1600 vs pushed 400?

[hammam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is an eternal question, I guess, but I don't remember the answer, because I almost never use thid kind of film. I need some speed in b&w for interior shots. What would be better for less grain: Neopan 1600 or pushed 400 like Tri-X or TMY new? Developer can be Xtol or Rodinal (grain) or DDX or HC 110. Thanks.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[marcusperkins]

It can depend to a certain extent on the type of developer used, but in my experience you'll get a slightly finer grain with pushed film, but nothing ever comes from free - the price you pay is in reduced latitude/dynamic range.

 

Pushed film always has less latitued. The longer you process it the more contrast you get, blocking up the shadows earlier.

 

Another thing you need to consider is that a contrasty scene will show less grain than a flat one.

 

If the scene you're going to photography is very contrasty, I'd go for a higher speed film like TMZ 3200, and pull it down to 1600 (pulling film gives you more dynamic range), or Neopan as you suggested (but do they still make that?)

 

If the scene is flat, I'd stick with the pushed 400, but be careful with your exposure, and maybe bracket.

[christer]

..snip..... What would be better for less grain: Neopan 1600 or pushed 400 like Tri-X or TMY new?

 

Developer can be Xtol or Rodinal (grain) or DDX or HC 110. Thanks.

 

The question is clear; _grain_ is the issue.

 

The answer is simple: TMY2 pushed will give less grain than Neopan 1600, and also Tri-X.

 

Of the developers mentioned, Xtol will give the least grain, and it is good for pushing.

 

(But there are of course other aspects that could be considered.)

[christer]

snip....

, I'd go for a higher speed film like TMZ 3200, and pull it down to 1600

 

snip.

 

 

Or should we say: "only push it to 1600", given the fact that the 3200 is part of the name of the film, not its true speed which is around 1000?

[marcusperkins]

Or should we say: "only push it to 1600", given the fact that the 3200 is part of the name of the film, not its true speed which is around 1000?

 

Yes you are correct, its natural speed from a processing point of view is about 1000, but at those speeds and at 800 (which I used to 'pull' it too) are very flat. I think it works best at 1600.

 

I just checked the Neopan specs (yep, they still make it), and the processing time is exactly the same as the 400. Which makes it a true 1600 film. But from past experience I thought it had slightly more grain than TMZ 3200 at 1600. However, I always loved the coarse look of the Fuji. Beautiful.

 

On an unrelated but equally important note - I noticed the new Neopan 100 B&W film on the Fuji site, how long has that been available? Great to know new films are still being developed.

[tgray]

Tri-X or TMY-2 in something like XTOL is probably pretty damn close to the real speed of Neopan 1600 anyway, which is around an ISO 640 film.

 

If you want smaller grain and contrasty images, push the slower film. If you want more shadow detail and larger grain, use a faster film.

 

I'd personally go for Delta or TMAX 3200, which are about ISO 1000, and shoot them at 1600. Or push Tri-X to 800. I don't really like the look of Neopan 1600 shot at 1600. It always looks pushed as hell to me.

[hammam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks, friends, for your sage advice.

[darmodej]

Hello,

 

I've just pushed a Tri-X roll to 800, developed in Xtol (stock), 5.40 min. at 22 degrees. The suggested times at Xtol data sheet are actually same for the 400/800. Grain is quite normal at ASA 800. Have to admit that I haven't tried pushing to 1600

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest AgXlove]

Tri-X rated at ISO 1600 and exposed thru my 28 'cron ASPH, then develpoed in D-76 produces good results as far as grain and tone when printed to 8x10.

 

Of course, if grain is the main concern, final print size will factor into the equation...

[tobey bilek]

A tripod works better than any chemical you can buy. Works every time and does not require experimentation or internet hersay no matter the source.

[christer]

Hello,

 

I've just pushed a Tri-X roll to 800, developed in Xtol (stock), 5.40 min. at 22 degrees. The suggested times at Xtol data sheet are actually same for the 400/800. Grain is quite normal at ASA 800. Have to admit that I haven't tried pushing to 1600

 

SUPERB SHOTS!

I very much enjoyed your site too.

 

Shooting at 1600 will not destroy your images, if you choose the right subject. Like a jazz club. You will lose shadow details, but that generally not a problem with jazz club pictures because nobody expects shadow details in such pictures.

[think]

HP5 at 1600 processed through DR5 sacrifices very little at that speed. The resulting positives also scan beautifully. Check them out if you haven't already.

 

dr5 CHROME - Black and White slide / transparency process + THE ONLY QUALITY SCALA PROCESSING WORLDWIDE

[batmobile]

Neopan 1600 is most defintely not a true 1600 speed. It makes 2/3 to a stop more real speed than Neoppan 400 and nothing more. In this regard it still has a stop over TriX yet delivers similar grain.

 

If you must go to 1600 and want high contrast (by allowing the shadows to drop out into black) then Neopan 1600 at 1600 will still give more speed than TriX, HP5 etc. This I am 100% sure of from experience; however, as someone said, Delta 3200 actually has a true speed of about 1000 in Xtol 1+something and so is actually the only one close to a true 1600. At 1600 you will see a little shadow drop out but not too much.

 

Pushing is partly a lie. You can drag up the mids and highlights but the shadows will only budge a little up the scale. If you really want to maintain the shadows, as metered, D3200 or teh Kodak would be a far better bet. Only prob is they are much grainier than the 400s and Neo 1600.