M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Your Experiences with Neopan 1600?
- Thread starter Magus
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 42
- Views: Views 5K
I had two rolls and messed up using them.
My previous attempts had failed, yes the devil's contrast got me. I really didn't like the stuff.
Well, I grabbed the camera and a couple rolls and headed out. It was a nice day, and I snagged the 1600 by mistake. Undeterred I dropped it in crossed my fingers and went with it. Wanted to try to save some highlights so I rated it "correctly" for Diafine, which at the time I knew what "correct" was, right now I don't.
Well, don't use it on a sunny day. I know, wrong film for my shooting that day, I did screw up, but I have never had luck with it even when it wasn't my fault.
That said, I see a lot of nice stuff from it, wish I could make it behave the way others can.
My previous attempts had failed, yes the devil's contrast got me. I really didn't like the stuff.
Well, I grabbed the camera and a couple rolls and headed out. It was a nice day, and I snagged the 1600 by mistake. Undeterred I dropped it in crossed my fingers and went with it. Wanted to try to save some highlights so I rated it "correctly" for Diafine, which at the time I knew what "correct" was, right now I don't.
Well, don't use it on a sunny day. I know, wrong film for my shooting that day, I did screw up, but I have never had luck with it even when it wasn't my fault.
That said, I see a lot of nice stuff from it, wish I could make it behave the way others can.
sleepyhead
Well-known
I've been using Neopan 1600 for a couple of years now as my "standard" fast film - I shoot at 1600 and develop in Kodak TMAX developer as recommended. I plan to test ASA 3200 and developed in Ilford DD-X sometime soon.
I think that people who get too high contrast with this film must be doing something wrong - over exposure, over development - or both.
Two examples of quite pleasing results are posted below. First was shot with 90mm Tele-Elmarit (fat), second with 15mm CV Heliar
Enjoy it!
sleepyhead
I think that people who get too high contrast with this film must be doing something wrong - over exposure, over development - or both.
Two examples of quite pleasing results are posted below. First was shot with 90mm Tele-Elmarit (fat), second with 15mm CV Heliar
Enjoy it!
sleepyhead
Attachments
OK, 1600, TMax, what time, temp, aggitation?
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Nice grain, very sharp.
Contrast is pretty high at 1600, so there is a loss of shadow detail.
The true speed of this stock is about 640asa. I think it works better at 1200asa, rather than 1600.
My main super highspeed stock is Delta3200 rated at 1600. The true speed of Delta3200 is around 1200asa. It seems to work best between 1200 and 2000 asa, but obviously you can shoot it at 3200 and higher.
Contrast is pretty high at 1600, so there is a loss of shadow detail.
The true speed of this stock is about 640asa. I think it works better at 1200asa, rather than 1600.
My main super highspeed stock is Delta3200 rated at 1600. The true speed of Delta3200 is around 1200asa. It seems to work best between 1200 and 2000 asa, but obviously you can shoot it at 3200 and higher.
sleepyhead
Well-known
Hi Rover, I follow the recommendations of Fuji: 20C/68F for 4.5 minutes. 5 seconds vigorous agitation every 30 seconds. At first i was concerned by the short development time (un-evenness), but this hasn't proved to be an issue. I don't presoak the film in water.
'Hope this help, sleepyhead
'Hope this help, sleepyhead
sleepyhead
Well-known
Hi Harry, I've read about this "true speed of Neopan 1600 is 640" before, and even as someone quite experienced, I don't know what it means! All I know is that at 1600 ASA and the recommended development conditions, I get good shadow detail, at least under indoor window light that isn't overly contrasty (see first photo of my son above). Outdoors, in hazy sunshine (second photo), there is less shadow detail, but in that photo I aimed for a good range of tone in the sky, not the shadows.
So I don't buy the "ASA 640" thing.
So I don't buy the "ASA 640" thing.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
Been a steady user of it and Neopan 400 since the mid- 90s, and I use nothing but the 1600 these days. I adore it.
I do get a lot of doomsday shots with it, *when* I overexpose (which is, in my case, chronic).
But when I do manage to put roughly the manufacturer's recommended allowance of light on the film, it behaves in a well-enough moderated fashion for my taste:
(Your definition of proper exposure may differ from mine.)
There's never anything vague or dreamy about the stuff, though; even pictures taken in mist or heavy fog will have snap:
Lens for all of the above was a Leitz 40mm f/2 Summicron. Direct negative scans, not much Photoshop.
I've used it at 800, with good results; pushed, I find it tends to go lithic in a hurry. If you send me out to shoot bar bands at ASA 12500 or 25000 again, I'll choose T-Max 3200 instead, and push that.
I've also used a bit of Ilford's Delta 400 & 3200. I find the Delta 3200 product much smoother, creamier, round-grained, and refined, whereas Neopan 1600 is like a little roll of sandpaper in comparison. If were going to shoot high-speed girl portraiture in a serious way again, I'd buy some Delta 3200, but otherwise, this fast Fuji stuff really turns my crank.
I do get a lot of doomsday shots with it, *when* I overexpose (which is, in my case, chronic).
But when I do manage to put roughly the manufacturer's recommended allowance of light on the film, it behaves in a well-enough moderated fashion for my taste:
(Your definition of proper exposure may differ from mine.)
There's never anything vague or dreamy about the stuff, though; even pictures taken in mist or heavy fog will have snap:
Lens for all of the above was a Leitz 40mm f/2 Summicron. Direct negative scans, not much Photoshop.
I've used it at 800, with good results; pushed, I find it tends to go lithic in a hurry. If you send me out to shoot bar bands at ASA 12500 or 25000 again, I'll choose T-Max 3200 instead, and push that.
I've also used a bit of Ilford's Delta 400 & 3200. I find the Delta 3200 product much smoother, creamier, round-grained, and refined, whereas Neopan 1600 is like a little roll of sandpaper in comparison. If were going to shoot high-speed girl portraiture in a serious way again, I'd buy some Delta 3200, but otherwise, this fast Fuji stuff really turns my crank.
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
wintoid
Back to film
nightfly
Well-known
Biggles, I love the snap of your shots.
What developer time and temps are you using?
What developer time and temps are you using?
kaiyen
local man of mystery
NP1600 doesn't have "doomsday contrast." It's just quite contrasty. Under normal lighting conditions - 5 stops between III and VII - you actually are unlikely to get much in the way of shadow detail at 1600. This is all from stuff I've seen by my peers, by the way, though some of it did indeed including testing of this sort. Highlights, of course, can be controlled by development, but it _seems- to be finicky with that, almost as much as TMX. If you overdevelop slightly, or fail to really, really dial in your time, your highlights go nuts and you have a ridiculous amount of contrast.
Regardless, the shadow detail goes fast, and the intense blacks result.
Nothing wrong with the film. But its true speed is about 800 in even a speed-enhancing developer. What that means is that you get a certain density (.1 over base fog in a densitometer for zone I) only at that EI (ASA is an outdated term, and ISO isn't correct, either, in this case). That density equates to detailed shadow areas, if metered correctly. But that's just true speed. You don't shoot NP1600 to get 800. You shoot it to get faster speed. Just like you don't shoot Delta 3200 at 1250, its true speed.
allan
Regardless, the shadow detail goes fast, and the intense blacks result.
Nothing wrong with the film. But its true speed is about 800 in even a speed-enhancing developer. What that means is that you get a certain density (.1 over base fog in a densitometer for zone I) only at that EI (ASA is an outdated term, and ISO isn't correct, either, in this case). That density equates to detailed shadow areas, if metered correctly. But that's just true speed. You don't shoot NP1600 to get 800. You shoot it to get faster speed. Just like you don't shoot Delta 3200 at 1250, its true speed.
allan
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
They're developed by a local commercial lab, in a Jobo machine, I think. Last time I asked, they were using XTol, times & temperatures per the book.
nightfly
Well-known
Thanks Biggles.
Anyone have recommendations for mixing and storing XTOL?
I generally hate powdered developers and since XTOL only comes in those 5 litre packets now, I have no idea how to find something to store it in conveniently. Any ideas?
Anyone have recommendations for mixing and storing XTOL?
I generally hate powdered developers and since XTOL only comes in those 5 litre packets now, I have no idea how to find something to store it in conveniently. Any ideas?
furcafe
Veteran
Neopan 1600 has been my bread & butter high speed B&W for about 5 or 6 years now. Examples of my shots w/the film can be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/fujineopan1600/
Almost all of my shots have the stereotypical contrasty NP 1600 look, but that's because I happen to like that "noir" look, rarely need/want significant shadow detail, & shoot a lot w/vintage low-contrast lenses. I also almost always shoot NP 1600 @ 1600. Since I hate processing my own film, all of my stuff has been developed by 2 local labs, & 99% by 1 lab (Black & White in Arlington, VA), which used Ilfotec up until Ilford had problems supplying it because of their recent corporate troubles, whereupon they switched to Xtol (not sure whether they've switched back to Ilfotec now that Ilford is sort of back on their feet); whatever the chemistry & times being used, the look has been consistent.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/fujineopan1600/
Almost all of my shots have the stereotypical contrasty NP 1600 look, but that's because I happen to like that "noir" look, rarely need/want significant shadow detail, & shoot a lot w/vintage low-contrast lenses. I also almost always shoot NP 1600 @ 1600. Since I hate processing my own film, all of my stuff has been developed by 2 local labs, & 99% by 1 lab (Black & White in Arlington, VA), which used Ilfotec up until Ilford had problems supplying it because of their recent corporate troubles, whereupon they switched to Xtol (not sure whether they've switched back to Ilfotec now that Ilford is sort of back on their feet); whatever the chemistry & times being used, the look has been consistent.
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Nightfly - best bet for XTOL is to mix up the 5 liters, then store in separate 1 liter (or 1/2 liter) bottles. Amber glass is best. XTOL,with its infamous death syndrome, might be worth going to the extreme in terms of storage.
allan
allan
photogdave
Shops local
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Doomsday contrast I had with neopan1600 - but only because it was developed in a lab and it was OVERdeveloped.
I've seen many great images on that film with normal tonality.
I just received some rolls and diafine, i'm very curious about the combination (at ei 2400).
I've seen many great images on that film with normal tonality.
I just received some rolls and diafine, i'm very curious about the combination (at ei 2400).