Why shoot Fuji Neopan 400?

[GarageBoy]

Great shots guys
I just bought 7 rolls to play with, just to say I've used it

 

[znapper]

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).

This statement about Acros is so used up, old-fashioned and ridiculous that it is borderline funny.
My bet, is that this statement was made by old farts with no knowledge or experience with the digital medium.

Both Acros and TMax 100 are very smooth and clean films, they are high-resolving and sharp too, sure.

But, do you know what ?

They are nowhere _near_ what you get with modern DSLR's.

The grain-levels and resolution of both Acros and Tmax, are on-par with ISO 800-1600 shots, made with consumer-grade DSLR's. (Canon 550D and similar).
That is; In reality, both Acros and TMax are pretty gritty stuff when you start comparing it to real ISO 100 DSLR-shots.

No one shoots Acros or TMax to emulate digital anyway, some use it because they are 'clean' b&w films with relatively high resolution. Others shoot them because of their inherent tonal-response (what kind of gray a certain color yields and how sensitive they are to red and blue).
Some shoot them because of how they look in certain developers, very different looks in HC-110, Tetenal ultrafin and Rodinal etc.

In the film-world, these two (and Delta 100 ), are the highest resolving, low-noise, ISO 100 films out there. Shooting them in medium and large-format, enables you to create huge enlargements with enormous amount of detail, without having to drop your ISO to 50 or 25.

The "Digital look" argument is thus quite laughable.

 

[Highway 61]

The "Digital look" argument is thus quite laughable.

I fully agree.

Yet, to achieve your crusade against ridiculous old-fashioned statements, you also may want to unbury one year+ old threads about "film look" RAW softwares plugins and deconstruct what people were trying to explain back then... my bet is that you might find some quite easily.

There is nothing like a good laugh thanks to borderline funny things, isn't there ? 😀

 

[Brian Atherton]

Got to this thread late.

I’m gutted Neopan 400 is gone.

It was, by some margin, my favourite ISO 400 film… the richness of its blacks, tonality and grain structure got me from roll #1.

I’m down to my last twenty 35mm 36-exp rolls. Using each one is like pulling teeth. 🙁

 

[semilog]

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.

In general, I agree. But TMAX400 is something else again: a 400-speed film with a grain structure as tight as many of the classical ISO 100 emulsions (Plus-X, say).

 

[semilog]

Got to this thread late.

I’m gutted Neopan 400 is gone.

It was, by some margin, my favourite ISO 400 film… the richness of its blacks, tonality and grain structure got me from roll #1.

I’m down to my last twenty 35mm 36-exp rolls. Using each one is like pulling teeth. 🙁

It really was a lovely film. I shot probably 100 rolls of it over the last few years.

 

[semilog]

The grain-levels and resolution of both Acros and Tmax, are on-par with ISO 800-1600 shots, made with consumer-grade DSLR's. (Canon 550D and similar).

Grain, yes. Resolution, well, that's more of a gray area, since film and digital sensors behave differently as they approach their resolution limits: digital sensors have a hard limit at the Nyquist frequency while film has a much more gradual MTF roll-off as spatial frequencies increase. (This is why film does not exhibit aliasing artifacts; the advantage of the digital sensor is in maintaining high microcontrast [MTF-50] near its Nyquist threshold.)

See: http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/NeopanAcros100.pdf
And: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf

(For a lot more on the real-world resolution characteristics of silver emulsions, see also: Image Clarity: High-Resolution Photography, by J. B. Williams, ISBN 0-240-8033-8.)

It is not particularly challenging to see 70 lp/mm or better (>3000 vertical lines of resolution) on ACROS or TMX with real subjects (not just test charts). With some care even better results are achievable. Erwin Puts has posted real-world examples with Delta 100 at 80 lp/mm. The Nyquist limit of an A7R is ~3000 vertical lines. Really good lenses considerably out-resolve the A7R sensor.

Of course, approaching 70 lp/mm with an A7R also requires close attention to technique (don't try it at 1/125 sec). And getting an image from film to print without significant degradation also requires good equipment and substantial skill.

Add all of this to the fact that almost all wide angle RF lenses do better in the corners on film than they do on digital sensors, and it's simply not correct to generalize that "Acros and Tmax, are on-par with ISO 800-1600 shots, made with consumer-grade DSLR's." How true that is -- or is not -- depends critically on the subject and the photographer's technique, both pre- and post-exposure.



