maddoc
... likes film again.
Helen, thank u !! 
.... there is no key for the Blacks. I just develop standard and scan, no PP at all.
.... there is no key for the Blacks. I just develop standard and scan, no PP at all.
amateriat
We're all light!
Gabor: I concur with Helen...both images are great, bu the blacks in that second shot are deep and velvety, at least on my screen.
- Barrett
- Barrett
Last edited:
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
Barrett, thank you ! Maybe, my Coolscan 4000ED likes Neopan Presto 400PR ? Since I am a lazy guy (sometimes to lazy ... ) I hardly ever bother with PP in Photoshop or similar software. Just straight scan, re-size for web and that's it. Before I forget, i always save the scanned frames as JPG-files, TIFF would need to much space and time ....
Maybe, my Coolscan 4000ED likes Neopan Presto 400PR ? Since I am a lazy guy (sometimes to lazy ... ) I hardly ever bother with PP in Photoshop or similar software. Just straight scan, re-size for web and that's it. Before I forget, i always save the scanned frames as JPG-files, TIFF would need to much space and time ....
David R Munson
写真のオタク
Sometimes a malfunctioning shutter is a wonderful thing.
amateriat
We're all light!
David: In this (your) case, I must agree! I'm usually not as lucky in such an instance.
Gabor: Good grief, you need to buy a bigger hard drive. If your scans are looking this good on-screen, I have to think they'd look pretty good in-print, and you need as much data to feed the printer as possible in that case. I just filled up one 300gb drive with images, and recently bought a pair of 500gb drives (IDE drives, folks...too lazy to pop for a SATA card for my Power Mac G4; maybe whenever I snag a cheap G5 or Mac Pro...). Hard drives have never been cheaper.
Back to the Main Subject: I've used Fuji b/w off-and-on, and it has a lot to recommend it, especially the 1600 stuff: used it a good deal for outdoor-theatre stuff in the 90s, and it was quite good:
Gorilla Rep/King Lear, Washington Sq. Park, NYC, 1995
(Technical: Minolta 9xi, Minolta 28-135, Fuji Neopan 1600)
- Barrett
Gabor: Good grief, you need to buy a bigger hard drive. If your scans are looking this good on-screen, I have to think they'd look pretty good in-print, and you need as much data to feed the printer as possible in that case. I just filled up one 300gb drive with images, and recently bought a pair of 500gb drives (IDE drives, folks...too lazy to pop for a SATA card for my Power Mac G4; maybe whenever I snag a cheap G5 or Mac Pro...). Hard drives have never been cheaper.
Back to the Main Subject: I've used Fuji b/w off-and-on, and it has a lot to recommend it, especially the 1600 stuff: used it a good deal for outdoor-theatre stuff in the 90s, and it was quite good:
Gorilla Rep/King Lear, Washington Sq. Park, NYC, 1995
(Technical: Minolta 9xi, Minolta 28-135, Fuji Neopan 1600)
- Barrett
Last edited:
Roma
Well-known
Neopan 400 looks pretty good at 400. I used it for a little while, but stopped because it didn't seem to push well (much more contrasty than Tri-X or HP5), so I stayed with Tri-X.
Has anyone tried to push it lately?
Has anyone tried to push it lately?
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
To Those Shooting Fuji 1600 @ 800
To Those Shooting Fuji 1600 @ 800
I've tried a bit of 1600 - at 1600 - and wasn't overawed by the results. But I'd like to try again at 800 based on some comments here. I have the film in my bag now; - what development do you guys give when exposing at 800?
To Those Shooting Fuji 1600 @ 800
I've tried a bit of 1600 - at 1600 - and wasn't overawed by the results. But I'd like to try again at 800 based on some comments here. I have the film in my bag now; - what development do you guys give when exposing at 800?
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Me too. It seems to block up and go high contrast very quickly with any overdevelopment. Seems to be less tolerant of that than (say) Tri-X or HP5+.
AJ_W
Member
David R Munson
写真のオタク
FWIW, this is Neopan 400 pushed to 1600 in 645 format. Developer was Ilford ID-11 if I remember correctly (either that or D-76). No fast film choices in medium format other than Delta 3200 (which is a film I just can't get myself to like), so pushing something Neopan 400 is my only other option for low-light stuff. I've been very pleased with it pushed.
Turtle
Veteran
I rate it at 500-640 in my Ms (and generally rate film 1/3-2/3 stops faster in other cameras for some reason). I develop in either DDX 1+7 or Xtol 1+2, the latter for about 7.5 mins at 23 degs. bear in mind I have a very soft enlarger so for scanning or condensor printing you will want to shave a good 10-15% off this if not more.
Neopan 1600 gives no more than a stop of speed over the 400 and in most devs I reckon my eyes tell me that it is actually 2/3 stop. Still, that can matter. I have been shooting an indoor project where shutter speeds are typically from 1/15 to 1/30 at f2.8-f4 with 320 rated film. At 500 I can keep my shutter speeds at 1/30th and use 1/15th somewhat less (and stop down more when I want). It just takes me into the comfort zone re camera shake with a 35mm lens. Negs are a touch grainier than the 400, but pretty well have the same look so will work together. Downrated like this you will get none of the soot and whitewash of 1600 rates at 1600 which is really about a 1.5 stop push.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Barrett, I only have an old IBM Thinkpad X30 (with 2 GB RAM 1GHz processor) and some external HD (USB) for scanning and printing .... I tried once saving as TIFF and then printing (out of Adobe PS elements) that was a disaster because the IBM crashed ....
About Neopan Superpresto 1600PR: I expose at box-speed (1600ISO), develop in Fuji's "S-Prodol", which is dirty cheap here in Japan and gives quite good results:
(Superpresto 1600PR at 1600ISO / S-Prodol 1:1 / scanned as 24bit RGB)
About Neopan Superpresto 1600PR: I expose at box-speed (1600ISO), develop in Fuji's "S-Prodol", which is dirty cheap here in Japan and gives quite good results:
(Superpresto 1600PR at 1600ISO / S-Prodol 1:1 / scanned as 24bit RGB)
Bingley
Veteran
Thanks, Kitaanat!
Gabor, that picture above is gorgeous!
Here's a Neopan 400 shot, again developed in Rodinal:
Gabor, that picture above is gorgeous!
Here's a Neopan 400 shot, again developed in Rodinal:
amateriat
We're all light!
Whew...guys, all these images look damned good from here.
Gabor: I get your situation. A Bigger Hard Drive might not be the silver bullet here. In this case, I'd say: go for the biggest JPEG files your setup can stand, in the name or repro quality (assuming, of course, that you're printing).
And to think, I almost forgot what Neopan–both 400 and 1600–can do. Thanks for the reminder.
- Barrett
Gabor: I get your situation. A Bigger Hard Drive might not be the silver bullet here. In this case, I'd say: go for the biggest JPEG files your setup can stand, in the name or repro quality (assuming, of course, that you're printing).
And to think, I almost forgot what Neopan–both 400 and 1600–can do. Thanks for the reminder.
- Barrett
Roma
Well-known
I've tried to rate neopan 1600 @1000 and get about the same results with Tri-X pushed to 1000 when both are developed in D76 1:1. Tri-X is cheaper and I don't have to worry about airports and such, so I stick to it, I guess.
There is just something about Neopan that makes it look like some grey tones are missing when I make darkroom prints from it. I don't know.
There is just something about Neopan that makes it look like some grey tones are missing when I make darkroom prints from it. I don't know.
Turtle
Veteran
It depends on the nature of the subject. Neopan 1600 has more shadow detail at 640 in my use in a metered Leica Mthan TriX at the same speed. If I push TriX to get a hair more in the shadows then I get seriously hot highlights. In this regard Neopan 1600 is better because at 640 in my Ms it is not really getting pushed and so I have nicely controlled highlights. This is important if shooting inside and there will be sunny windows in the frame!
If shooting a more grey or lower CI scene, pushing TriX is likely to work just as well. I think TriX does have a longer mid tone scale and that Neopan can be more abrupt in the mids even at its natural speed; however, if you absolutely need shadow detail and cannot risk blowing hot highlights, pushing any film is not the answer. If I am shooting a scene with a limited brightness range I would rather push TriX than shoot D3200 for example, but if I have to have shadow detail I will accept the grain and shoot the D3200 at about 1000. There's no way around it as pushing has a limited effect on the low values.
Turtle
Veteran
PS for those who think Neopan 400 and 1600 are completely different films, try shooting a box of Neopan 1600 at double the speed they use with Neopan 400 and match developent. They look much more similar when both are shot at their real speeds.
zenlibra
Crazy Leica Fox
I like both Tri-X and Neopan 400, I don't have enough experience yet to understand how each film behaves compared to each other. This was developed with Ilfotec DD-X @ 1+4.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I generally expose Neopan 400 at box speed and develop in Xtol 1+1 for eight minutes @ 20deg ... fifteen seconds initial agitation then one gentle inversion every sixty seconds after that.
Gabor's images demonstrate perfectly what really does it for me with this film ... those deep, deep blacks are to die for! Not everyone's cup of tea though ... some people prefer a film with strong mid tones and that's not Neopan's strength IMO.
About a year ago I shot some Neopan 400 at 3200 in an old farm shed not far from here with my 15mm Heliar ... not much mid tone in the images at all and the highlights are very 'hot' ... but I have to say for certain subject material I like the look!
Gabor's images demonstrate perfectly what really does it for me with this film ... those deep, deep blacks are to die for! Not everyone's cup of tea though ... some people prefer a film with strong mid tones and that's not Neopan's strength IMO.
About a year ago I shot some Neopan 400 at 3200 in an old farm shed not far from here with my 15mm Heliar ... not much mid tone in the images at all and the highlights are very 'hot' ... but I have to say for certain subject material I like the look!
Last edited: