Jon Pop Posted August 21, 2012 Share #1 Posted August 21, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Looking for some neopan 1600...checked eBay but nothing right now. Any leads anyone? Cheers, Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 21, 2012 Posted August 21, 2012 Hi Jon Pop, Take a look here Fuji Neopan 1600. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
philipus Posted August 21, 2012 Share #2 Posted August 21, 2012 I wish I had some, too. I really like(d) this film. They do pop up on occasion but I haven't seen a dealer in a few months that sold any. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted August 21, 2012 Share #3 Posted August 21, 2012 I think you will struggle to find any. Why not use D3200/Tmax 3200 in straight Xtol for a speed of about 1000 and reasonable grain? I rate D3200 at 1200 in Xtol 1+1 and the Tmax at 800. I love them both. An alternative is TriX with reduced agitation in Xtol (diluted). With longer dev times it gives extended speed and manageable highlights. FWIW you can get Neopan 400 close to the true speed of N1600 using the above technique. N1600 never made more than 500/640 in any developer I used it with. N1600 used to be my main film for documentary work, but it really is gone and the alternatives have worked out just fine. They look different but have their own qualities which I am happy to work with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted August 21, 2012 Share #4 Posted August 21, 2012 I found Tmax 3200 rather disappointing. Since you obviously have tried both - how does Delta 3200 compare to Tmax 3200 in your experience? Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topoxforddoc Posted August 21, 2012 Share #5 Posted August 21, 2012 I use Neopan 400 rated at 1600 and developed in XTOL 1:1 as per Kodaks’ product sheet. Works a treat. Charlie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted August 21, 2012 Share #6 Posted August 21, 2012 I use Neopan 400 rated at 1600 and developed in XTOL 1:1 as per Kodaks’ product sheet. Works a treat. Charlie B&W film can be pushed +2EV with very good results. I have done this with Tri-X and gotten nice images out of the pushed negatives. It's all about the developing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted August 22, 2012 Share #7 Posted August 22, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I use Neopan 400 rated at 1600 and developed in XTOL 1:1 as per Kodaks’ product sheet. Works a treat. Charlie Thanks Charlie, this is very interesting. Would you mind posting an example? Cheers Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topoxforddoc Posted August 22, 2012 Share #8 Posted August 22, 2012 Thanks Charlie, this is very interesting. Would you mind posting an example? Cheers Philip Philip, Here are some Neopan 400 (rated at 1600 in XTOL 1:1) shots, scanned using a Minolta 5400 in Vuescan and PP in LR. These are 5400 scans and uploaded full size. Aaron Parks at Ronnie Scott’s, London Charlie Chan | Aaron Parks | Aaron Parks Kilmainham Gaol, Dublin Charlie Chan | Dublin | Kilmainham Gaol Julian Siegel @ Ronnie Scott’s London Charlie Chan | Partisans @ Ronnie Scott's | Partisans @ Ronnie Scott's-8 The Noisettes @ O2 Bristol Charlie Chan | Noisettes | Noisettes-15 Hope these help. Best wishes, Charlie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted August 23, 2012 Share #9 Posted August 23, 2012 Don't mistake pushing for true speed. N400 comes nowhere near to a true 1600, not matter what you do to it (and neither did N1600). Seeing as N400 is about 2/3 stop slower than N1600 in terms of true speed, try rating N400 2/3 stops slower than 1600, which is an EI of 1000. This assumed you are after the look of N1600 at 1600, which will mean a significant loss of shadow detail. FWIW I do not think N400 pushes well. Certainly nowhere near as well as TriX. It is a finer grained film, but when pushed you lose much of that anyway. Tmax 3200 has a distinctive look. Can be very harsh and cold looking, with extremely crisp grain, but for the right subjects it looks great. It holds a lot more detail than D3200, perhaps because the grain is a bit tighter. D3200 has better tonality, which is more gentle looking. Its hard to explain, but definitely there. I develop both in Xtol 1+1, but I know some who really like Tmax or DDX with both films. Tmax will give an upswept curve so the best highlight contrast. With Tmax 3200, the negs print with more contrast than you might think and so you can work with a reasonably thin neg. This means less development and fine grain. Its not as fine as N1600, but you have a true speed of about 800-1000 in Xtol, which is 2/3 stop more than N1600 and 1 and 1/3 stops more than N400. What N1600 excelled at IMO was providing a normal, fine grained film, that could be shot at 500-640 without pushing and would beat the pants off TriX for fine grain. Pushed to 1600, IMHO, it stank. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted August 23, 2012 Share #10 Posted August 23, 2012 The true speed of Neopan 1600 is nearer 800 ISO, where it shines, especially in a non-speed reducing developer like Ilford DD-X (with Rodinal the true speed goes down to around 500 ISO). At 1600 you are pushing the boundaries and using it for speed alone, not pleasant image quality. This begs the question that if the best speed for Neopan 1600 is 800, why not increase the speed of Tri-X of HP5 from 400 to 800 and forget about Neopan? HP5 is already marginally faster than the 400 on the box, more like 500 ISO and Tri-X pushes well in the right developer. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 23, 2012 Share #11 Posted August 23, 2012 The true speed of Neopan 1600 is nearer 800 ISO, where it shines, especially in a non-speed reducing developer like Ilford DD-X (with Rodinal the true speed goes down to around 500 ISO). At 1600 you are pushing the boundaries and using it for speed alone, not pleasant image quality. This begs the question that if the best speed for Neopan 1600 is 800, why not increase the speed of Tri-X of HP5 from 400 to 800 and forget about Neopan? HP5 is already marginally faster than the 400 on the box, more like 500 ISO and Tri-X pushes well in the right developer. Steve Why push? Just use the films at their normal speed and get good results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 23, 2012 Share #12 Posted August 23, 2012 Philip, Here are some Neopan 400 (rated at 1600 in XTOL 1:1) shots, scanned using a Minolta 5400 in Vuescan and PP in LR. These are 5400 scans and uploaded full size. Aaron Parks at Ronnie Scott’s, London Charlie Chan | Aaron Parks | Aaron Parks Kilmainham Gaol, Dublin Charlie Chan | Dublin | Kilmainham Gaol Julian Siegel @ Ronnie Scott’s London Charlie Chan | Partisans @ Ronnie Scott's | Partisans @ Ronnie Scott's-8 The Noisettes @ O2 Bristol Charlie Chan | Noisettes | Noisettes-15 Hope these help. Best wishes, Charlie Looks pushed, too contrasty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted August 23, 2012 Share #13 Posted August 23, 2012 Why push? Just use the films at their normal speed and get good results. Not sure if you noticed , but the OP wanted a faster film but where none was available. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 23, 2012 Share #14 Posted August 23, 2012 Not sure if you noticed , but the OP wanted a faster film but where none was available. Steve Well the best fast film is Kodak T-Max 3200 shot at about 1200. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted August 23, 2012 Share #15 Posted August 23, 2012 Thanks Charlie. I like the look of these very much! Philip, Here are some Neopan 400 (rated at 1600 in XTOL 1:1) shots, scanned using a Minolta 5400 in Vuescan and PP in LR. These are 5400 scans and uploaded full size. Aaron Parks at Ronnie Scott’s, London Charlie Chan | Aaron Parks | Aaron Parks Kilmainham Gaol, Dublin Charlie Chan | Dublin | Kilmainham Gaol Julian Siegel @ Ronnie Scott’s London Charlie Chan | Partisans @ Ronnie Scott's | Partisans @ Ronnie Scott's-8 The Noisettes @ O2 Bristol Charlie Chan | Noisettes | Noisettes-15 Hope these help. Best wishes, Charlie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 28, 2012 Share #16 Posted August 28, 2012 Looks pushed, too contrasty. Perhaps that's exactly what he wanted them to look like? Works for the subject matter IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 28, 2012 Share #17 Posted August 28, 2012 Perhaps that's exactly what he wanted them to look like? Works for the subject matter IMHO. You like burned out highlights? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topoxforddoc Posted August 28, 2012 Share #18 Posted August 28, 2012 You like burned out highlights? Nope, but on stage in Ronnie Scott’s, it’s pretty dark. I like to shoot into the lights, as it makes the shot a bit more dramatic. But I have to put up with the burnt out stage lights. I expose for the shadows and have to out up with the rest. In the last shot of the Noisettes, I wasn’ shooting into the light; rather, I was shooting at the crowd where the lead singer decided to sing hanging upside down from the stairway above the mosh pit. Highlights are much better controlled there. Best wishes, Charlie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 28, 2012 Share #19 Posted August 28, 2012 Nope, but on stage in Ronnie Scott’s, it’s pretty dark. I like to shoot into the lights, as it makes the shot a bit more dramatic. But I have to put up with the burnt out stage lights. I expose for the shadows and have to out up with the rest. In the last shot of the Noisettes, I wasn’ shooting into the light; rather, I was shooting at the crowd where the lead singer decided to sing hanging upside down from the stairway above the mosh pit. Highlights are much better controlled there. Best wishes, Charlie OK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 29, 2012 Share #20 Posted August 29, 2012 Looks pushed, too contrasty. That's basically the character of Neopan 1600. It had the "push-processed" look built-in, just without the long push-processing times. e.g.: Neopan 1600 in DD-X 1:4 @ 20C for EI 1600 - 5 minutes Tri-X in DD-X 1:4 at 20C for EI 1600 - 14 minutes Neopan 400 in DD-X 1:4, 20C, for ISO 1600 - 13 minutes Ilford HP5 in DD-X 1:4, 20C for ISO 1600 - 13.5 minutes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.