Our cat, Harry Nyquist.
Fuji X-E1, Fujinon 14/2.8

 

[yossarian123]

I've seen this thread and I really really want to love this film. But I just can't get it to behave for me. No matter what developer I use I get grain that's just not pleasing to my eye. I've tried HC-110 (B, E), Rodinal (1:25, 1:50), and D76 (stock and 1:1) with variations in time & agitation (not too many variations, I can't really to afford to experiment with this film since it's now extinct). Is it supposed to be grainier than Tri-X/HP5/XX or am I doing something wrong?

 

[Colin Corneau]

I miss Neopan 400 a lot. And especially Neopan 1600 which just amazed me, the few rolls I shot with it. Both films had grain that was truly distinct, to my eye...tight, razor sharp grain that printed really well.

I had a recent conversation with someone who talked to a Fuji employee (IIRC) and said their abrupt (rude, I would call it) shift away from B&W film was due to higher profit margins selling materials to cosmetics manufacture! Nothing surprises me anymore.

 

[semilog]

I always developed it in XTOL 1+1 or 1+2. I liked 1+1 better. Grain was about the same for me as with HP5, but with a somewhat different tonal curve.

I've seen this thread and I really really want to love this film. But I just can't get it to behave for me. No matter what developer I use I get grain that's just not pleasing to my eye. I've tried HC-110 (B, E), Rodinal (1:25, 1:50), and D76 (stock and 1:1) with variations in time & agitation (not too many variations, I can't really to afford to experiment with this film since it's now extinct). Is it supposed to be grainier than Tri-X/HP5/XX or am I doing something wrong?

 

[semilog]

Apparently, Fujifilm cares more about the long-term viability of their firm, and the welfare of their employees, than Kodak did.

I had a recent conversation with someone who talked to a Fuji employee (IIRC) and said their abrupt (rude, I would call it) shift away from B&W film was due to higher profit margins selling materials to cosmetics manufacture! Nothing surprises me anymore.

 

[Colin Corneau]

That assumption is to say the least debatable.

(the one about keeping film in production jeopardizing the entire company, not whether or not they care about staying in existence)

Kodak was the victim of predatory and parasitic upper management. Mismanagement, at the end of the day, not keeping film in production.

 

[semilog]

That assumption is to say the least debatable.

(the one about keeping film in production jeopardizing the entire company, not whether or not they care about staying in existence)

Kodak was the victim of predatory and parasitic upper management. Mismanagement, at the end of the day, not keeping film in production.

I'm not sure that we disagree. The point is that Kodak's management gutted the firm and squandered its technical expertise. But Rochester could not have been kept afloat merely on the (diminishing) strength of its film business, and it is entirely likely that Fuji's projections for its own film business were not cheerful.

Especially in the wake of the tsunami, Fuji's management would have been well-advised to focus on the areas most certain to preserve their company's long-term viability. It would be quite a stretch to argue that photographic film might be one of those areas.

 

[znapper]

I fully agree.

Yet, to achieve your crusade against ridiculous old-fashioned statements, you also may want to unbury one year+ old threads about "film look" RAW softwares plugins and deconstruct what people were trying to explain back then... my bet is that you might find some quite easily.

There is nothing like a good laugh thanks to borderline funny things, isn't there ? 😀

HAHAHA 😀

Strange, this thread popped up on the top for me, no idea how that happened. 😛

I hate the emultor-plugins, I was hopeful 3-4 years back that various Velvia-plugins would produce something that was close.

Boy was I wrong! (they wholeheartedly suck trough and trough)

 

[znapper]

Grain, yes. Resolution, well, that's more of a gray area, since film and digital sensors behave differently as they approach their resolution limits

Look, I wasn't going to start a f vs d debate here.
My point is, that in real life, shooting Acros (35mm) and my DSLR, side by side, with the same glass, the DSLR-shots show:
- No grain
- Insane resolution

While the Acros scans (Nikon coolscan V) show:
- Character
- Good resolution
- Some grain

Whatever you say about the theoretical numbers, light needs to pass trough glass to the film, then from trough glass again and the film, to paper or a scanning sensor.
- Thus, you loose something on each step.
- Even paper has limits regarding resolution.
- Both taking the actual photo, or print it onto paper, still requires manual focusing on some level, room for error.

Only a very few people would actually drum-scan film, as it is very expensive.

