Neopan 400

Fine grain, yes. According to www.silverprint.co.uk it was developed to replace D76.

Should get a chance to develop a couple of rolls of Tri-X in it later today, different camera, lens, and conditions from the Neopan shots yesterday, but I'll be interested to see how it compares contrast-wise to the many rolls of Tri-X I've developed in DD-X.

Ian
 
Just another 2 cents - Melanie - I think that there are real differences in these films. After using Ilford Delta 400 exclusively for about 5 years, I switched to Neopan. I use Xtol or a home-made Phenidone brew made from lye, Vitamin C and borax. The Xtol is a reasonably fine-grain developer. The home brew is pretty high accutance (no solvent), but grainier. I find that Neopan has a more pronounced grain structure than the Delta 400 (or even Tri-x). I find the grain very pleasing, but it gives a very different look than Tri-X in Xtol or D76. Maybe it is closer in feel to Tri-X in Rodinal. That said, the differences between Neopan and Tri-X or a tab grained film like Delta 400 can be demonstrated in side by side prints . . . I dunno about scanning/showing on monitors.

Now I know that Allan has said that a discussion like this trends towards the technical, and I guess that's true (reading the above posts). But I think that is because the differences in aesthetic look between films have a technical basis. I see the kind of grain I am talking about in the mid-tones of both of the pics you posted above. Having said that, I think 1) that these differences are dependent on many, many variables (developer choice, paper choice, paper developer choice and so on) and 2) as good as the Internet is for sharing information, it is really not well suited for showing these differences (differences between scanners, programs, monitors, gamma settings, limitations of monitors blah, blah, blah).

Whew. Now to contradict myself completely, in terms of the tonality of the pictures that you posted, it seems that you have good technique. I'd say, just go shoot the film and keep doing what you're doing.

Oh - and the reason not to use your teeth as tools to routinely bend metal is that your teeth have to last a lifetime. ;-) I just use my fingers on cannisters from all companies (force into the light trap and pull back . . .). But if that doesn't work for you a $0.98 can opener will save your pearly whites.

Jaffa_777 - (& at the risk of much spirited retort) Although it is also dependent on the film developer you choose, I'd rate native graininess of b&w films in the 200-400 ISO range (most grainy to least):

1) the current Eastern European traditional non-tab like Ekfe, Forte and Bergger (French? Someone help me out here) (very grainy);
2) Non-tab modern emulsions; Neopan, Tri-X, HP5+;
3) Tab-grained emulsions Delta 400, T-Max (developed correctly); and finally
4) C-41 dye-cloud films like XP2 and TC400

All subject to caveats about the size of the final print (larger=grainier). And there are other differences among these films (many find the look of the C-41 films to be like a desaturated color pic -- I have been using XP2 recently, though and loving it).



Ben Marks
 
Last edited:
Pherdinand said:
drew, what the heck is "organic grain structure"???
Click to expand...

Well, ok. I am using the term "organic grain structure" to refer to the look of older or traditional films like Tri-X/Plus-X, or HP5/FP4. Their grains are round and fat, and of lots of sizes and some odd shapes, relatively speaking. In contrast, the grain in modern emulsion films like the T-Max and Delta films all flat, much more evenly sized and shaped, and they roughly line up like polarized magnets in the emlusion. These differences are really quite apparent in the print.

Neopan is a modern emulsion, and it recieves the benefits of the last couple of decades of technological advances in film. It features slightly finer grain, and more even and more efficient coating of emulsion, and more even distrubution of silver in that emulsion. But it's grain looks more like an older technology film than the T-Max or Delta films. It still offers the character and rough "organic" quality which helps lend more life to certain images then the sometimes boring robotic regularity many new tech films so often produce.
 
Drewbarb - great characterization. That is exactly how I would describe it. I have been using it in 35mm and 120 for about a year now.

Ben Marks
 
Nice pictures Melanie. Keep doing what you are doing and don't sweat the details.

