No more Neopan 1600, what now?

[menos]

Wow! These look great. I've been shooting some Delta 3200 and Tmax 3200 lately, and of the two, I like the Tmax at 1600 most, but whenever I shoot either in daylight, the grain is out of control. I don't mind a bit of grain or even a lot of grain, but I feel like it's too much with those films. Your results looks excellent, though. What times are you using for the D76?

Thanks ;-)
The D-76 I don't do myself - I let it develop by my favorite photo lab in Shanghai - ELITE (formerly YiQian Imaging).

When I develop myself, I use TMax developer 1:1 with times according to the massivedevchart.
I tend, to meter TriX +1/3 to +2/3, when shooting in the night and ±0EV, when shooting @ ISO3200 during daylight (makes not much sense, to do, but I don't care, to swap rolls because I got 3200 in the camera in the day).

I basically shot all TX400 film @ 3200 this way.
Only recently, I tried a brick of Neopan400 (it is cheaper and people say things about different contrast and bright and black cutoff, so I am curious about this film @ 3200 as well).

Seems like Tri-X or T-max pushed will be the solution. I like also Delta 3200 but i's too grainy for my taste. Here is an example:

Regards,

If her left cheek in shadow is, what you are talking about (slightly mottled mushy grain - very difficult, to judge form the downsized pic), TX400, pushed will give you better results for such shots.

You can see, how pushed TX400 @3200 behaves in shadows in the crops of the Z - there is grain, of course, but it is very detailed, sharp, precise grain, which I like actually.

I tried a few rolls of TMax400, pushed to 3200 and it gave me similar mottled, blotchy shadows. I stopped using it and never touched Tmax again.
I like, how TX400 looks @ 3200. Neopan400 @3200 seems less contrasty with smoother tones, so I will use that for people and better lighted shots.

TX is great for the night, I find ;-)

Chris I loved those night shots with Tmax of yours!
The intimate portrait of your grandfather (?) though shows the grain, I didn't care much for with this film.

 

[bhop73]

I still have some left.. but that's probably all i'll ever get.


Sadness by bhop, on Flickr

I have had good results pushing Arista Premium/Tri-X

all of these are Arista@1600. I use Clayton F76+ developer.

Dance by bhop, on Flickr


LOL by bhop, on Flickr


Stay Classy by bhop, on Flickr

 

[cnphoto]

TMax 400 at 1600 in Rodinal 1:50 (35 pre-Asph 'lux and 1/15th or 1/8th of a second i think, so a little blur)

Tri-X at 1600 in Rodinal 1:50

and Tri-X at 3200 in Rodinal 1:50 (gentler agitation, colder water and increased dev time on this roll I think)

 

[Turtle]

I've been playing with 35mm Tmax 3200 and comparing with D3200 and I am going to switch. I am able to get significantly finer grain, more fine detail and good tonality from the Tmax 3200 with a marginal 1/3 stop (at most) loss in speed. In Xtol 1+1 I got negs that printed themselves (even in tough light) and negs you'd think were shot on a 400 speed film if you did not know better. I am seriously impressed and although I cans ee some preferring the tonality of D3200 (gentler, more sensual) I prefer the Tmax tonality in this case as it is classic reportage harder edged look. With the Tmax I love the shadow and mid tone separation and whereas D3200 can have a kind of a grainy slightly soft look (the grain is not, but the feel of the image can be), Tmax is crisp all the way. Lovely stuff. D3200 will be reserved for emergency 120 use.

I have to say I am over Neopan 1600's demise now. Pushed TriX for 640-800 or Tmax 3200 for 800 and up. It was a great film (as long as not overexposed or over developed) but there are super alternatives unless you demand the replacement look exactly the same.

 

[Peter R]

I never shot the 1600 until a couple of weeks before I heard it was discontinued. I'm not really a fan of lots of grain, but have quickly grown to like this film. Still have some left. Here are two I just got developed.

Hate to say it, but to me these two shots pretty well illustrate that the other options may be nice alternatives but not replacements.