A 35mm frame of Acros has between 8-10 megapixels of information, depending on development, glass, exposure and scanning, that's what I get from my Nikon anyway, and it's supposed to be rather good at what it does.

A Canon 550D has 18

My 5d mk III has 22,3

- Can't compare 120 film to a "35mm size sensor".

When I shoot a model with my DSLR and Film camera, side by side, I can tinker with the blood-vessels inside the eye of the model on the DSLR-shots later, all the dimples and bumps in the skin needs to be dealt with and stray hairs are a pain. On the Acros scans, they are barely visible (if at all) or consists of some blurry grains of silver.

My point is and was, that I like this difference, and it is a difference (several actually).
That's what set's this particular (and other) film apart from the *D* alternative.

The old farts were wrong, man, Acros doesn't have a "digital look" whatsoever, never had, never will, it's "clean" by film standards, but so are some of the 50 ISO and 25 ISO films.

I reckon that this slogging of the film, came from people who either:
- Shot Kodak and didn't like the fact that Acros had something that seemed to be better than TMax or...
- Tried digital, failed miserably because they cannot turn a computer on and off, let alone figure out how to process raw-files or edit them in PS, thus didn't like the clean look.

The proof, is that TMax has never been labelled as "digital", Acros and Tmax as very similar. (as is Tri-X and Neopan 400)

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . The proof, is that TMax has never been labelled as "digital", Acros and Tmax as very similar. (as is Tri-X and Neopan 400)

For given values of "proof" and "very similar". I'm not keen on either TMY or Acros, but I'd say that I like Acros better than TMY when the Acros is at its best, but that TMY is a lot easier to get the best from; and I prefer Delta 100 to either. The only resemblance I see between Tri-X and Neopan is that both are the same speed.

As you say, it's personal preference. So why get quite so excited about it, foaming about "old farts" and "cannot turn a computer on and off"? I can't see why anyone would use anything other than XP2 if they're going to scan, rather than wet print, but if I'm going to be rude about my feelings on the subject, I'd rather do so to your face.

Cheers,

R.

 

[znapper]

Oh, I call them old farts because that's what they are, I know the type, in other places in life, they are usually recognised by the term "nay-sayers" 🙂

Both films are clean, one is labelled as "too digital", that proves that the claim is silly and unfounded, get my drift?

The reason people scan film, is that not all people have the space or the access to a darkroom. As you say, you see a lot of differences between various films, these differences absolutely does not go away just because you scan rather than print your films traditionally. (if anything, the differences are enhanced, but can be corrected/altered somewhat, especially how various films resulting contrast from development is).

 

[semilog]

Look, I wasn't going to start a f vs d debate here.

I'll only say that a Coolscan V scan does not begin to extract from a 135 negative what a good enlarger print can extract. Not even close.

I shoot digital and film, and I use high-end digital cameras in my work as a scientist, as well. So yes, I know and understand and like digital imaging. I use film because I like the process and I like some of its imaging characteristics for artistic (not technical) reasons.

In many -- almost all -- respects digital is technically superior to 135 format film. But it was only very recently that digital could match or exceed film for absolute resolution. That's not to say I think film is superior. Only that on the narrow question of resolution, film can still, even now, hold its own.

 

[znapper]

Well, I agree with that for the most part.

Granted, the Coolscan V isn't the super top-of-the-line type of scanner at all, but it out-resolves my Epson V750 by a good margin (can be focus related) and it's by no standards "bad".

I feel I get loads of information and sharp details from it, which is very awesome and also very impressive. (Acros in 35mm really is simply brilliant), but it's no way on par with the latest DSLR cameras, not even a wet-print is, as it simply doesn't contain as much information and that some is lost in the optics and some on the paper.

The numbers I have about the effective information in a 135 neg, is extracted from various articles and tests on the suject, readily available on the net.

I also shoot film, because I enjoy it and for artistic purposes, until recently, I also printed in my own darkroom (can't now, as I have moved to a place with less space).

My 120 shots does rival my 5d mk III, when I get the proper focus down, but not the smaller formats.

Anyway, my point was that slogging Acros for being "too digital", is unfounded and silly ^^ (and it really is)

 

[Highway 61]

I'm not keen on either TMY or Acros, but I'd say that I like Acros better than TMY when the Acros is at its best, but that TMY is a lot easier to get the best from (...).

I think that "znapper" was speaking of TMX, not TMY.