wen Posted September 15, 2009 Share #41 Posted September 15, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Nice works... I thought Neopan is very grainy, and less contrast comparing to Kodak. wow...now, I need to get some Neopan 1600. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Hi wen, Take a look here neopan rocks. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest aurora_borealis Posted September 15, 2009 Share #42 Posted September 15, 2009 All Neopan films are amazing. I never use Tri-X anymore. I recommend ADOX APH 09 or Rodinal with Neopan 100 and 400, and Tetenal Emofin with 1600. I buy them directly from Fuji Film in the UK: Fujifilm Online Shop: Cheap 35mm, 120, 5x4, 10x8 Fujifilm Films For Sale Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted September 16, 2009 Share #43 Posted September 16, 2009 Just for the record, Plaubel is right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPJMP Posted September 16, 2009 Share #44 Posted September 16, 2009 Just for the record, Plaubel is right. This pics look good on my screen. No blown jacket hightights and the blacks are none more black. Gonna hafta try me some Neopan now! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammam Posted September 16, 2009 Share #45 Posted September 16, 2009 They all look flat to me. The blacks are not really black yet the whites are blown out (jacket). We obviously don't have the same monitor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammam Posted September 16, 2009 Share #46 Posted September 16, 2009 Just for the record, Plaubel is right. So, you have the same monitor as Plaubel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted September 17, 2009 Share #47 Posted September 17, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't usually critique work online, but many people around here are making similar judgments as the OP so it's worth mentioning. The original photos are essentially lit with a single overhead source and almost no fill light. The forest floor surrounding the children is mostly subtracting light. This kind of poor lighting ratio can often mislead photographers to prefer flatness in order that the shadows (especially on the subjects' faces) will appear as filled. Unfortunately, this means that the deep blacks to go away and overall the images become flatter. The second and third images are the worst offenders with the weakest blacks. The first one is the closest to being correct but it's still flat. It's not really possible from a surfer's POV to identify the exact technical cause for the flatness. It could be due to scanning, choice of levels, or film processing etc. But they are flat, and many people might mistakenly accept this outcome since the shadows appear filled. Sorry, but the monitor calibration excuse doesn't hold true since this is a common miscalculation that I've seen photographers make over and over again when shooting in similar lighting ratio situations. It's very common. How much does it really matter anyway? Older lenses are supposed to have a muted contrast and that's part of their charm. The children are adorable and obviously having fun so there's plenty of reason to enjoy the pics regardless of what could be considered modern expectations of contrast, or detail in shadows & highlights. But just for the record, Plaubel is right. I hope the OP doesn't think he's being picked on because the shots are still very nice and I'm happy that he shared them... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspeltz Posted September 17, 2009 Share #48 Posted September 17, 2009 Nice job. I use Neopan 100 rated at 50. I may have to jump up to the 400 and see how I like it. I use HC110B as well on Tri-X (where I get superb results and I still love that film). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted September 27, 2009 Author Share #49 Posted September 27, 2009 thanks for the critic to all...i do't have a problem at al with less flattering critic, only so can we learn, best andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted September 27, 2009 Share #50 Posted September 27, 2009 This pics look good on my screen. No blown jacket hightights and the blacks are none more black. Agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted September 27, 2009 Share #51 Posted September 27, 2009 Andy, so glad you are still in the game. I'm also playing with Neopan and like the results. Has anyone tried processing the Neopan & TriX 400's simultaneously? Regarding the frames of your children, Having viewed your work for probably 2 years or more, the work is very consistent and it's obvious you like the softer tones, a very wide range of tones, particularly in the oof areas. For me, that's always been one of you signatures.The great focus & "just-right" sharpness you achieve with the 40 'cron & your CL is also a hallmark. Those that need to have the deepest blacks & razor sharp contrast of the modern ASPH lenses to make things look right, just don't get it. That aesthetic has it's place, but I for one don't see the world at it's extremes. I'd miss all beauty if I did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 28, 2009 Share #52 Posted September 28, 2009 I don't agree with Gentleman Villain at all. The images have a very pleasant tonal scale to my eyes, with wonderful mid tones, open shadows and controlled highlights. The jacket shows as blown in one frame on my screen, but hey, I struggle to get anything uploaded to look remotely like the original so who cares. I dont know what happens between my PS and upload by highlights frequently go wonky by the time the image displays on a forum. As someone used to the lighting in the UK (similar) I am very familiar with the tones in this image. To have tried to deepen the blacks would have pulled down the rest of the scale. To have increased contrast to compensate would have rendered a less smooth image and ruined the tonality. IMHO the tones are PERFECT and there is no requirement for heavy blacks unless you find it desirable. In these examples, I think they would spoil the images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted February 20, 2011 Author Share #53 Posted February 20, 2011 just thought I would keep this going...here a bit more Neopan 400 from today..developed as usual in HC110 Best Andy 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/64540-neopan-rocks/?do=findComment&comment=1593969'>More sharing options...
