Which developer for Neopan 1600

Helen, was that a mask? Maybe it's the border of your camera mixed with the sensation of your face placed alone a lot to the left... But this big your avatar really looks crazy! I use a very small laptop and now suddenly I do see a mask... Great and mysterious shot!

Cheers,

Juan
 
LOL...NO Mask .... Just ME scantily Clad...😱

I think due to LOTS of Agitation !
It got a bit Wild but DOES WORK in a Charming ,Atmospheric Way


In General I am now a MInimalist w/ Agiation
I do seem to like the Results as well

Cheers & Thanx Juan !
 
Ooops, I'm so sorry... I've seen your face in other shots, all of them interesting from the point of view of emotions by the way, and I would recognize you anywhere, at any distance... The border of your camera makes a false nose and mouth... This shot is a really strange and unusual one... And that's good!

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
With Neopan 1600, I've had good results with HC110, Dilution B at 7 minutes, all shot at box speed. I've always scanned my negatives, however.
 
Also seems pretty nice at 800, in D-76, 1:1, for 7m:

3515179549_d625337df4.jpg
 
ulrich.von.lich said:
...
I'd like my images to have less grain and specially less contrast. I find Neopan 1600 quite contrasty compared to Delta 3200 at 1600.
...
Click to expand...

It's more contrasty because the base speed of Neopan 1600 is only around 800 ASA, compared to Delta 3200 which has roughly a stop more sensitivity.

Shoot it at 800 ASA if you want to retain all shadow detail, although that depends on the choice of developer, of course. I use Neopan 1600 at EI 800 with Diafine and like the results.

Regards,
Philipp
 
Cale Arthur said:
Also seems pretty nice at 800, in D-76, 1:1, for 7m:

3515179549_d625337df4.jpg
Click to expand...

Ulrich, this looks nice... I guess you should use a new film roll to quickly test a couple of development times:

For example shooting in a few minutes half the roll at 1600 and the other half at 3200, cutting it in two and testing 10 and 15 minutes to come close to your situation... That way, in one hour you'll know for sure...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Rodinal is gentle on highlights, so if you don't mind the grain, it may look nice. I tried D76 1:1 and it's not bad. I want to try D76 1:2 for the highlights to develop longer and not block-up as much.
I suggest you try several things and see which one makes your prints look the best.
 
I don't have much experience but I would like to suggest to talk with the person who will process your negatives at the lab if you can. even if the developer is the same every person has his way of working ( dilution, agitation etc) and who better than the printer can help you.
cheers
P.S. my lab uses TMAX and I'm kind of happy with it.
 
I love Rodinal, but for Neopan I use either D76 or a Rodinal/XTol cocktail. I would think naked XTol would be a good choice, too.

I can't believe Tom does CONTINUOUS agitation with Rodinal, but hey, ya learn sumpin every day!
 
I wonder if the OP is any closer to making a choice? Neopan 1600 at 3200 is quite a push, depending on his metering technique, and I suppose the light was contrasty too. If I were doing these two films, I would do the one exposed at 1600 first in a developer that gives a speed increase (TMax RS probably, though we don't know what the other two developers are).

Then I would consider what to do with the one exposed at 3200.
 
Thanks everyone! Your comments have been much appreciated!

Actually I have been using Neopan 1600 + Xtol combo, because I like Neopan 1600 and Xtol is the default developer for the lab I use. Generally I'm satisfied with the results. I only wish they could be less contrasty for some situations (ex: concert). I told my idea to person who has been developing my films and he is going to try Microdol X (one of the unknown developers) with the 1600 roll this time. He said it's softer and would possibly reduce some contrast.

I asked him about the dilution and stuff (sorry I'm too newbie to receive some advices of yours) but he told me the developers they use were already mixed.

I hope the results will come out ok.

@Juan, I'm going to scan them, and possibly print some good ones only. But I'm curious to know why it'd make a difference on the choice of developer.

Thanks again for taking your time to help me! And I really liked some images posted in the thread.

Best Regards,
Tony
 
Hi Ulrich,


The difference is very important precisely in your case...


That film is 640-800 ASA, so it's designed to be used with low light and to be pushed always to 1600, being a bit contrasty usually. But 3200 is beyond its limits for getting nice tonality in wet printing...


If you are going to scan, the situation is totally different, because on your negatives you'll have enough information anyway: your original scan will be dark, but digitally you'll make it near perfect, with rich tones and having its nice sharp grain too.


Were they shot in autoexposure or incident? If in autoexposure, did you care about metering an appropriate zone of the image, or shots will vary on exposition?

Cheers,

Juan
 
I've never understood that advice. My experience with scanning on my CS 5000 says that a thicker negative (as long as its not blown out) scans much better than a thinner negative. In fact, more or less the same as printing 🙂 Perhaps its my equipment? I dont know.
 
Sorry for the late reply.

I have a few more questions:

1. What's a thin or a thick negative?

2. Many photos on the 3200 roll came underexposed, while the 1600 roll was ok. I'm still trying to understand why.

The second half of the 3200 roll and the whole 1600 roll were shot at the same concert with the same metering method. But the first half of the 3200 roll were shot at another concert with a lot of more lights (therefore overexposed, as I had exposed mainly for the singers)

Is it possible that the lab has taken the average exposure of the roll? Or is it the fault of Microdol X or me?

3. For underexposed negatives, I scanned them but didn't see much details in the shadows. Is it because of my scanner? I only have a Canon 8800F.

I also got some good photos. The photos developed in Microdol X seem to have better grain and softer lights in my case.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29807508@N03/

Many thanks for your help!

Best Regards,
Tony
 
Last edited:
I have tried Neopan 1600 at 1600. It just doesn't have the shadow speed to work well at 1600. Grainy, contrasty, overdeveloped. But I get great results at 640 to 800. 1000 would not be too much. I have gotten my best results with Ilford Microphen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Expired Neopan 1600 & 400 in SPUR developers
Replies
2
Views
1K
Bradford
B
P
Which camera for 28 and 50mm?
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
7K
Beemermark
Beemermark
A
My Leica SL2-S settings
Replies
0
Views
2K
Archiver
A
brothernature
Developer volume recommendations
Replies
3
Views
612
Freakscene
Freakscene
B
New year resolutions (photo-centered) for 2025
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
JohnGellings
J
Back
Top Bottom