Neopan or Tri-X?

Keith

The best camera is one that still works!
Local time
3:42 AM
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
19,244
Location
Australia
This coming weeked I'm photographing a 48 hour computer game writing marathon over three days ... this is now the third year I've photographed this event. Year one I did it with Tri-X pushed one stop to 800 ... the hall/gallery it's held in is kind of dark and even at 800 ISO and f1.4 I'm down to 1/15 occasionally. I did it last year digitally in colour and the results kind of sucked so this year it's back to black and white film. I expect to shoot between 350 and 450 exposures.

I have lots of Tri-X in the freezer and I still have a twenty pack of Neopan that's a few years old but it should be fine as it went straight in the freezer when I got it ... I'll be developing the film in Rodinal. Occasionally I shoot outside ... usually at the very start when the teams are out of the gallery planning their strategies and probably only one roll, maybe two. The rest will be in the gallery under dim artificial light. It's mainly a room full of computer engineering geeks slaving away at their computers and creating an environment that looks a little like the inside of a garbage skip by the third day. 😛

I'll use the Widelux for some selected shots and will probably have to push the film to 1600 because of its relatively slow lens.

Given this situation would you go with the Neopan or the Tri-X ... and please offer some reasons if you can? I've used both films fairly extensively and don't have any problems with either but was wondering if there are any reasons to favour one over the other.
 
For me Neopan looks wonderful in Rodinal although I have never pushed it. I guess there is no wrong choice here as it is all about the aesthetics but Neopan looks less gritty and better skin rendition in Rodinal.
 
Keith, I wouldn't use Rodinal. I would use a speed-increase developer such as Microphen or T-Max. Rodinal loses shadow speed, where these two increase it. And I think I would stay with Tri-X for that two-stop push.
 
Tri-X in Xtol 1:1 - that's my "go to" film / dev combo for Tri-X from ISO200 on up to ISO1600.

Having used Neopan in the past I just didn't find it had the same punch that Tri-X did - it really depends on the look you're going for - I would assume that the gradation will not be soft from shadows to highlights - so I think Tri-X would handle that better and definitely in Xtol vs Rodinal. Just my meager 2 pennies 🙂

Cheers,
Dave
 
For me Neopan looks wonderful in Rodinal although I have never pushed it. I guess there is no wrong choice here as it is all about the aesthetics but Neopan looks less gritty and better skin rendition in Rodinal.

This. LOVE Neopan.
 
..................... Given this situation would you go with the Neopan or the Tri-X ... and please offer some reasons if you can? I've used both films fairly extensively and don't have any problems with either but was wondering if there are any reasons to favour one over the other.

Keith: my Cuban people series has been shot about half on Neopan 400 and half on Tri-X. I cannot tell the difference in the 10x12.5 prints and neither can anyone else who has seen them exhibited 5 times.

The reason for the change from Neopan to Tri-X was Freestyle's selling out of private labeled Neopan. The private label Tri-X became about $1.50 a roll cheaper than Fuji branded Neopan.

I must expose everything at ei 320 and develop everything the same in HC110. Even though some are shot in direct blazing noon day sun and some are shot inside dim houses, I must develop everything the same. I return with about 25-30 rolls all mixed together. This process has been identical with both films.

I must note that I seem to be one of the very few who use both films interchangeably with no difference in the prints. I cannot explain why, only what my personal results are. You can look at the JPGs and see if you can tell any difference.
 
Tri X is easier to push without exaggerating the contrast, however I would not do it in Rodinal, but in diluted DDX or XTOL.
 
I find Neopan400 in Rodinal 1+25 very very nice when pushed to 1600 although it's contrasty.
I often use the Rodinal 1+100 for 2 hours (semi stand) to push Tri-X to 1600, it has less contrast but more grain.

I don't think Rodinal is bad for pushing film, I actually like it.
Well, I'm scanning more than I dark room print, so ..

On a side note: I pushed HP5+ to 1600 in Rodinal 1+100 2 hours (semi stand) and find it has the best tonality and the most visible grain of those 3 films. Very nice results anyway
 
I have to agree I think Rodinal is probably not the best developer for push processing. It gets very grainy.

My Go-to for push processing is Tri-X and Xtol 1:1, exposing and developing Tri-X at EI1600 to EI3200. I haven't been brave enough to try 6400 yet 😉
 
Keith, I wouldn't use Rodinal. I would use a speed-increase developer such as Microphen or T-Max. Rodinal loses shadow speed, where these two increase it. And I think I would stay with Tri-X for that two-stop push.

Exactly.

Rodinal is a great developer but not for pushing. I'd also suggest Ilford's DD-X if you prefer that, as it works very well for pushing.

As wonderful as Rodinal is for many things, you just won't get good results with pushed film on it.
 