topoxforddoc Posted February 20, 2011 Share #54 Posted February 20, 2011 Back to film, when struggling for more light I've generally shot Delta 3200 and HP5 pushed up to two stops. Friend of mine recommended Neopan 1600 recently and I am currently running some at 1600, not sure if it'd be too contrasty pushed to 3200 - have you any experience with this? Never shot Neopan 400, what are you rating it at? I like the versatility of HP5, does N400 handle much pushing? Questions, questions! Dev. type, time, agitation will have some bearing, but if we can put those aside... Andy, Nice shots. Neopan 400 is pretty good. It pushes really well at least up to 1600 in XTOL 1:1 at Kodak's published times - minimal grain and contrast still ok. I swap readily between Neopan 400 and HP5 depending on which is cheaper. Best wishes, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted February 21, 2011 Share #55 Posted February 21, 2011 This is Neopan400 @ ISO3200 in D-76. made with Nikon F3HP | Noct-Nikkor @ f1.2 The grain looks not as good, as it could with the bad EPSON scanner. I will certainly do a rescan with DSLR + Macro in RAW and Lightroom conversion, which nets a lot more detail (and less blotchy grain). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted February 21, 2011 Share #56 Posted February 21, 2011 I don't agree with Gentleman Villain at all. The images have a very pleasant tonal scale to my eyes, with wonderful mid tones, open shadows and controlled highlights... To have tried to deepen the blacks would have pulled down the rest of the scale. To have increased contrast to compensate would have rendered a less smooth image and ruined the tonality. IMHO the tones are PERFECT and there is no requirement for heavy blacks unless you find it desirable. In these examples, I think they would spoil the images. I was going to say something along these lines, but can't formulate my pov better than you already have above: the images show a perfect balance of tonalities, the subject matter requires subtlety, and greater/grittier contrast would have been totally inappropriate imo. Furthermore, downloading the jpegs and looking very quickly at the tonal scale shows everything from almost total blacks to near-whites - no details are lost at either end of the scale, and the images look beautifully composed and harmonious to my eye. Very strange to me that some members can authoritatively declare that the images are definitively 'wrong' in some sense: "The first one is the closest to being correct but it's still flat" [my added italics]. Extraordinary statement! Lovely images Andy - as always. Not the least because you have such beautiful material to work with! PS: incidentally I ought to add that I'm in no way against criticism of people's work - there's way too much mutual back-scratching on these fora, but I nevertheless felt that these images simply weren't examples of poor tonal quality or lacking in contrast. I also don't think there is such a thing as the 'correct' amount of contrast in images such as these: they are artistic interpretations of a given moment, and would've been shot and exposed in ten different ways by ten different photographers. Certainly made me think it was time to go look for some Neopan400. (Noticed afterwards that AndyB had 'thanked' the original version of my post, and in fairness to him I should point-out that he hasn't in any way endorsed this addition) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.