No more Neopan 1600, what now?

[Dunn]

I loved using Neopan 1600 for low light shooting. I was disappointed when I went to order more from BH that it was discontinued. I guess I should pay attention to stuff like that ahead of time.

Anyway, what is the best thing to replace it? Push Tri-X? Tmax 3200? Delta 3200? Other suggestions?

 

[enochRoot]

Neopan 400 pushed. That is pretty much what Neopan 1600 was if I remember correctly.

 

[semilog]

That can't be correct — the development times for Neopan 400 and 1600 at equivalent EI are very different.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Neopan 1600's real speed was 640, so a little faster than Neopan 400.

 

[Tim Gray]

I'd look at the development times for the two with a similar contrast index. I think Fuji calls it G in their spec sheets. That should give you similar contrast.

 

[enochRoot]

Well, not sure where I read it (probably here somewhere), but the consensus was that the 1600 wasn't a true 1600 and wasn't really that far off from the 400 (pushed). Regardless, 400 pushed looks similar enough to 1600 to be a viable replacement.

 

[Tipton]

I've seen nice things from pushing Tri-X, that's my plan. Most likely at 800, which is what I shot Neopan 1600 at anyway.
Just experiment 🙂

 

[divewizard]

I have been happy with HP5+ pushed to 1600

 

[wlewisiii]

If I need available darkness, it's Tri-X at 1250 in Diafine.

William

 

[Tipton]

If I need available darkness, it's Tri-X at 1250 in Diafine.

William

Nice. Thats a perfectly fine looking option to me! Ive been sticking to shooting it at 800, looks good pushed even further.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Agfa APX ISO 400 or its clone Arista II, pushed. Better than Neopan ISO 1600... IMHO.

 

[Keith]

Of the 400 ISO films I've pushed to 1600 Ilford HP5+ impressed me the most. I don't like it much at box speed though!

 

[andredossantos]

Neopan 400 pushed. That is pretty much what Neopan 1600 was if I remember correctly.

+1

Its not exactly the same, but it's a similar look. I always found Neopan 1600 looked best rated around 800 to 1000 iso. If you push Neopan 400 one out to the same, it's a decent replacement.

 

[ZeissFan]

Shoot some of the other films. You'll never know if you like it or don't like it, if you don't try. And this is something that someone can't tell you. I think you have to try them and come to your own conclusion.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

For low light the best I've used including NeopanP1600, Delta3200 and pushed 400 films, is by far TMaxP3200 on TMax developer... Amazing tone and speed, and beautiful sharp, not too big grain. I wish my Tri-X on Rodinal had that look!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[enochRoot]

I only got into HP5+ in larger formats. This is 8x10 HP5+ rated at 800 in diafine. I could clearly push it more with acceptable results. Not sure how this translates to smaller formats, but at this level it's unbelievable.

 

[wlewisiii]

Nice Keith, I like those two a whole lot.

As for you, enochRoot, damnit, now I have to find the money for HP5+ sheets to feed my Crown. I've been trying to stick to FP4+ outside but that's to tasty not to try.

William

 

[gavinlg]

Nothing matches neopan 1600 as far as I'm concerned for a high speed film. MAYBE one of the tmax films in tmax developer comes close...

(yes I'm still pissed they discontinued my favorite film)

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Neopan was nice, but it wasn't fast and it wasn't very good for pushing because of its high contrast. I liked it for giving it good light, though.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[bwcolor]

I still have a good bit of Neopan 1600. I usually shoot it at 640 and soak it in Rodinal 1+50. I've been playing with TMY-2 @ 640 in TMax Developer.