Fuji Neopan 1600

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There wouldn't be much concert or stage photography in the archives if blown highlights were banished from pictures and its a bit unrealistic to think otherwise. That aside there are an awful lot of documentary and reportage images throughout the history of photography that gain a lot of their impact because of the harshness, or softness, of a 'blown highlight'. I think if an artist knows his/her craft well enough they can use the technical shortcomings of the medium to their own creative advantage.

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

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

[stunsworth]

If the dynamic range of the scene exceeds the dynamic range of the film something has to give. Highlights or shadows, you take your pick.

 

I liked Neopan 1600, preferred it to Ilford Delta 3200 at 1600. More contrast and finer grain. I wish I'd tried Neopan at 800, never did.

[Larcomb]

There wouldn't be much concert or stage photography in the archives if blown highlights were banished from pictures and its a bit unrealistic to think otherwise. That aside there are an awful lot of documentary and reportage images throughout the history of photography that gain a lot of their impact because of the harshness, or softness, of a 'blown highlight'. I think if an artist knows his/her craft well enough they can use the technical shortcomings of the medium to their own creative advantage.

 

Steve

 

But it's not necessary. I know the lighting can be harsh. I have done this sort of photography. But pushing when the light is harsh is the last thing you want to do.

[250swb]

But it's not necessary. I know the lighting can be harsh. I have done this sort of photography. But pushing when the light is harsh is the last thing you want to do.

 

As the professional photographer at a leading theatre for many years I can assure you that pushing film was absolutely necessary. Pushing film in itself does not cause harsh photographs, but the way the film is processed and then printed can produce a harsh look if thats what you want, or process it another way if you don't.

 

Steve

[batmobile]

Sure, thats because at 1600 it was being pushed.

 

At 640 it looked a lot more like a grainer, somewhat lower resolution Neopan 400 (at 320 in my case), but with a look of its own.

 

 

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

[Larcomb]

Sure, thats because at 1600 it was being pushed.

 

At 640 it looked a lot more like a grainer, somewhat lower resolution Neopan 400 (at 320 in my case), but with a look of its own.

 

That film really does not push well. it picks up great contrast quickly.

[Larcomb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As the professional photographer at a leading theatre for many years I can assure you that pushing film was absolutely necessary. Pushing film in itself does not cause harsh photographs, but the way the film is processed and then printed can produce a harsh look if thats what you want, or process it another way if you don't.

 

Steve

 

well i don't really believe that but if you say so m not gonna argue the point

[topoxforddoc]

Anyway, given that Neopan 1600 is no longer available, what do others suggest? I regularly use HP5 and Neopan 400 pushed to 1600 in XTOL 1:1 (using Kodak’s published times) for my lowlight/stage work. I’m pretty happy with this, and have used this for many years. Personally, I have not been such a great fan of Tri-X; perhaps that is because I still wet print as well as scan.

 

What else do other people use or recommend? I’m sure that would help the OP.

 

Best wishes

 

Charlie

[Larcomb]

Anyway, given that Neopan 1600 is no longer available, what do others suggest? I regularly use HP5 and Neopan 400 pushed to 1600 in XTOL 1:1 (using Kodak’s published times) for my lowlight/stage work. I’m pretty happy with this, and have used this for many years. Personally, I have not been such a great fan of Tri-X; perhaps that is because I still wet print as well as scan.

 

What else do other people use or recommend? I’m sure that would help the OP.

 

Best wishes

 

Charlie

 

TMax 3200

[250swb]

well i don't really believe that but if you say so m not gonna argue the point

 

Well I've looked to see if you can lead the way with any examples of your work and ways in which you can show why you've decided I'm wrong and you are right. But I came up with nothing. What a surprise! Are you in fact a 'secret photographer', like department stores have 'secret shoppers', come just to contradict everybody and see what happens?

 

Steve

[StS]

Just to make sure I got this correctly - if the "true" speed of Delta 3200 is actually lower, say 1600, I would expose it at 1600 and develop it according to the 3200 time to get a proper result?

 

Stefan

[Larcomb]

Just to make sure I got this correctly - if the "true" speed of Delta 3200 is actually lower, say 1600, I would expose it at 1600 and develop it according to the 3200 time to get a proper result?

 

Stefan

 

Closer to 1000. You shuld experiment on developing times. maybe 1/2 to 2/3 to start with

[Larcomb]

Well I've looked to see if you can lead the way with any examples of your work and ways in which you can show why you've decided I'm wrong and you are right. But I came up with nothing. What a surprise! Are you in fact a 'secret photographer', like department stores have 'secret shoppers', come just to contradict everybody and see what happens?

 

Steve

 

faster film shave more latitude than slow ones. you don't really 'push' the film beyond what it is capapble of. you just develop it more to get a little more contrast.

 

if u are shooting in harsh light, thats the last thing you need

[StS]

Closer to 1000. You shuld experiment on developing times. maybe 1/2 to 2/3 to start with

 

Thank you. Just to make sure to understand the basic effet and to find a starting point for the first roll - does this mean I expose the film at 1000ISO and develop at the 3200ISO time?

 

Or does this mean, that the film works best, when exposed and developed at 1000 ISO, while exposing and developing it at 3200 ISO will lose too much tonality and give it a "pused" look?

 

Stefan

[Larcomb]

Thank you. Just to make sure and to find a starting point - does this mean I expose the film at 1000ISO and develop at the 3200ISO time?

 

Or does this mean, that the film works best, when exposed and developed at 1000 ISO, while exposing and developing it at 3200 ISO will lose too much tonality and give it a "pused" look?

 

Stefan

 

No. u can try 1/2 to 2/3 of that time.'

 

trials and errors

 

i don't like that film

 

too geainy

[250swb]

faster film shave more latitude than slow ones. you don't really 'push' the film beyond what it is capapble of. you just develop it more to get a little more contrast.

 

if u are shooting in harsh light, thats the last thing you need

 

Light, particularly in the theatre, does not need to be 'bright' to be harsh. Even very low light, when it is impossible to photograph without pushing a film, or using what are now modern fast films, can appear stark from a dim overhead spotlight. Concert photography and theatre photography are surprisingly (for some) not about recording the scene perfectly accurately, with dim dark shadows and low lighting, but making a photograph that can be recognised in the daily paper to encourage the readers to go to the play or concert. Nevertheless the best concert or theatre photography is done in the available light, so pushing films is a skill that is necessary rather than a theoretical standpoint about 'latitude' that would never see the photographer employed again. If you have any practical examples where you have done work that offers an alternative approach it would be very interesting to see them.

 

Steve

[Larcomb]

Light, particularly in the theatre, does not need to be 'bright' to be harsh. Even very low light, when it is impossible to photograph without pushing a film, or using what are now modern fast films, can appear stark from a dim overhead spotlight. Concert photography and theatre photography are surprisingly (for some) not about recording the scene perfectly accurately, with dim dark shadows and low lighting, but making a photograph that can be recognised in the daily paper to encourage the readers to go to the play or concert. Nevertheless the best concert or theatre photography is done in the available light, so pushing films is a skill that is necessary rather than a theoretical standpoint about 'latitude' that would never see the photographer employed again. If you have any practical examples where you have done work that offers an alternative approach it would be very interesting to see them.

 

Steve

 

I know the light can be dim but still harsh. I did some theatre photography. st dress rehearsals. i sometimes asked them able to get them to turn up the lights brighter but keep the pattern. if you are a pro of course you know about such things. you don't photograph the actual performances, but dress rehearsals.

I used trix in those days

 

today i would use tmax 3200

[topoxforddoc]

Photographing a dress rehearsal or a sound check might be ok in some cases, but not always. I have photographed ballet at Sadlers Wells in London - no way can you change the lighting intensity during dress rehearsal. If you ask for that, you’ll be shown the door marked exit.

 

In concert photography, the girls aren’t dressed up for soundcheck and have no make up; often it is a straight no for shooting at soundcheck. If it’s a festival, there is no soundcheck for the performers; that’s done by the roadies. The first time you see the band is when they come on stage. If you’re lucky, you get three songs, no flash. More often than not, it’s two songs nowadays.

 

Charlie

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[StS]

My recommendation would be to try both Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200, they are indeed like fire and water.

 

Just tried Delta 3200 at 1600 and found, that I prefer it considerably over Tmax 3200 at 1600, even in Tmax developer.

 

Stefan

[batmobile]

They are indeed.

 

Tmax has much higher resolution and finer grain, but a less gentle tonality. It is more 'stark'.

 

My recommendation would be to try both Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200, they are indeed like fire and water.

 

Just tried Delta 3200 at 1600 and found, that I prefer it considerably over Tmax 3200 at 1600, even in Tmax developer.

 

Stefan