I'd use Ilford Delta 3200 or Kodak Tmax 3200. Either of them shot and developed for EI-1600 will give better quality than pushing Tri-X or Neopan 400 to 800, you get an extra stop of speed.

Won't this depend on the lighting? I get the impression from Keith's post that the lighting is typical flat, indoor low contrast lighting. In this situation I find pushing is the answer, whereas the interior of say a church, with light comeing in from stained glass windows Delta 3200 is definitely the answer.

I'm with Bob Michaels on the film choice. I don't think it matters which one. My opinion is that the processing is much more important. A high energy developer like Acufine would be my choice.
 
Ordinarily, @ 400, I prefer Neopan to Tri-X. With my workflow, the Neopan yields richer blacks. But if I need to push, especially beyond 800 and my choices were either Tri-X or Neopan, I would go with Tri-X @ 1250 and develop in 1) Diafine or in 2) Microphen.

If you are open to other film suggestions, my first choice at an EI of 1250 would be TMY, developed in Microphen - just unbeatable at that speed.
 
After 14,746 of valuable and insightful post's I'd have thought you would have your own idea which film to use? If numbers mean anything? Use Neopan 1600 at 800 if that helps.
 
OK, now I am confused. Two people have mentioned that Neopan 400 gives "richer blacks". Even though I have shot several thousand rolls of Neopan 400, that makes no sense to me.

Black and white are the two easy tones as they are absolute. It is all those shades of grey in between that are challenging. I can vary the D-Max of black by the paper I use, either in the darkroom or digital printing. Ink selection can make a difference printing digitally. But black comes from clear film and I can do that with any film. It is all in the exposure and development but nothing to do with the inherent film characteristics.
 
OK, now I am confused. Two people have mentioned that Neopan 400 gives "richer blacks". Even though I have shot several thousand rolls of Neopan 400, that makes no sense to me.

Black and white are the two easy tones as they are absolute. It is all those shades of grey in between that are challenging. I can vary the D-Max of black by the paper I use, either in the darkroom or digital printing. Ink selection can make a difference printing digitally. But black comes from clear film and I can do that with any film. It is all in the exposure and development but nothing to do with the inherent film characteristics.

I agree with Bob. "Black" (as between films) is just film base + fog. There is nothing rich about it, unless one film base has been fogged up somehow by exposure to some kind of radiation.

However as to film choice, I must disagree. I have developed both Neopan and Tri-X in XTol for years and find that Neopan has a unique look to its grain. I happen to love it, but it is distinctive. I don't know that I have ever compared pushed versions of those films though.

Ben
 
'Richer blacks' translates to either 'less prone to flare' or 'less grainy when developed correctly'. Must have been me un-correct developing, since I never noticed richer blacks from the few rolls of Neopan I did.


Agree on not using Rodinal to push, and also on preferring to push a 400 film to 800 instead of exposing a 3200 film at 1600. YMMV.


The answer: Tri-X in D-76! Does not even need to adjust developing, simply shoot at 800 and develop as 400, mixed in with other 400-shot rolls, no trouble! This is what the Digital Truth Developer Guide says and I have yet to prove it wrong.

Happy shooting, Keith! Post some results from whatever combo you choose!?
 
After 14,746 of valuable and insightful post's I'd have thought you would have your own idea which film to use? If numbers mean anything? Use Neopan 1600 at 800 if that helps.



I do have my own ideas and preferences but I also like hearing what other people think ... someone invariably comes up with something I wouldn't have considered.

And ... it's a lot more interesting than hearing about the latest M, M-E, RX1, XE-1, D600 etc etc etc! I'm a bit over all that stuff! 😀

I just read in another thread that Roger is thinking of going back to silver halide! 😱


I should mention to some of the insightful souls who suggested alternate films like Delta 3200 ... it's a bit late! 😛 This thing is on in three days and my choices are Neopan, Tri-X and I forgot to mention I do have 100ft of HP5+ in the fridge. I do have a batch of Xtol mixed up and I had forgotten that it is better for pushing than Rodinal. Whether it is Tri-X or Neopan I guess I could develop the couple of rolls shot at 1600 in Xtol and do the others in Rodinal. I remember the first year's photos (Tri-X) were high contrast and not a lot of shadow detail and quite grainy but they loved them and actually published a booklet of the event using the images ... hence their disappointment when I did it it digitaly via the D700 last year ... there was little drama to the images and it ultimately turned out to be clinical reportage.

My initial thoughts were to stick with the proven Tri-X but I keep thinking about those beautiful Neopan blacks. Whatever I use it needs to be fairly consistent in it's look. This pic was from the first year using Tri-X at 800 but I can't remember if I deveoped it in Xtol or Rodinal ... it seems pretty grainy but the grain is quite smooth?


U5265I1317902756.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom