Why shoot Fuji Neopan 400?

[Highway 61]

HP5+, Neopan 400, and Tri-X are all interchangeable films. Depending on processing, they can all be made to look like one another.

Absolutely. I am still awaiting for a scientific demonstration of the contrary, and I bet I could wait for long.

At some point (back in 2008-2009) Neopan 400 was particularly interesting because it was by far the cheapest of the three when bought at street shops.

But now that it's gone, the myth and the hoarding phenomemon are going to get its prices up and up and up - this is already happening - so buying some doesn't make sense : rather have Fuji not sell their last batches and buy some products which are still manufactured instead ! 🙄

 

[znapper]

You don't like PanF?

D3200P?

I use Acros instead of Pan F, as I find it to be cleaner (Kodak TMax is also very clean), as well as being one stop faster.
- This may be due to developer, as I use HC-110.
I used to use Pan-F a lot for macro work, but I started using Acros for this after discovering how good that film really is.

Delta 3200 (1600 ISO really) has some of the same properties as the Delta 400 films in tonal response. (which I normally don't like).
I bought 50 rolls of Neopan 1600 (1000 ISO really) and find that to be pretty pleasing.
I rarely shoot films above 400 ISO though, if I need high iso performance, I tend to use my 5d mk III (sorry 🙂 ).

 

[Photo_Smith]

Absolutely. I am still awaiting for a scientific demonstration of the contrary, and I bet I could wait for long.

HP5 and Tri-x are classic cubic crystal films, Neopan 400 has a upper record that is epitaxial that is a 'tabular' form like Ilford Delta 400 (Fuji and Ilford shared technology devloped by Fuji for their 'HR colour films–Koitabashi et al European patent application No. 0019917), the lower record is a slower cubic type which is octahedral in form.

From the original engineering paper:
Lower record consisting of regular octahedral silver halide host grains bounded by {111} major crystal faces and containing less than 15 mole percent iodide, and an upper record of silver salt epitaxially located on and substantially confined to at least one of edge and corner sites of said grains.
Epitaxial grains look like this:

So Neopan 400 is different from a classic emulsion and has a lower RMS number (8-9 from memory) which means the film is capable of giving finer looking grain.
These types of emulsions are considered by engineers as 'hybrid' types, Fomapan 200T was also one such emulsion.

Kodak's most recent TMY 400 is a hybrid film also with a tabular upper record (oriented) and a cubic lower, so at this point in time TMY is much similar in structure to Neopan than the latter is like HP5/Tri-x

 

[maddoc]

It is a nice 400 ISO film if correctly treated (exposed and developed) but highlights easily wash out from my experience. Tri-X is easier to handle and shows less grain, again from my experience only.

 

[bwcolor]

It is a nice 400 ISO film if correctly treated (exposed and developed) but highlights easily wash out from my experience. Tri-X is easier to handle and shows less grain, again from my experience only.

I've never had handling issues with either film.

I use Tri-X in 120 , but prefer the finer grain of the Neopan for 35mm. I've only used Xtol and TMax developers. I'll have to give 35mm Tri-X another chance.

 

[redisburning]

I'm sorry, if you all say those are Tri-X, I wouldn't know the difference.

perhaps on the viewing end it doesnt matter so much, but I just could never get Tri-X to look good using my routines. But I don't struggle with Fuji.

I tried to like Tri-X, it just didn't happen.

 

[Highway 61]

So Neopan 400 is different from a classic emulsion and has a lower RMS number (8-9 from memory) which means the film is capable of giving finer looking grain.
These types of emulsions are considered by engineers as 'hybrid' types, Fomapan 200T was also one such emulsion.

I do not doubt that Neopan 400 will differ from Tri-X once looked at with an electronic microscope, yet I still have to see the actual difference to the naked eye on scans and on large FB wet darkroom prints.

I don't use to take an electronic microscope in my pocket when I visit some actual photos exhibitions or look at some photos in well printed books.

Recently I had to doublecheck that the film used was actually Tri-X for some of my photos because the resolution was incredibly good with almost no visible grain on a 8"x11" FB print (off a 135 neg.).

 

[shadowfox]

With all due respect; you are wrong about much of this.

The variations with these films (proven in various tests in the past, when film still had some printing space in photo-magazines), is significant in many areas, but especially concerning:
- True speed
- Grain (yes!)
- Resolution
- Tonal response and sensitivity
- Reciprocity properties
- Curve response to pushing and various developing schemes.

The delta films from Ilford for example, have a much greater red sensitivity than Tri-X, Neopan or HP5+, meaning things like red lips will be almost white and pale, depending on the light.
- I find this extremely unflattering and after trying out the deltas, I simply gave it up for people. Even if the skin is smoother with higher red sensitivity, white and pale lips look SILLY!

HP5+ is a much nicer film and much more flattering tonal response, it has "old school" cubical grain structure and lower resolution than the Delta 400 (which is a newer film with T-type grain structure).

The grain means squat when you print a 4x6 inch print, but it does play a role in bigger prints.

True speed can be compensated for somewhat, but it limits pushing ability, a film with a true speed of 400 will handle a +1 stop with ease, Foma 400 will not, as it's true speed is more like ISO 250.

The look and feel and grain can only be emulated to a certain point, it will never be the same, because these films simply are different.

The only Ilford films I personally like, is HP5+ and FP4 (and I actually do buy those).

A good summary of the real differences between emulsions. For advanced film users.

People who are new to film just need to enjoy B&W films. They can learn the differences and make their own choices later on.

What I'm trying to discourage is for beginners to be obsessed with discontinued film and spending money on used market rather than where it's really needed, to support manufacturers who still produce film.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Mr Highway 61
Neopan has a lower grain index,(measured both RMS and PGI) it is finer grain, I can see it in my prints and scans furthermore both Fuji and Ilford's tests have shown that epitaxial grains look smoother.
I have seen it in my prints which are normally 12x16 and larger, I'm not sure you'll see it on an 8" print possibly...

If you can't see that fine, but the T grain films like Neopan, TMY etc certainly have a different look to the cubic ones like Tri-x and HP5 you shouldn't need an electron microscope to see that.

 

[Dennis.Carlson]

With D76 1+1 it is fantastic. I just always seem to hit it dead on the head with this film. Its very forgiving.

 

[shadowfox]

Interesting, what you're saying is all 400 films are the same and that all you need to do is nail exposure and development?

So basically Fomapan 400 and Tmax 400 will have insignificant differences?

Technically, there are differences (of course), but
for beginners, it's not significant enough.
And for advanced film users, it's a choice.

I made the choice to stick to one emulsion and tweak *my* process to produce the result that I'm happy with. So far I have been successful in doing that with anything out there, Fomapan, Tri-X, HP5, Neopan, whatever.

I need to add that I much prefer 100 ASA films to 400. That is the only differences that are significant enough.

 

[Highway 61]

If you can't see that fine, but the T grain films like Neopan, TMY etc certainly have a different look to the cubic ones like Tri-x and HP5 you shouldn't need an electron microscope to see that.

The problem is, when you shoot those films with lenses having a resolution superior to the own film one, and depending on what you shoot, traditional cubic film grain will often have the spectator feel that there is less grain on the photo than on the same scene shot on T grain film (using the same gear and under the same lighting conditions).

More : T grain films can exhibit some "noise" in the deep shadows, while cubic grain films won't.

You don't speak about photographic results and photographic rendition (pleasant to the eye, or not) using measurements data only.

If T grain films had been a kind of a miracle, consumers would have stopped buying cubic grain films back in 1983 or so. What did happen instead ? Kodak and Ilford improved their 400 cubic grain films because of some higher demand on them.

I have been enlarging FB wet darkroom prints for now 35 years and between Tri-X and Neopan 400 I just cannot say which is off which unless I get back to my negatives (which is of some limited interest).

So I will not mourn for the RIP Neopan 400 and will not hoard on some packs in my freezer whatsoever.

My point of view will remain unchanged : this is not an actual great loss but for some marketing reasons and consequences, and what Fuji would deserve best is to see Neopan 400 sales abruptly stop onwards from now, so that they should be obliged to give them away for free, as a reward for their dumb attitude towards the film photographers worldwide.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Technically, there are differences (of course), but
for beginners, it's not significant enough.
And for advanced film users, it's a choice.

I made the choice to stick to one emulsion and tweak *my* process to produce the result that I'm happy with. So far I have been successful in doing that with anything out there, Fomapan, Tri-X, HP5, Neopan, whatever.

I need to add that I much prefer 100 ASA films to 400. That is the only differences that are significant enough.

I disagree, the difference between Fomapan 400 and TMax 400 are not subtle–my first year students can see it.
You'd have to be on a genius level to produce the grain look of TMY with Fomapan 400 in the same size prints.
Of course it's a choice an aesthetic one, but that doesn't change the fact that those two emulsions give very different outcomes and one that a beginner will not be able to dial out.
In fact I'd say that TMY will in certain situations be finer grained than some cubic 100ISO emulsions.

 

[Highway 61]

While Fomapan 100 is outstanding (in 135, because of too many QC problems in 120), Fomapan 400 isn't a good film, this isn't an actual 400 emulsion. It's acceptable if pulled to 200 and processed for 17 minutes in D76 1+3 at 20C.

TMY processed in T-Max Dev is certainly the more interesting 400 film you can get if you look for some unvisible grain (actually Delta 400 is even better but way more expensive).

There the difference between TMY (or Delta 400) and Neopan 400 is huge even to the naked eye on moderate size prints and/or scans off a good film scanner.

But there we come to the subjective rendition area - few people want their BW film photos to look like BW'ed digital files (hence the moderate love towards Acros, in general).

 

[Photo_Smith]

The problem is, when you shoot those films with lenses having a resolution superior to the own film one, and depending on what you shoot, traditional cubic film grain will often have the spectator feel that there is less grain on the photo than on the same scene shot on T grain film (using the same gear and under the same lighting conditions).

But most often they won't for most uses TMY will give finer grain than Tri-x in practical use. Of course there may be some exceptions but on the whole prints of average tones viewed at the same size and distance Tmax will give a lower Print Grain Index value than Tri-x.

More : T grain films can exhibit some "noise" in the deep shadows, while cubic grain films won't.

You don't speak about photographic results and photographic rendition (pleasant to the eye, or not) using measurements data only.

I have been mainly speaking about the printed results, the differing grain structures give very different looking final output. The noise in deep shadows I've never seen; I guess it is far less noticeable there than in the mid-upper densities where grain tends to show most, giving the 'graininess' look occurring in the user rather than the granularity which is measured.

If T grain films had been a kind of a miracle, consumers would have stopped buying cubic grain films back in 1983 or so. What did happen instead ? Kodak and Ilford improved their 400 cubic grain films because of some higher demand on them.

You misunderstand my point, I'm not claiming T grain is better-far from it. Just that it looks different from cubic in the final output.
Back in the late 1980's when Kodak released TMX and TMY to the world they deleted Tri-x and had to bring it back BECAUSE consumers could tell the difference.

I have been enlarging FB wet darkroom prints for now 35 years and between Tri-X and Neopan 400 I just cannot say which is off which unless I get back to my negatives (which is of some limited interest).
.

I've been enlarging wet based materials for 38 years, 28 as a professional some as a film 'first flush' tester for two well known companies–I can tell them apart easily; as can the consumers who rated the PGI.

So I will not mourn for the RIP Neopan 400 and will not hoard on some packs in my freezer whatsoever.

My point of view will remain unchanged : this is not an actual great loss but for some marketing reasons and consequences, and what Fuji would deserve best is to see Neopan 400 sales abruptly stop onwards from now, so that they should be obliged to give them away for free, as a reward for their dumb attitude towards the film photographers worldwide.

I feel less peeved at them than you. I don't like losing any emulsion choice and every choice we lose restricts us in some way. Sure we need to keep moving and adapt if we want to practice our trade and keep using the materials.
Fuji are making their decisions they don't really have a dumb attitude, believe it or not they are still making film and trying to match supply and demand curves–they are not a charity going to give free film to photographers starved of choice.

 

[john_s]

I've been using only Neopan400 for years and I'll miss it.

But, when I will be using HP5+ in the future, I doubt that someone will say to me "John, that's a nice photo, but it's a pity you didn't take it with Neopan because it would have been really good."

It won't take long to get dev times right, then I'll just get on with it.

 

[Highway 61]

Fuji are making their decisions they don't really have a dumb attitude, believe it or not they are still making film and trying to match supply and demand curves–they are not a charity going to give free film to photographers starved of choice.

Look - Fuji have been telling that Neopan 400 wouldn't be discontinued for years and for years we (I mean, many of us here) had been strongly thinking that they were actually in the process of stopping making it because of all the contradictory information which was coming from either Fuji Europe, Fuji USA or Fuji Japan. Some folks (me included) spent some time sending emails to the Japanese Fuji headquarters in order to get some clear responses to that simple question but they just made some fools of us and they played a nasty "true lies" game just to see the demand for fresh Neopan 400 rolls not abruptly cease.

Such a marketing policy is something I am calling faithful customers' disrespect and for this they would just plainly deserve some worldwide boycott of the remaining Neopan 400 stocks (which will of course not happen but I continue to think that hoarding on Neopan 400 stocks instead of moving along to some still manufactured equivalent is just... well, not what ought to be done).

Fuji are still making one BW film and this is by far not the most popular film around so I can't see why Acros 100 wouldn't disappear as well within a few months ahead.

Between Acros 100 and Neopan 400 they chose to stop making the (by very far) most popular of the two so if you speak of their decision as something based upon the supply and demand curves in order to keep their film plants healthy, there is something unclear out there.

I am still not convinced re. Neopan 400 (exposed at 400 and processed in D76 1+1) being distinguishable from Tri-X (exposed at 400 and processed in D76 1+1) to the naked eye even for the advanced amateur fellow.

Thanks for your explanations though.

But, when I will be using HP5+ in the future, I doubt that someone will say to me "John, that's a nice photo, but it's a pity you didn't take it with Neopan because it would have been really good."

It won't take long to get dev times right, then I'll just get on with it.

Just develop it with the exact same dev. times as the ones you used for Neopan 400 and you will be immediatly right... the only actual difference between the two is the price (HP5+ being noticeably more expensive, in general).

 

[Photo_Smith]

Look - Fuji have been telling that Neopan 400 wouldn't be discontinued for years and for years we (I mean, many of us here) had been strongly thinking that they were actually in the process of stopping making it because of all the contradictory information which was coming from either Fuji Europe, Fuji USA or Fuji Japan. Some folks (me included) spent some time sending emails to the Japanese Fuji headquarters in order to get some clear responses to that simple question but they just made some fools of us and they played a nasty "true lies" game just to see the demand for fresh Neopan 400 rolls not abruptly cease.

I rang my contacts at Fuji too last month when the rumours of the deletion of Neopan and 400X were first mooted. What I got was an honest 'I don't know–I don't think so' I think the corporate mothership is like quite a few Japanese companies-they don't do PR well.
I don't think they lied to you-the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.

Such a marketing policy is something I am calling faithful customers' disrespect and for this they would just plainly deserve some worldwide boycott of the remaining Neopan 400 stocks (which will of course not happen but I continue to think that hoarding on Neopan 400 stocks instead of moving along to some still lliving equivalent is just... well, not what ought to be done).

I'm sure most people who use Fuji products will feel nervous about the way they deal with situations like this, I know the company reps are because I speak with them often.

Fuji are still making one BW film and this is by far not the most popular film around so I can't see why Acros 100 wouldn't disappear too within a few months ahead.

Acros will go that's what I fear, worse than that E6 will go also within 18 months possibly-Fuji aren't the only ones deleting their portfolio.

I am still not convinced re. Neopan 400 (exposed at 400 and processed in D76 1+1) being distinguishable from Tri-X (exposed at 400 and processed in D76 1+1) to the naked eye even for the advanced amateur fellow.
Thanks for your explanations though.

They look different, Neopan is more like Delta 400 in that it has a tabular fast record– the difference between Neopan and Delta is Neopan is a hybrid film.

Kodak engineers looked at Neopan and used the same deployment of records (layers) in the new TMY.

T Max 400 is no longer a wholly tabular film it has a lower cubic layer (shoosh don't tell anyone-it's a secret) 🙂

Neopan was the first film back in the mid-late 1980's to have both tabular and cubic crystals, making it finer grained than Tri-x; I saw the tests in the photographic press when it first came out, it was one of the photographic engineers design briefs, to create a finer grained 400 speed than the competition.

 

[clayne]

Neopan has never struck itself out to me as a T-grain type film. At best - a hybrid of sorts, but not to the level Acros and Tmax are. The latter looks significantly different because of the curves, not just the grain.

 

[znapper]

Here is an interesting article about the differences between the 400 speeds mentioned in this thread:
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum232...two-about-400-speed-films-october-2000-a.html