Neopan 400

[jaffa_777]

I love the tonality of HP5+ in medium format, but wonder if the grain would be a little too much in 35mm. I am looking for a finer grained 400 film for 35mm and have been looking at a lot of neopan 400 shots on the web.

I do like it, but is it just me or are a lot of the examples of this film very contrasty with not much detail left in the shadows? Does it have to be shot a little slower too make full use of it's dynamic range?

Thanks peoples.

 

[telenous]

I love the tonality of HP5+ in medium format, but wonder if the grain would be a little too much in 35mm. I am looking for a finer grained 400 film for 35mm and have been looking at a lot of neopan 400 shots on the web.

I do like it, but is it just me or are a lot of the examples of this film very contrasty with not much detail left in the shadows? Does it have to be shot a little slower too make full use of it's dynamic range?

Thanks peoples.

It's not just you, I also think the same about the deep blacks of Neopan.

I bought a brick of Neopan and will try it again this week, I am sure there must be some developer that works well with it and brings a bit down the contrast. Perhaps rating it at ISO320 and bathing it in Ilfosol-S (since it works very well with pulled Neopan 1600, why not with pulled Neopan 400?) but I had a long discussion with Wintoid who uses it a lot and has nice results in Diafine and Prescysol - I am sure he 'll chime in later with some real hands on experience.

 

[Nachkebia]

I finally shot neopan 400 last week, will try to develope it today in DD-X, will post some samples, well HP5 is grainy for sure, specially if you are scanning

 

[mrtoml]

I develop it in Prescysol EF (like Wintoid I believe) and hadn't noticed too much contrast when compared to my other 400 film TriX. Prescysol is a compensating developer so it tends to limit extremes of dynamic range and preserve detail in both the shadows and highlights.

Here are some quick to hand examples:

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

I find it to have a bit too much contrast at times when developed in HC-110 (what my lab uses), but I like it for the most part.

 

[wintoid]

I've wrestled with Neopan and contrast. I do use Prescysol EF with it, but I find Diafine is the best for shadow detail with Neopan 400.

These are my personal opinions based on my own experiments, and only relate to scanning 35mm film as I don't print.

I can't actually *find* an example of Neopan 400 @ 400 in Diafine, but I know it's good. Something wrong with my filing system. Instead, here's an example of Neopan 400 @ 800 in Diafine, which obviously loses a bit of shadow detail.

 

[Biggles]

I used to use an awful lot of it. I'm no developer authority, but as a chronic over-exposer, I can state that it generally rewarded very careful exposure control with pictures that appeared almost *normally* contrasty. On those days when I nailed my exposures, the pictures didn't look like Neopan pictures; they just looked like pictures. Outdoor shots, especially.

Give it too much light, though, and it'd go straight to Doomsday, in my hands, at least; moreso than any Kodak or Ilford black & white film I ever tried.

I've always liked the Neopan emulsions *because* of their inherent ability to produce high-contrast photos. Goes hand-in-hand with their grit, punch, and sparkle. Again, in my hands- your mileage may vary.

 

[nightfly]

Why fight the film?

Neopan 400 tends to be contrasty, if you don't like contrasty, why not sell what you have and buy something else?

I love the look of Neopan 400 and don't use HP5+ because of the overly flat appearence and grayness (makes everything look like London as someone once said).

So many variables in photography, why fight the film or try a million developers to make it look like a film whose look you like? Just get the stuff you like.

 

[jaffa_777]

Wintoid, I think thats an impressive example of neopan with beautifull tones, pushed as well! And thanks for your pics Mark. I see from the shots this film can be carressed to get more out of it. If I was to shoot this film at 320, would I ask the lab to pull it too, or just process for normal speed?

As I don't have the tools or know how to develop my own film yet, maybe I should stick with something the lab probably knows backwards like Tri-x. Apparently from some posters the grain in Tri-x is finer now than it used to be?

 

[wintoid]

Have you considered XP2 or BW400CN? Both are very smooth and low grain, and you just develop at a 1-hour colour photo lab

This is XP2Super rated at 800 without telling the lab anything...




This is BW400CN @ 400

 

[kmack]

I think one of the best kept secrets out there is Clayton F76+ and HP5. I get nice manageable grain and good tone even shot at box speed (Though I normally shoot HP5 at 320 when I am going to dev it in F76+).

Some examples on flickr

 

[Jamie123]

Have you tried Delta400 for finer grain? Some people don't like it but I think it's excellent for portraits. It's worth a try.

 

[Biggles]

...Delta 400...I think it's excellent for portraits.

Hell, yes. I love the stuff for portraits. Last time I did an honest-to-goodness inddor/outdoor portrait shoot where the pictures *had* to come out palatable, about five years ago, that's what I used. Smooth.

 

[rich815]

I personally do not find Neopan 400 any more contrasty to other similar B&W films. Contrast control is more a matter of exposure and development than the film itself. If you're getting results that are too contrasty you're likely over-developing, over-exposing, or both. I have gotten very smooth tonality with Neopan 400 in D-76, Rodinal and Microdol-X. Examples below:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/104022024/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/67533121/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/103408517/

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

One method I find works good, especially if you plan to scan the negs, is to shoot at box speed but shorten your development time by 10-20% from Digitaltruth.com or manufacturer's recommended times, particularly if you are shooting in contrasty conditions.

 

[rich815]

Have you considered XP2 or BW400CN? Both are very smooth and low grain, and you just develop at a 1-hour colour photo lab

This is XP2Super rated at 800 without telling the lab anything...

VERY, very NICE.

 

[kaiyen]

Rich,
You are the _king_ of tonality and contrast control. Seriously. Getting those results, from what I've seen from others with NP400, with an averaging meter is astounding.

I prefer Delta 400 because it gives me a bit more speed in most developers and it's a bit more forgiving of exposure. Just a bit.

This is based on a whopping 2 rolls of NP400 I've shot. compared to my Delta 100 test, that's nothing

allan

 

[Noserider]

Its been my longtime experience with neopan 400 is that it needs a solid, yet gentle first minute of agitation, then consistent gentle agitation for the rest of the time for best results. Shadow detail comes up, and highlights are held. Whenever I see that classic compressed contasty look with Neo 400, I think, too strong agitation. This seems to hold true for every developer I've tried over the years, but it really does well in Xtol.

 

[kaiyen]

Noserider (wow, if there was ever a time that I wished I knew someone's real name...),

I don't really see how overly forceful agitation can cause increased contrast. Too much agitation - as in frequency - will do that, but agitation in general will bring fresh developer in contact with the various parts of the film. Areas with more exposure will develop more. Contrast consequently goes up. How does gentle agitation reduce that risk?

allan

 

[amateriat]

You know, the more I see what you guys do with various film/developer combinations, the more I'm convinced that there isn't a single "silver bullet". I lean toward XP2 and HP5 (in HC-110), and I have a yet-untouched Diafine kit somewhere around here, but there's more than one way (or five ways) to silver Nirvana. Which, of course, is a Good Thing.


- Barrett

 

[Nachkebia]

Oh my, Yesterday I had a change to develope film in my new house, unfortunately it was not fun after seeing results I did neopan 400 shot at night, underexposed, in rodinal... no comments, really....