeping it not too close, turning smoothly, makes for golden brown, perfect Smores. Yum.

Ok, food break over. The thing is, Neopan 400 is a great film, super flexible. It does have some unique characteristics, and my key point is that it works well in contrasty situations when you (another cooking analogy,sorry) drop it in to a already hot pan, and keep it moving at first, then lightly toss over a low heat every min.

I've done Neopan for years In everything, at multiple dilutions, including Rodinal, d-76/ID-11, Microdol-X/Perceptol, Xtol, and countless other formulas, published and homebrew, I can save you a lot of time in testing, and start smooth and complete, then go gentle.
Try it. Same light, 2 rolls. One do it your regular way, then do one This Way, maybe if you want to, give an extra 5-10% in time in case you like to meter more for the highlights, or you need more contrast in the shadows. The highlights might at first glance look too dense to print, but Print It, you'll find they'll print cleanly without much need for burning.

Good Luck, big Swell on the way, bouys are big.
 
Last edited:
Andrew,
I find Neopan to be missing mid-tones if pushed even to 800. It does have good grain and nice blacks, but if you plan to do any portrature or want to shoot at higher than ISO400, look elsewhere.
I really like pushability of Delta400, but hate its almost squared grain, especially in the highlight area.
T-max 400 looks great at 320/400 (I even like the grain), but the highlights are terrible when pushed.
I'm going to stick with Tri-x for a while and see if I can master it.
 
Noserider,
FWIW - I certainly wasn't asking for justification for your handle, just that I wish I knew what your real name was. Calling someone "noserider" just felt weird. But now that I know the context, I guess it doesn't. Not much different than when people call me kaiyen, and few here know the basis for that (my chinese name, and it sounds cool 🙂

Personally, I still do not understand how slow agitation that still adequately moves developer around (in order to avoid uneven development can possibly have an effect as compared to faster agitation rate (that is not overly-violent, of course, as to cause surge marks, etc).

I will, however, give it a try and see what happens 🙂

allan
 
OK, I think I need help seeing what you all are talking about. I never noticed any difference between Tri-X 400 and Neopan 400 and am wondering what I'm missing. I'm not being sarcastic -- I think I don't see these things the way you guys do.

Here are three Neopan 400 shots that I took using the same camera and lens (Leica M3, rigid Summicron 50). I used a handheld incident meter to expose. The first two were with a dark yellow B+W filter. The third (the dinosaur) was done indoors in dim light with no filter. I shot the first two at 200 (because the filter takes two stops) and the last one at 400. I developed all three shots at home using the box instructions for 400 (no pushing, no pulling) in D-76 1:1 and scanned them on my craptastic Epson 2480. Postprocessed in CS2 variable amounts. I played with the contrast more in the bear statue show and not much in the last two shots. Added a tone.

198243339_3e138d05f4_o.jpg


421328338_97bb8e4aa5_o.jpg


420881548_27e3aacb50_o.jpg


Can someone explain to me what these are lacking in terms of detail, and how they would look if they were correct and/or taken using a different film? Again, I'm not being sarcastic, I literally have no idea what you guys are talking about.

I judge my negatives based on how easy or hard it is to work with them in postprocessing and end up with an image that I like. So far, I have noticed no difference between Neopan and Tri-X in this regard. If anything the Neopan negatives seem easier to work with (they seem to come out of the scanner looking nearly good enough with no work), but that may be because I'm getting better at exposing or developing.

To be honest, the reason I use Neopan now instead of Tri-X is that the canisters are way easier to open using my teeth.
 
Last edited:
IF (big "if"...) there is a note of smugness in Melanie's response, it's justified. These are good images (I'd say the second and third are excellent), and they do look like good, classic black and white film, such as the mythhic Tri-X. For me, the primary characteristics of Great B&W film are nice, slighly natural or organic grain structure, and fine, broad tonal rendition. This is just what Tri-X was famous for delivering for more than 40 years. Since that film is gone and Kodak is on the cutting edge of eliminating excellent technology from their product lines, the Neopan does a fine job. I'm happy to shoot it.

Anyway, much of the credit for these images is certainly due to Melanie's (film and digital) processing skills. They look great on the computer, and you don't get that without good ability with each media. Anyway, I'd love to see these negatives, to compare them to old Tri-X negs. I can see the difference between old Tri-X and the new stuff, and between these and Neopan negs; anyway, the Neopan is a fine film for that classic look.

I have to admit, I really prefer the plastic film cans the Fuji film comes in, too; I hope this is what you are prying open with your teeth- not the film cartridge itself! :bang:
 
MelanieC said:
To be honest, the reason I use Neopan now instead of Tri-X is that the canisters are way easier to open using my teeth.
Click to expand...
Hmm...I tried that some time ago, and have to agree. 🙂

My experience with Neopan 400 is more-or-less similar. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say it's indistinguishable from Tri-X, but the two are comparable in a number of ways.

And, I've love to see how these print up, They're all tonally yummy.


- Barrett
 
MelanieC said:
Can someone explain to me what these are lacking in terms of detail, and how they would look if they were correct and/or taken using a different film?
Click to expand...

Well you posted 3 great shots, and 3 that I would be completely happy with tonally. Look at the dog's ears. The black there is black, and there's no sign of texture, even though we know that there are probably hairs there. Now I'm not saying that that is Neopan's fault, because it could easily have been like that with TriX, HP5, APX400, Delta400 etc. All I'm saying is that with Neopan, it's more likely for me that I'll have dark areas with no shadow detail.
 
Thanks guys. Nope, not being smug. It just seems like there are a lot of intricacies to using Neopan that are going over my head and I was wondering what I should be doing to make my photos turn out better. I have a naive eye and have no idea how they should really look. They look OK to me, but that doesn't mean much. I can only work with what I have and if my negatives could be turning out better I want to know, you know, if people who have a lot more experience than me at this are seeing deficiencies that I won't see because I don't know what I'm looking at.

I have yet to get a real print of any of my Leica photos. I'm pretty sure the prints I have gotten (like from Walgreens, or the local "pro" lab) are digital from scans. So I have no idea how to evaluate a negative that is intended to be traditionally printed. I've attached the original negative scans for the last two photos to this post. I downsized them so they wouldn't open up gigantic and used one pass of USM to compensate for what happens when you downsize large images but didn't adjust anything else.

Oh, and it's the metal canisters that I open with my teeth. Tri-X canisters are incredibly thick and barely deform when you bite down on them, but Neopan canisters are thin and easy to squish so that the tops just sort of pop off.
 

Attachments

  • solo_over_shoulder_neg.jpg
    solo_over_shoulder_neg.jpg
    241.6 KB · Views: 0
  • dino_neg.jpg
    dino_neg.jpg
    215.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Wintoid,
Actually, on my monitor, I see excellent, fine detail in the fur behind the ears. It's subtle, and it's just shy of zone III, meaning it's a bit less than full shadow detail, but it's there.

Melanie,
First, I seriously suggest you get a can opener.

Second, the tonality of your images is fine, and there isn't anything wrong with your images at all. A lot of the discussion here is overly technical, and I apologize that I contributed too much to it. My basic response about how your shots look different than TXT - the curve is a lot straighter, with a lot less toe and shoulder. Now, I don't look at it and know that - you'd have to be looking at curves to really see that. But newer emulsions have a certain look that set them apart from conventional emulsions.

I don't know entirely how to point it out, but I do know the other day that I looked at some prints and asked if they were Delta 100 or 400. They turned out to be the latter. I knew the photographer shot film, and somehow I knew they were Delta. Or, perhaps, that they weren't t-grain.

<shrug>
allan
 
MelanieC said:
Oh, and it's the metal canisters that I open with my teeth. Tri-X canisters are incredibly thick and barely deform when you bite down on them, but Neopan canisters are thin and easy to squish so that the tops just sort of pop off.
Click to expand...
Ouch...you're certainly tougher than me, Mel...


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
I developed my first two rolls of Neopan 400 in HC-110 last night but don't know how the photos will look like after scanning yet. If I can get that range of tonality and fine details visible in your photos (especially number two and three) I would be more than happy. Your's look really good to me !

-Gabor
 
kaiyen said:
First, I seriously suggest you get a can opener.
Click to expand...

Why? Am I exposing myself to toxins? (I've already learned my lesson about the developing chemicals after my dog decided to point out how dumb it is to develop film without wearing gloves.) I have a bottle opener, but it's really hard to get the tops off just using that thing.

My basic response about how your shots look different than TXT - the curve is a lot straighter, with a lot less toe and shoulder. Now, I don't look at it and know that - you'd have to be looking at curves to really see that. But newer emulsions have a certain look that set them apart from conventional emulsions.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of confused. If the curve is flatter, doesn't that mean that the image has less contrast and looks flatter? But the problem with Neopan is supposed to be that it has too much contrast?

I realize that I lied about how I developed these films. I didn't follow the box instructions exactly -- I followed the development times but I didn't agitate continuously for the first minute because that just seemed crazy. I agitate either ten seconds per minute or five seconds every 30 seconds depending on how bored I am standing there waiting because I figure it all averages out either way. If I am reading correctly, I would have more shadow detail if I agitated continuously for the first minute. But, Tri-X doesn't call for that and it seems like such a similar film. I remain confuzzled.
 
Well this post has generated heaps of interest, kewl! After looking at heaps of pics HP5+ is my favourite film in 400, I think I just need to learn to love the grain in 35mm. Looked at shooting it slower but it can go all grey and washed out, and defeats the purpose of having a 400 film. Looked at a few other 400 films and my impressions and totally subjective but are:

Delta 400 - fine grain, compressed tones all over, a bit like listening to something in mp3 compared to full cd quality stereo.

Neopan 400 - extremely smooth grain, sharp, chocolatey rich blacks ,brilliant whites with nothing much inbetween.

Tri-x - Beautifull tonal range, sandy grain a little distracting for me, contrasty while holding detail. not quite as sharp as hp5.

Hp5 - rich greys to blacks with many different tonal graduations, a little less detail in the highlights compared with tri-x, larger but softer grain. Full body, full flavour!

Xp2 - I am shooting this film and haven't quite worked it out. It kinda leaves me feeling emotionless? Like a digital black and white but different? I don't know yet.

Ok, this is just my opinion and highly subjective, and while I know there are photographers here who can use any film/developer combo to get the results they want, these are just my observations after looking at heaps and heaps of pics of certain film types.

It's fun!


Thanks for everyones contributions.
 
Melanie,
In a thread that has become increasingly and almost apug-ishly technical, I appreciate your breathing a bit of practical air into things. You take great photos. Please don't let geeks like me that enjoy reading curves and talking about toes and shoulders too much distract you from that.

I recommend the can opener at least so that you avoid cutting the inside of your mouth. Also, your saliva, should it get in the canister, will cause the emulsion to start to swell and make it harder to load. Plus, I don't know the impact of saliva on developer. Though I've gotten blood in there so I guess it should be fine.

A flat, straighter curve will not mean a flatter negative that requires more contrast adjustments. TXT and, say Delta 100 or Neopan 100 will, most likely, have a similar and perhaps indistinguishable tonal range. That is, the number of tones. However, the way they transition from tone to tone, especially in the shadows and highlights, just has a different look. I can get back into shoulders and toes to describe that, but let's not.

It also has an effect on, say skin tones, which can get towards the higher end of tones depending on the subject and be affected by films with larger changes in response as they move up the tonal chart. Traditional emulsions will exhibit this, whereas newer emulsions will not. So you get a different look to skin tones, too.

It's just a different look. It's most noticeable in the dinosaur photo, to me. You can get the exact same tonal range out of, say, TXT, but there's something about the way the tones progress, especially in the shadows, that makes me wonder if it's a newer emulsion film.

Delta and t-max films exhibit this much more so than Neopan, IMO. Perhaps one day I'll shoot a scene ranging from zone I to IX with different film and see if one can see the difference visually. But even I am not that "testy" 🙂

allan
 
Ouch! I find the beer opener on a Swiss Army knife works well for film cans. Never tried the teeth.

Ha! Apug-ishly technical! Too funny, I'll have to crosspost this.

Melanie, I seriously suggest getting at least 45 sec of initial agitation in on this film. Sure, for most developers (D-76 Hc-110) you won't see any uneven marks, but start using this film in other, more dilute developers and the chances of this occuring increase. Save yourself the future pain of an uneven sky, and just do it, its even in the Fuji data sheet as recommended. You can slack off later in the developing cycle when the sheer boredom sets in, just focus a little At The Start.

Nothing wrong with your shots, they look like a good Neopan 400. Keep it up.
 
This thread reminded me that I had a couple of rolls of Neopan 400 in the fridge, and I'd never got round to trying them, so I shot them yesterday (Leica M6, CV 50/1.5 Nokton, very sunny day). Bearing in mind that these were also the first rolls I've developed in Xtol rather than my usual DD-X, they do look pretty contrasty compared to Tri-X at 400. But, for these shots, it's an effect I liked, so I actually emphasised it a touch in post-processing. Need to try a few more rolls of this, I'm not generally a high-contrast kind of shooter, but I think this film will have its uses. It certainly scans well, grain is very well controlled, and the negs are very dense.

Ian
 

Attachments

  • img331.jpg
    img331.jpg
    165.1 KB · Views: 0
  • img348.jpg
    img348.jpg
    164.4 KB · Views: 0
  • img340.jpg
    img340.jpg
    171 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
here
here
here
here
-a few examples of neopan 400 I developed in Agfa studional (=rodinal special), exposed at box speed, developed conform the massive dev chart time and the studional sheets (6 min at 20C if i remember correctly, or maybe 5).
I don't think it looks too contrasty. But i can adjust somewhat while scanning, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom