Neopan or Tri-X?

[Maiku]

Keith,

Check film forum. I think former RFF member Nate??? posted a series of photos pushing Neopan 400 to 1600. It might give you an idea of what it might look like if you do the same.

Maiku

 

[John Bragg]

The rich blacks that we aspire to are largely down to correct exposure and development. A thin negative will not have the detail in low values and the blacks will be muddy.

 

[Mike Riches]

TriX at1000 ISO Dev. in Acufine . Works and looks great .

 

[maxwell1295]

I've pushed Tri-X to 1600 in both Diafine and Rodinal 1+100 (90 -120 minute stand develop) with good results. Diafine does a better job and has been my developer of choice for pushing Tri-X and a few other films.

 

[Bob Michaels]

............ 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. .......................

I think we often become our own worst enemy, especially in low light situations. We are marveling at our breakthroughs in fine grain and shadow detail. Meanwhile the non-technical viewer is thinking "just does not look right to me." We need to remember that we are not photographing to showcase our technical mastery.

 

[Keith]

I think we often become our own worst enemy, especially in low light situations. We are marveling at our breakthroughs in fine grain and shadow detail. Meanwhile the non-technical viewer is thinking "just does not look right to me." We need to remember that we are not photographing to showcase our technical mastery.

Hi Bob,

The high tech nature of this event and the fact that it represents cutting edge technology by a group who are destined for a fully digital existence, makes it a playground for a medium that shows it in it's own unique way IMO. I really lost sight of that perspective last year!

High contrast and grain make it something special and I think the images from the Widelux at 1600 ISO will be spectacular ... this event is the reason I bought the camera.

Like you say Tri-X and Neopan are very similar at 400 and can virtualy be processed in the same tank. I'm thinking of Tri-X at 400 for the outdoor shots processed in Rodinal and using Neopan for the 800 and 1600 pushed exposures developed in Xtol ... what think you of this idea?

 

[Bob Michaels]

............. I'm thinking of Tri-X at 400 for the outdoor shots processed in Rodinal and using Neopan for the 800 and 1600 pushed exposures developed in Xtol ... what think you of this idea?

Keith: I think you should shoot both Tri-X and Neopan in both situations. Then develop both films in the same tank but changing the developer and time. That will give you a point of reference, with the only variable being the film, so you can compare one film with the other. Then you will know for everything in the future. I am confident that if you get usable negs from both emulsions.

I am curious what differences between the two films you will see.

I will be completely out of touch for 2 weeks. So do not expect a reply.

 

[bwcolor]

I rarely shoot above EI:800. Beyond that I usually use digital. At EI:800-1200 my favorite film was Neopan 1600, but now it is Neopan 400 in T-Max Developer. I need to try Delta 3200.

 

[znapper]

I compared Tri-X and Neopan 400 (120) in HC-110 here the other day. shot two rolls back to back during one outing.

Imo they look kind of similar in the tonal response, but the Neopan seemed to have finer grain than the Tri-X. (both scans were equally scanned). Both were developed quite similar in HC-110 Dil. B.

I've never tried pushing Neopan, I have a bunch of Neopan 1600 still, so I don't have to, so I can't answer in that regard. But I would believe that you would end up with less grain in Neopan vs Tri-X when pushing, based on what I've seen so far anyway.
If I had to push a 400 ISO film, I would definitely try Neopan first, then Tri-X and then HP5+. (and in Micrphen or Fuji's own Super prodol http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=23&products_id=121 )
Normally, when a shoot calls for high-iso and loads of pictures, I use my digital Canon DSLR, it makes for better photos for the events I shoot.

But, off course, B&W film is cooler, so if the client accepts it, why not?

If I was in your shoes, I would make a trial run with both films, and go from there, only you know what you are looking for.

 

[Highway 61]

I really can't get why some people still want to develop Tri-X and Neopan 400 in Rodinal. The results are just ugly.

Rodinal can be fine enough for classic 100 emulsions (APX 100, Fomapan 100) yet both Tri-X and Neopan 400 are much better treated in D76 1:1 when exposed at 400 : more tones, finer grain, etc. What's the point of wanting to get charcoal-like photographs with some huge grain and blown-out highlights ?

Then if you absolutely want to "push", just use developers designed for "pushing" : Microphen, Emofin, Diafine.

There is no need to look for difficulties...

And, like Bob Michaels, I do think that you need to be more than an expert to tell the difference between the two films when both exposed at 400 and developed in the same (appropriate) developer.

You know Keith, this is probably for some good reason that tons of famous photographers got stuck with Tri-X @ 400 / D76 1:1 for decades... 😉

 

[zauhar]

'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!?

Johan, so you're saying that you don't actually push the film at all - TriX/D76 simply allows you to underexpose by a stop with good results?

Keith, I like the image you posted, what are you aiming to improve on?

Randy

 

[Roger Hicks]

Whenever I hear anyone's recommendations for 'pushing', I am deeply suspicious. What is the light like? How are they metering? What are their criteria for 'acceptable'? No-one is going to get ISO 400 out of Tri-X (or Neopan) in Rodinal: they'be be lucky to see ISO 320. Anything after that is a push, and more contrast. Contrarowise, Tri-X (or HP5) in Microphen or DD-X should be a true ISO 650 or more: twice the speed at ISO contrast that they'll get with Rodinal.

None of this means that you can't push in Rodinal, if that's how you get the results you like, but equally it doesn't mean that everyone else will like them, or even find them tolerable (cf Highway 61, above).

Like Chris, I'd go for Delta 3200 -- which advances the argument about as much as those who advocate Neopan in Rodinal, as it wasn't really the original question. Of course, another option is simply longer shutter speeds. Look at Willy Ronis's picture of his wife, La Toilette, later retitled Provençale Nude, one of the loveliest (and most loving) pictures I have ever seen. That was 1/5 second at f8. Hand held, though admittedly with a Rollei TLR.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David_Manning]

Hi Keith (wonderful photo by the way),

With such low ambient light levels I'd play to whatever tool's strengths.

I'd shoot digital and use SilverEfex Pro for the b&w conversion. If its dark but the location is low-contrast, select a filter like Kodak BW400CN but increase the grain to taste.

I know it sounds like you've committed to film this time around, but on a financial basis the savings from not buying film, processing, scanning, and then delivering (print or online?) can probably be close to buying SEP software if you don't own it already.

For myself from a monetary standpoint, when shooting for quantity, digital is still the least expensive game in town, whether its color or b&w. if its your own personal project where you will only be scanning/printing a limited number of selects, film is a great way to work.

Sorry this post wasn't exactly technical, but more business. If its a job...use the proper tool.

Any questions (or want to see examples) just email me.

David.

 

[David_Manning]

And...I certainly didn't mean to sound preachy. You have lots of experience.

I just thought you might appreciate a second opinion. Digital b&w can look fantastic too.

 

[Highway 61]

Hand held, though admittedly with a Rollei TLR

I'd say it was shot with his usual Foca and a 35mm lens, because nothing in this picture tells either 6x6 or 75mm... 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'd say it was shot with his usual Foca and a 35mm lens, because nothing in this picture tells either 6x6 or 75mm... 😉

That's not what he said. See pp 96/97 of Derriere l'objectif (Hoebeke 2010) where he says it was a Rolleiflex, and shows the other three pics he took at the same time. In that book he does not mention the speed and aperture, but on page 17 of Photo-Reportage et Chasse aux Images (Paul Montel, 1951), where the picture is still called 'La Toilette' he gives 1/5 at f/8 but doesn't mention the camera. He'd only taken it maybe eighteen months before...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I really can't get why some people still want to develop Tri-X and Neopan 400 in Rodinal. The results are just ugly.

Really ugly?

Neopan 400

Or acros at 800EI

I can read the beer glass and contrast seems fine to me-I guess ugly is subjective ;-)

 

[znapper]

Photo_smith, great shots, but i'd say that there is a huge difference between 35mm and 120. I would believe that pushing with rodinal in 35mm would be pretty darn grainy. 🙂

 

[Photo_Smith]

Photo_smith, great shots, but i'd say that there is a huge difference between 35mm and 120. I would believe that pushing with rodinal in 35mm would be pretty darn grainy. 🙂

Sure I just wanted to counter the claim that Neopan and Tri-x were 'Really Ugly" when developed in Rodinal, I know some people believe it is conventional wisdom, but to make blanket statements about something isn't normally that wise.

Saying pushing with Rodinal would be 'pretty grainy' may be a belief, possibly one held as conventional wisdom. What you should be asking yourself is how the shots I posted look so smooth and not grainy as hell as you would expect.

I don't often shoot 35mm and have been using Rodinal since 1979, before the internet I wasn't aware that it gave massive grain compared to D76, possibly a slight loss in speed but not as large as some would suggest.

I have here some Neopan shot at 400 developed in 1:50 Rodinal, grainy possibly; ugly I think is more like hyperbole than reality.

Fuji Neopan 400 Leica M4P 50mm Elmar ƒ2,8

All films and developers are tools, the skill is in selecting and using those tools, Rodinal is a capable developer that in the right hands can give smooth tones and fine grain–for those who know how to exploit it.

 

[Highway 61]

That's not what he said. See pp 96/97 of Derriere l'objectif (Hoebeke 2010) where he says it was a Rolleiflex, and shows the other three pics he took at the same time. In that book he does not mention the speed and aperture, but on page 17 of Photo-Reportage et Chasse aux Images (Paul Montel, 1951), where the picture is still called 'La Toilette' he gives 1/5 at f/8 but doesn't mention the camera. He'd only taken it maybe eighteen months before...

Cheers,

R.

Thanks ! Well, that is strange, because the opposite direction oblique lines of resp. the chair and the window are obviously shouting 35mm focal length.

Maybe a Rollei-Wide ? He had one IIRC.

Anyway - who cares. This is such a beautiful photo, and he was such a Man.