Replacement for Fuji Neopan 1600

[gwpics]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am in the middle of scanning some old Fuji Neopan 1600 negatives, and that was a film I really liked but sadly is no longer available. Has anybody any experience of working with fast colour films from Fuji or Kodak (800 or 1600 iso) and then scanning them as black and white?

Thanks!

Gerry

[Advertisement]

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

[Nick_S]

Wouldn't Ilford XP2 Super film be better for scanning purposes than fast colour negative film scanned as monochrome? Ilford rate it up to 800 ISO with no adjustment needed to development.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Nick_S

[sblitz]

new tmax 3200 is excellent, i have had good luck with it

[gwpics]

15 hours ago, Nick_S said:

Wouldn't Ilford XP2 Super film be better for scanning purposes than fast colour negative film scanned as monochrome? Ilford rate it up to 800 ISO with no adjustment needed to development.

It is a thought but I have never been happy when I have used it in the past. It has always seemed a bit flat and underexposed. Thanks for the thought though.

Gerry

[gwpics]

13 hours ago, sblitz said:

new tmax 3200 is excellent, i have had good luck with it

That is good to know Steve. I really miss the Fuji Neopan films and now I am scanning some 1600iso neopan I just got to longing they were back, but the reality is I am shooting very little at the moment and have lost direction so in reality any answer is academic really.

Gerry

[Stuart Richardson]

If you are looking to replicate Neopan 1600, my guess is that a traditional black and white emulsion would be the most similar, over something like XP2. Tmax 3200 is not a 3200 ISO native film, it is just designed to be pushed that far...same with Delta 3200. If you pull them back to 1200 or 1600, they will give you better tonality and grain, and will seem closer to Neopan 1600. As far as I recall, Neopan 1600 was a very good traditional emulsion, not a tabular grain one, so you could also experiment with a speed enhancing developer and a standard film like Tri-X. As long as you give generous exposure, you should be in good shape...

And I am with you on the loss of the Neopan films...they really had the best balance of character and performance. That said, the new Tmax 400 is a spectacular film...it does not look like Neopan 1600, but it has a lot of great characteristics all its own.

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

If you are looking to replicate Neopan 1600, my guess is that a traditional black and white emulsion would be the most similar, over something like XP2. Tmax 3200 is not a 3200 ISO native film, it is just designed to be pushed that far...same with Delta 3200. If you pull them back to 1200 or 1600, they will give you better tonality and grain, and will seem closer to Neopan 1600. As far as I recall, Neopan 1600 was a very good traditional emulsion, not a tabular grain one, so you could also experiment with a speed enhancing developer and a standard film like Tri-X. As long as you give generous exposure, you should be in good shape...

And I am with you on the loss of the Neopan films...they really had the best balance of character and performance. That said, the new Tmax 400 is a spectacular film...it does not look like Neopan 1600, but it has a lot of great characteristics all its own.

+1

 

[gwpics]

 

20 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

If you are looking to replicate Neopan 1600, my guess is that a traditional black and white emulsion would be the most similar, over something like XP2. Tmax 3200 is not a 3200 ISO native film, it is just designed to be pushed that far...same with Delta 3200. If you pull them back to 1200 or 1600, they will give you better tonality and grain, and will seem closer to Neopan 1600. As far as I recall, Neopan 1600 was a very good traditional emulsion, not a tabular grain one, so you could also experiment with a speed enhancing developer and a standard film like Tri-X. As long as you give generous exposure, you should be in good shape...

And I am with you on the loss of the Neopan films...they really had the best balance of character and performance. That said, the new Tmax 400 is a spectacular film...it does not look like Neopan 1600, but it has a lot of great characteristics all its own.

Some useful suggestions Stuart, thank you. I had forgotten that T-Max 3200 and Delta 3200 were 'overrated' and have a native speed nearer 1250 - 1600 iso. Currently I am shooting a roll of Tri-X, but have some T-Max400 on the shelf so I will take your guidance and try that next. I used to do my own processing and get very acceptable results but the last couple I have tried at home have been grainier than I would like (bear in mind there has been about  15 year gap). So much has changed in the meantime, but I feel sure that I will get back to square one in time.

Thanks again for your help,

Gerry

[adan]

My experience is that Neopan 1600 was a unique film, with a "built-in" push - possibly a chemical development booster put into the emulsion in production. It was designed to produce 1600 speed processed right alongside Neopan 400 shot at 400, in the same tank for the same time and temp.

It struck me as looking very similar to 400-speed films pushed-processed to 1600, with that same gritty, contrasty "chalky/charcoally" look. Not the same as the "3200" Delta/TMax films, which tend to look flatter and grayer at base ISO.

Certainly its punchy grain is nothing like XP2. Just a different dynamic, building the image out of dye clouds rather than chunks of silver.

I'd recommend trying an old-school 400 film (HP5 or Tri-X or similar) shot at 1600 and developed ~twice the normal time (2-stop push). With either a standard general-purpose developer, or possibly Diafine or Acufine. Or perhaps Rodinal, with its high-acutance/strong-grain effects.

[gwpics]

23 hours ago, adan said:

My experience is that Neopan 1600 was a unique film, with a "built-in" push - possibly a chemical development booster put into the emulsion in production. It was designed to produce 1600 speed processed right alongside Neopan 400 shot at 400, in the same tank for the same time and temp.

It struck me as looking very similar to 400-speed films pushed-processed to 1600, with that same gritty, contrasty "chalky/charcoally" look. Not the same as the "3200" Delta/TMax films, which tend to look flatter and grayer at base ISO.

Certainly its punchy grain is nothing like XP2. Just a different dynamic, building the image out of dye clouds rather than chunks of silver.

I'd recommend trying an old-school 400 film (HP5 or Tri-X or similar) shot at 1600 and developed ~twice the normal time (2-stop push). With either a standard general-purpose developer, or possibly Diafine or Acufine. Or perhaps Rodinal, with its high-acutance/strong-grain effects.

Thanks for your thoughts Adan.

Gerry

[EoinC]

On 4/27/2019 at 5:13 PM, adan said:

My experience is that Neopan 1600 was a unique film, with a "built-in" push - possibly a chemical development booster put into the emulsion in production. It was designed to produce 1600 speed processed right alongside Neopan 400 shot at 400, in the same tank for the same time and temp.

It struck me as looking very similar to 400-speed films pushed-processed to 1600, with that same gritty, contrasty "chalky/charcoally" look. Not the same as the "3200" Delta/TMax films, which tend to look flatter and grayer at base ISO.

Certainly its punchy grain is nothing like XP2. Just a different dynamic, building the image out of dye clouds rather than chunks of silver.

I'd recommend trying an old-school 400 film (HP5 or Tri-X or similar) shot at 1600 and developed ~twice the normal time (2-stop push). With either a standard general-purpose developer, or possibly Diafine or Acufine. Or perhaps Rodinal, with its high-acutance/strong-grain effects.

I’ve found rating Tri-X at 1600 and developing in Rodinal 1:50 for 18-20 minutes gave good results from shooting indoor cycling in a poorly-lit velodrome.

[Keith (M)]

23 hours ago, EoinC said:

I’ve found rating Tri-X at 1600 and developing in Rodinal 1:50 for 18-20 minutes gave good results from shooting indoor cycling in a poorly-lit velodrome.

For which the Massive Dev database quotes 18mins 30secs...  

[semi-ambivalent]

7 hours ago, Keith (M) said:

For which the Massive Dev database quotes 18mins 30secs...  

www.filmdev.org is also useful.