Why shoot Fuji Neopan 400?

[znapper]

Did anyone besides me have issues with Neopan 400 and excessive curl after developing?

Not for me, no problems with curl with either films.

The only film I've had real issues with, was Rollei Ortho 25, curled back on itself and was almost impossible to get into the plastic sleeves. =)

Check your drying temperature as well.

I use the shower stall and I usually run very hot water to steam up the room before I dry my films, so it goes from very humid and wet film, to dry room with dry film over the course of an hour or so. (I use an oven below the film to make it dry faster, but it's not overly hot).

 

[znapper]

It's sad to see it go because it's sad to see the film market getting narrower but I still have to discover whatever "special" Neopan 400 could offer.

I did a side-by side, unofficial comparison between Tri-X and Neopan 400 in 120 and two very similar shots, developed in the same dev (makes a difference), shot with the same equipment, shot at 400 (makes a difference) and scanned, showed a significant difference in grain structure and detail level between Tri-X and Neopan 400.

Not saying Tri-X isn't any good, but Neopan was just much cleaner and crisper and had more detail on the same subject.

 

[bobby_novatron]

znapper -- thanks for the tip re: humidity and drying. Previously I've experimented using a humidifier in my small bathroom/darkroom to help alleviate the dryness, but perhaps I'll have to try using a more aggressive approach.

FWIW here's my contribution, Neopan 400 pushed to 1000. Bessa R3A, CV 75/2.5, the film was developed in HC-110. Epson v700 scan.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I did a side-by side, unofficial comparison between Tri-X and Neopan 400 in 120 and two very similar shots, developed in the same dev (makes a difference), shot with the same equipment, shot at 400 (makes a difference) and scanned, showed a significant difference in grain structure and detail level between Tri-X and Neopan 400.

Not saying Tri-X isn't any good, but Neopan was just much cleaner and crisper and had more detail on the same subject.

I did a side by side too and found Neopan to have very slightly less grain at the same speeds and in the same developers.

I"m sure it possibly had some 'epitaxial' type grain rather like Delta 400, could look wonderful in lower light...

 

[Aristo]

Heads Up:
100 Rolls great price! (no connection to seller)

eBay item number: 181179768686

http://www.ebay.com/itm/100-ROLLS-O...9985725?pt=US_Camera_Film&hash=item58a24b9a3d

 

[redisburning]

my favorite film for low light situations too

at 400:

Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

or pushed to 1600:

Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

 

[shadowfox]

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

I now believe that there is just insignificant difference, 400 ASA films are just that, a piece of film that is more sensitive than 100 ASA. How the negative turns out totally depends on your exposure and development.

I am not saying good-riddance to any discontinued films, but we all have to make do with what we have, appreciate it, buy *the ones that are still produced*, use it often. So we don't lose them all.

To those who has never tried Neopan, buy HP5, give the only company who gives a damn about B&W film your support.
If you can't be happy with any of your HP5 images, most likely the emulsion is not the problem.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I liked that film very much because it was an excellent 400 ASA film with a solid neutral base and no QC issues but quite frankly and given my constant processing and results using D76 1+1 I couldn't really see any real difference with Tri-X, were it either on scans (got from a dedicated film scanner) or on FB wet darkroom 8"x11" prints.

And I could say the same if compared with HP5+...
........................

My experience matches yours. I shot Neopan 400 exclusively for about 9 years and then switched to Tri-X about 2 years ago when Arista Premium became substantially cheaper. Both a good films.

I frequently shot a few rolls of both and developed them in the same tank. Prints from both look the same. My current Cuba photo exhibit has 30 prints, about half on Neopan 400 and half on Tri-X. There is no difference that I or anyone else can see.

 

[sepiareverb]

Why shoot Fuji Neopan 400? To support Fuji. They're one of the last makers of film. If we don;t buy it they'll stop making it.

 

[porktaco]

because it's AWESOME

 

[porktaco]

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

I now believe that there is just insignificant difference, 400 ASA films are just that, a piece of film that is more sensitive than 100 ASA. How the negative turns out totally depends on your exposure and development.

I am not saying good-riddance to any discontinued films, but we all have to make do with what we have, appreciate it, buy *the ones that are still produced*, use it often. So we don't lose them all.

To those who has never tried Neopan, buy HP5, give the only company who gives a damn about B&W film your support.
If you can't be happy with any of your HP5 images, most likely the emulsion is not the problem.

wisdom here

 

[redisburning]

Why shoot Fuji Neopan 400? To support Fuji. They're one of the last makers of film. If we don;t buy it they'll stop making it.

I think you missed the news.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I now believe that there is just insignificant difference, 400 ASA films are just that, a piece of film that is more sensitive than 100 ASA. How the negative turns out totally depends on your exposure and development.

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?

 

[sepiareverb]

I think you missed the news.

But everybody loves & buys Neopan 400.

 

[Frontman]

I had to buy film yesterday. The store was still fully stocked with Neopan 400, but half sold-out of Tri-X. I bought Tri-X.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Can we please just stop posting our personal photos to threads like this? I realize I'm a voice in the wilderness on this one, but it proves absolutely nothing and is just personal ego when a person is requesting actual information...you can't tell anything from a tiny online JPEG.

/rant

That said -- Neopan 400 always struck me as having a really razor-sharp grain, very tight and distinct-looking. As another poster mentioned, its blacks (when shot/processed well) were really remarkable, as well.
I used it and the Legacy brand clone for a while until cost and the end of the Legacy films came.
Also very lamented was the extinction of the Neopan 1600 -- also with very distinctive grain (and really really good grain, too, in the sense of being NOT terribly grainy) and a very unique look, along with great shadow detail and pushability.

 

[znapper]

Can we please just stop posting our personal photos to threads like this? I realize I'm a voice in the wilderness on this one, but it proves absolutely nothing and is just personal ego when a person is requesting actual information...you can't tell anything from a tiny online JPEG.

/rant

Relax 🙂

They are just "odes to the film", nothing more, they are not meant to prove anything, just "This was film type X, developed in Y and it looks wonderful"

 

[znapper]

I had to buy film yesterday. The store was still fully stocked with Neopan 400, but half sold-out of Tri-X. I bought Tri-X.

No wonder they killed it off then, Neopan (a better film) has always been out-bought by Tri-X, Americans buy American, tough marked.

Same pattern on B&H's review section as well, check the number of reviews for Neopan 400, then for Tri-X.

No matter how much Tri-X anyone buys, Kodak will still be buggered either way, most likely, Tri-X and the other films will go faster than we think.

Ah, who cares anyway....

 

[znapper]

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

I now believe that there is just insignificant difference, 400 ASA films are just that, a piece of film that is more sensitive than 100 ASA. How the negative turns out totally depends on your exposure and development.

I am not saying good-riddance to any discontinued films, but we all have to make do with what we have, appreciate it, buy *the ones that are still produced*, use it often. So we don't lose them all.

To those who has never tried Neopan, buy HP5, give the only company who gives a damn about B&W film your support.
If you can't be happy with any of your HP5 images, most likely the emulsion is not the problem.

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).

 

[clayne]

You don't like PanF?

D3200P?