bwcolor
Veteran
I'll have to work on getting some examples uploaded. Most have been scanned, but not processed in any way..lack of time. Here is a Neopan 400. Almost all are of kids.
Here is a link (all sizes avail) to Neopan 400: 225ml Xtol / 225ml Water / 4.5ml Rodinal @ 64 degrees 10 3/4min .. agitate 30sec then 4inv/min... I have since reduced agitation.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31760324@N03/4461005891/sizes/l/
Neopan 1600 @EI 500 Tmax Developer 1+9 @68 degrees for 81/2min Agitation 30sec and then 3 inversion per 2 minutes ..needs some retouching
Last edited:
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Too Flat? Too Contrasty?
Too Flat? Too Contrasty?
I think the truth is in the middle. I thought Tim's original was a little flat. I think Chris's alteration is way too cinema noir to suit the subject. Oh, and before someone tells me my my monitor is wrong, Apple assures me my 21" iMac is (ahem) calibrated to Kodak standards.
On a related topic, I have tried one roll (so far) of Neopan 400. I agree the grain, in D-76 1:1, is finer than Tri-X. It's so fine that I can hardly find it with my Paterson grain magnifier when trying to focus. Maybe that's good. But I'm not so sure it's a good film for street photos, because the shadow speed in my shots was deficient compared to Tri-X. As in, not there. Inky black shadows. I will try again with the remaining rolls I bought.
And a roll of T-Max-2 400 gave me weak density--thin negatives. I'll have to try the remaining rolls of that as well. I'll try shooting it and Neopan at a lower EI. And I'll try my XTOL with them as well.
In the meantime, I won't be selling off my cache of Tri-X!
Tim, thanks for this useful and informative test! It does inspire me to do some more shooting with TMax 400!
Too Flat? Too Contrasty?
I think the truth is in the middle. I thought Tim's original was a little flat. I think Chris's alteration is way too cinema noir to suit the subject. Oh, and before someone tells me my my monitor is wrong, Apple assures me my 21" iMac is (ahem) calibrated to Kodak standards.
On a related topic, I have tried one roll (so far) of Neopan 400. I agree the grain, in D-76 1:1, is finer than Tri-X. It's so fine that I can hardly find it with my Paterson grain magnifier when trying to focus. Maybe that's good. But I'm not so sure it's a good film for street photos, because the shadow speed in my shots was deficient compared to Tri-X. As in, not there. Inky black shadows. I will try again with the remaining rolls I bought.
And a roll of T-Max-2 400 gave me weak density--thin negatives. I'll have to try the remaining rolls of that as well. I'll try shooting it and Neopan at a lower EI. And I'll try my XTOL with them as well.
In the meantime, I won't be selling off my cache of Tri-X!
Tim, thanks for this useful and informative test! It does inspire me to do some more shooting with TMax 400!
bwcolor
Veteran
I like the shadows better with Neopan 1600 @ EI 500 vs Neopan 400 @ EI 320. I think that what I'm saying is that it appears more contrasty prior to PS. I gather that contrast is also a matter of exposure/development time tradeoffs. So, should I want to give up some tonality, I could shoot at higher EI and adjust development. It was the shadows that had me moving away from TMY-2, but I need to take another look. The TMY-2 above looks better than what I was doing. Tri-X in medium format seems to be the cat's meow. Nice shadows and nice tonality. Perhaps all of this is off topic, but since the OP was mostly looking at B&W film around EI 400 the Neopan twins swim in the same waters and should be considered.
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
I agree with you, Neopan 400 and 1600 should be considered. I have and decided they are not for me. It seems to me that TMY and TX can be shot at 400 and give similar shadows. TX is grainier, TMY is sharper, and both are affordable. That gives me enough options at 400. Neopan 1600 just doesn't seem to compete in my mind with TMZ or Delta 3200. It is finer grained but just not as fast. I'd rather shoot TX and push a tiny bit than shoot Neopan 1600. At the same time, if I need the speed or I want the look, I'd much rather shoot TMZ than push TX. TMZ is noticeably faster.
I'm beginning to form the opinion that when people talk about 'poor' tonality, a lot of times they are underexposing accidentally. From my experience, exposure (coupled with film speed) determine shadow detail. Contrast is mostly determined by development time. Those certainly aren't original thoughts - I make no claim to coming up with them.
Some films do shoulder quicker, or have longer toes, or have less latitude (and thus give you 'contrastier' results). But if you take films like Tri-X, TMY, HP5+, Neopan 400, and Delta 400, as long as they are exposed consistently and developed appropriately, the differences should be minor. They should all have roughly the same shadow detail and overall contrast. The contrast might be distributed a bit differently; films with a longer toe might have less shadow contrast but more midtone contrast. They might have different spectral sensitivity or grain characteristics. But if you are getting vastly different results from them, something might be amiss in your process.
On another forum, someone was telling me that Neopan is contrasty and Tri-X is super flat. I chalk that up to inconsistency in exposure, development, and post processing (scanning and/or printing).
I'm beginning to form the opinion that when people talk about 'poor' tonality, a lot of times they are underexposing accidentally. From my experience, exposure (coupled with film speed) determine shadow detail. Contrast is mostly determined by development time. Those certainly aren't original thoughts - I make no claim to coming up with them.
Some films do shoulder quicker, or have longer toes, or have less latitude (and thus give you 'contrastier' results). But if you take films like Tri-X, TMY, HP5+, Neopan 400, and Delta 400, as long as they are exposed consistently and developed appropriately, the differences should be minor. They should all have roughly the same shadow detail and overall contrast. The contrast might be distributed a bit differently; films with a longer toe might have less shadow contrast but more midtone contrast. They might have different spectral sensitivity or grain characteristics. But if you are getting vastly different results from them, something might be amiss in your process.
On another forum, someone was telling me that Neopan is contrasty and Tri-X is super flat. I chalk that up to inconsistency in exposure, development, and post processing (scanning and/or printing).
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I use an Apple monitor, too, but it would be a mistake to assume that without luminometry that your monitor is well-calibrated. The better assumption is that if you did not make measurements yourself, your monitor is not particularly well-calibrated.
bwcolor
Veteran
All points well taken and this is why I want to revisit TMY-2. Grain and sharpness were really first rate, but I only used it a couple of times and certainly not enough to get my exposure/development fine tuned.
Regarding large differences. The only large differences that I have seen are with regards to sharpness and grain and some of those are partially developer and agitation issues. I find myself really liking some images, rarely mine, but rarely can I put my finger on why I'm drawn to the image versus a similar image.
Regarding large differences. The only large differences that I have seen are with regards to sharpness and grain and some of those are partially developer and agitation issues. I find myself really liking some images, rarely mine, but rarely can I put my finger on why I'm drawn to the image versus a similar image.