Here's my very non-technical seat of the pants assessment. I treat Tri-X and Neopan that same way when I develop them, often putting mixed rolls in a double tank and developing in Rodinal 1:25 for 7 minutes or HC 110 1:50 for 7 minutes. I like my film contrasty and don't care much about shadow detail. I find if I use Rodinal 1:50 for 14 minutes or whatever then I just end up tweaking the curves more later to get the contrast I want and bring down the midtones in Photoshop. So I switched to 1:25 and don't spend as much time developing or tweaking in Photoshop.

I don't think I've ever seen a photo where the amount of shadow detail seriously contributed to it's artistic merit. However, many people love this sort of thing.

Neopan looks to me a little less grainy and more modern. Tri-X looks a little grainer and more classic. However I think you can use them interchangeably. I do see a difference both in the negs and the scans. I find it's actually hard to get grain with modern films and when I'm trying to use grain for artistic purposes, I pick up some Tri-X. Otherwise I use Neopan. In overall tonality, I think Neopan has the edge. I came to my non-scientific conclusion after pouring over years of negs and finding that a lot of the shots I really liked, all other things not being equal at all, were shot on Neopan even though I used to shoot Tri-X more often. So I started shooting more Neopan. In medium format both have incredible tonality but Neopan has the edge for me.

They are close enough that if you like to open the Neopan cannisters with your teeth more, that's as good a reason as any to choose it.
 
nightfly, anywhere we can view your images from this development regime? Just curious to see and may want to try when I'm looking for the effects you describe.

Thanks.

nightfly said:
Nice pictures Melanie. Keep doing what you are doing and don't sweat the details.

Here's my very non-technical seat of the pants assessment. I treat Tri-X and Neopan that same way when I develop them, often putting mixed rolls in a double tank and developing in Rodinal 1:25 for 7 minutes or HC 110 1:50 for 7 minutes. I like my film contrasty and don't care much about shadow detail. I find if I use Rodinal 1:50 for 14 minutes or whatever then I just end up tweaking the curves more later to get the contrast I want and bring down the midtones in Photoshop. So I switched to 1:25 and don't spend as much time developing or tweaking in Photoshop.

I don't think I've ever seen a photo where the amount of shadow detail seriously contributed to it's artistic merit. However, many people love this sort of thing.

Neopan looks to me a little less grainy and more modern. Tri-X looks a little grainer and more classic. However I think you can use them interchangeably. I do see a difference both in the negs and the scans. I find it's actually hard to get grain with modern films and when I'm trying to use grain for artistic purposes, I pick up some Tri-X. Otherwise I use Neopan. In overall tonality, I think Neopan has the edge. I came to my non-scientific conclusion after pouring over years of negs and finding that a lot of the shots I really liked, all other things not being equal at all, were shot on Neopan even though I used to shoot Tri-X more often. So I started shooting more Neopan. In medium format both have incredible tonality but Neopan has the edge for me.

They are close enough that if you like to open the Neopan cannisters with your teeth more, that's as good a reason as any to choose it.
Click to expand...
 
rich815 said:
nightfly, anywhere we can view your images from this development regime? Just curious to see and may want to try when I'm looking for the effects you describe.

Thanks.
Click to expand...


http://provoke.mediumstudios.com

The current image is Neopan 400 (women walking with umbrellas, the focus is off due to the defective Contax t2 I was testing).

The previous image (umbrella in street) was shot on Tri-X.

The image previous to that (Vespa) was shot on Neopan.

Also this one I posted to another thread was shot on Tri-X and shows to me at least the sort of classic Tri-X look:

2007-09-06_600.jpg




Both rolls developed in same tank in Rodinal 1:25 and a higher than normal temperature to see what it would do. It seemed to increase contrast but not grain as I had hoped.
 
Last edited:
If you use you teeth you will be toofless, soon.
I thought (both) Delta was a t grain clone?
There is nothing wrong with the shoulder on the Dog or the Dino, both excellent.

Noel
 
gentle agitation by rolling the tank will provide fresh developer and not create over development of film next to the sprocket holes. Agitating at one minute interval will produce the mackie effect. Use a 4 reel tank. Load 3 reels, leave one empty, fill tank with developer to cover only 3 rolls of film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom