Rating Neopan 1600

[pvdhaar]

The inside of the box says to use an EI from 400-3200 ISO depending on processing. Now, if I use it as 1600, and have it developed as 1600, does it indeed give good negs that aren't too thin? Or does it not quite reach 1600, and should I use some exposure compensation? If anyone's got good suggestions, that would be highly appreciated..

 

[telenous]

What Mango says. At ISO1600 the film is too cotrasty, esp. if you use it with modern lenses. (I have also used it with a slightly hazy rigid Summicron and then results were fine). I have just finished a roll rated at 1250. When I develop and have the results scanned I will let you know.

 

[markinlondon]

It's like all the "push" films, Peter. The manufacturers rate it a nominal speed based on testing with their recommended developer, this does not reflect the ISO speed of the emulsion which needs to be defined under stringent ISO defined conditions of contrast and density. So for Neopan 1600 EI1600 is achiveable as is EI3200 with Ilford Delta 3200 if processed accordingly.
Disclaimer: this statement should not be read as "manufacturers lie about all their film speeds", I hate that particular internet myth.

 

[mfunnell]

OK, so dumb me is not used to BW film and I don't process my own. If I shoot a roll of Neopan 1600 should I rate it at 1600 and have the lab process it as 1600, or is that "too contrasty"? Or should "overexpose" at, say, 800 then have the lab pull one stop (less contrast, less grain)? Or am I misunderstanding?

I must say, I've been quite impressed by Ilford Delta 400 shot and developed "as is" and also shot as 800 and pushed a stop in development. Should I treat Neopan 1600 differently? How about delta 3200?

My ignorance cries out for advice!

...Mike

 

[markinlondon]

OK, so dumb me is not used to BW film and I don't process my own. If I shoot a roll of Neopan 1600 should I rate it at 1600 and have the lab process it as 1600, or is that "too contrasty"? Or should "overexpose" at, say, 800 then have the lab pull one stop (less contrast, less grain)? Or am I misunderstanding?

I must say, I've been quite impressed by Ilford Delta 400 shot and developed "as is" and also shot as 800 and pushed a stop in development. Should I treat Neopan 1600 differently? How about delta 3200?

My ignorance cries out for advice!

...Mike

It's always best to start from the manufacturers' recommendations with a new film or developer (or both, even) and then tune the process based on the results. This is the problem with commercial processing, that no fine tuning based on your individual metering habits are possible. I've been impressed by all of 20 frames of the 30+ rolls of Delta 400 I've shot, others swear by it. In this case the film just doesn't like my "what I can get away with" approach to metering. This is true if commercially processed or if I do it myself. HP5+ and Tri-x work much better for me, it takes a bit of trial and error.

 

[pingle]

Disclaimer: this statement should not be read as "manufacturers lie about all their film speeds", I hate that particular internet myth.

They certainly don't lie, but one should also be clear on what they're not lying about. Ilford, for example, very clearly states that the numbers they put on their film boxes bear no relation to the films' ISO speeds. So it is fair to say that the ISO speed of a film is often lower than what's written on the box.

 

[markinlondon]

OK Mike, here's the concrete advice. Take your roll of Neopan, shoot 1/3 of it at 1600, 1/3 at 800, 1/3 at 400. Develop normally, see which frames you like and try to work out an EI that fits these results. Try to shoot all frames in similar lighting conditions. This will give you a feel for what the emulsion does for you with your lab's setup. Remember you are testing both the film and a third party's developing. You can control the former, the latter may vary.

 

[markinlondon]

They certainly don't lie, but one should also be clear on what they're not lying about. Ilford, for example, very clearly states that the numbers they put on their film boxes bear no relation to the films' ISO speeds. So it is fair to say that the ISO speed of a film is often lower than what's written on the box.

True in a way, but Ilford do define their test conditions. I have no problems rating HP5+ at box speed in ID-11, but find I need to add about 1/2 a stop of exposure in HC-110. In flat light and in DD-X it approaches EI800 (say, 650 for comfort). My preference is to shoot HP5+ at EI200 and pull development 1 stop. I think personal preference muddies the issue of "real film speeds".

 

[pvdhaar]

Thanks for the information so far Mango and Alkis.. I'm all for solid (but not too much) contrast, so I guess I won't over expose and have it pulled too far.. 1/3 of a click under 1600 seems the way to go.

It's like all the "push" films, Peter. The manufacturers rate it a nominal speed based on testing with their recommended developer, this does not reflect the ISO speed of the emulsion which needs to be defined under stringent ISO defined conditions of contrast and density. So for Neopan 1600 EI1600 is achiveable as is EI3200 with Ilford Delta 3200 if processed accordingly..

Mark, this I had already understood, but I was afraid that I'd get much worse results at 1600 exposure and development than with 800..

Disclaimer: this statement should not be read as "manufacturers lie about all their film speeds", I hate that particular internet myth.

No, I too think they don't lie, but ISO value isn't the whole picture. The exposure lattitude isn't always symmetrical around zone V. You can get a properly exposed zone V at the advocated ISO setting, and at the same time have muddy shadows in II..

The answers so far seem to indicate that it'll behave quite graciously at 1250..

 

[Pherdinand]

should not that depend on your developer?
In some chemicals, it is supposed to be rated at 640 not more. In diafine it is supposed to be rated at 2400, however.
Not that I tried...!

Anyway - the times I used it, it was indeed very contrasty after commercial development in agfa refinal, but know-how people (real ones, not like me) told me, it was overdeveloped and that's why it's so contrasty.

I got some excellent results with it at iso 1000 and 1600, developed as 1600 in xtol. (Again, by a lab.)
Some rolls are on the way, together with a box of diafine, so i'm looking forward to it as well.🙂

 

[pingle]

True in a way, but Ilford do define their test conditions. I have no problems rating HP5+ at box speed in ID-11, but find I need to add about 1/2 a stop of exposure in HC-110. In flat light and in DD-X it approaches EI800 (say, 650 for comfort). My preference is to shoot HP5+ at EI200 and pull development 1 stop. I think personal preference muddies the issue of "real film speeds".

I agree 100%. I just meant to indicate (as you did, perhaps, more succinctly) that no-one's idea of "correct speed" should be taken as gospel (including the manufacturer's) when it really depends so much on how you expose and what look you like. The only real way to know is to try it and see.

 

[markinlondon]

Mark, this I had already understood, but I was afraid that I'd get much worse results at 1600 exposure and development than with 800..

I think the way my feelings go is that only you can decide which is better or worse, Peter. The rest of us can only state our preferences. Also as Pherdinand says, so much is down to the developer or the person doing the processing.

 

[Pherdinand]

Peter: I found it very difficult to "tell the lab to develop it less" or such. I meran I can tell them and they might even say "ok, sure" but in fact they still do the same. This is, i guess, because most labs send the BW stuff out to some large center for processing...
What you can do is forst of all, ask your lab what developer they are using. Insist that they ask it from that 'other lab', if they don't do it themselves.
Then look up (e.g. in the internet "massive development chart" or the developers' manufacturer site ) the EI at 20 degrees and start from there.
But of course, a test roll as suggested, might be the best.

If you are in Amsterdam, color might do a good job and do what you tell them to do with the film.

 

[peter_n]

If I shoot a roll of Neopan 1600 should I rate it at 1600 and have the lab process it as 1600, or is that "too contrasty"? Or should "overexpose" at, say, 800 then have the lab pull one stop (less contrast, less grain)? Or am I misunderstanding?

Mike I shoot my NP1600 at 1250 and have the lab process at 1600 in XTOL. Seems to work for me.

 

[pdx138]

I shoot it at 1600 an develop at 1600 in D76 or HC110. It is plenty contrasty, but there is still shadow detail available with a little dodging. I'm very impressed with this film.

 

[photogdave]

I shoot it at 1600 an develop at 1600 in D76 or HC110. It is plenty contrasty, but there is still shadow detail available with a little dodging. I'm very impressed with this film.

I agree! Here are some of my examples. I love the contrast.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=47474&cat=500&ppuser=3291
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=47473&cat=500&ppuser=3291
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=47633&cat=500&ppuser=3291

 

[pvdhaar]

Thanks to all of you for getting me started, and even showing some examples! I'll let you know how I fare.. just give me some time to trip that shutter 36x..

 

[willie_901]

I agree! Here are some of my examples. I love the contrast.
[

very nice work!