MPerson Posted August 31, 2009 Share #1 Posted August 31, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) A chum has given me 25 rolls of Neopan 1600 35mm. I have never used any of the Fuji film so this is new for me but interesting as I enjoy low light photography. I have Diafine, Rodinal, HC-110 and Panthermic 777. Think I will initially go with either the Diafine or Rodinal. I see people rating it anywhere from 640 - 3200 but there seems to be a concensus that it is around 1000. Any advice on how far to push/pull this film? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 31, 2009 Posted August 31, 2009 Hi MPerson, Take a look here Neopan 1600. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
batmobile Posted August 31, 2009 Share #2 Posted August 31, 2009 My personal use is at 640 in Xtol 1+2. I find it gives a neat stop of speed over the neopan 400, which I rate at 320. DDX gives similar results but with slightly larger grain. Rodinal will lose you some speed and gain a lot of grain. IMO one of the great strengths of this film is the 400 speed like results you can get at double the speed. I am confident that its true speed is well short of 1000 as D3200, which I rate another stop faster still (1200-1600) has plenty more speed. - its pretty obvious. Some rate the Neopan 1600 at 1600 but be aware that if you do this, however much the results may look good under certain conditions, you will see the lower values drop out. This can look great, but when I am talking EIs, I am talking about speeds that give you kind what you see. HC110 might be worth a shot, but I have no idea what the 777 is. In xtol, you still get nice crisp grain and loads of bite. IMO well worth getting some Xtol for these 25 rolls... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_phillip Posted August 31, 2009 Share #3 Posted August 31, 2009 I've shot a bunch of Neopan 1600 over the years, and it's easily my fave very high speed film. I've tended to soup it in XTOL (either stock or 1+1) or HC-110. I've always meant to try stand developing it in Rodinal 1+100, but haven't ever got around to it for whatever reason. I've also tended to rate it at box speed, but that's been mostly down to the conditions I'm using it in rather than being a true reflection of the film's speed. Of the two devs I prefer the tones and grain of XTOL over HC-110, but not by a huge margin. Neopan 1600 in HC-110 (dilution : Neopan 1600 in XTOL 1+1: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boilerdoc Posted August 31, 2009 Share #4 Posted August 31, 2009 It's a great film. Whatever you rate it at it's a keeper. That's it's strong point. I use Xtol 1:1 and push the dev. time 10%. I like the punchier look that gives. Rodinal will be really grainy but that's cool in it's own respect! Shoot it, you'll like it! Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 31, 2009 Share #5 Posted August 31, 2009 Lucky you Andy! It's an interesting film. I've only used it at 1600 developed in TMAX as I bought a load that Jessops were selling off cheap! Very gritty images, so not for everyday use, but I like it. 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/95023-neopan-1600/?do=findComment&comment=1012155'>More sharing options...
Finnkare Posted August 31, 2009 Share #6 Posted August 31, 2009 I have even maybe come into the conclusion that there's no point in even trying to struggle with the other super fast films. I don't have massive experience on them, but I'm under the impression that Neopan 1600 is better at 1600 than TMZ or Delta 3200. Neopan@3200 can't be much worse than TMZ and Delta are already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted August 31, 2009 Share #7 Posted August 31, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Lucky you Andy! It's an interesting film. I've only used it at 1600 developed in TMAX as I bought a load that Jessops were selling off cheap! Very gritty images, so not for everyday use, but I like it. Great picture James. Did you go in or continue walking past? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 1, 2009 Share #8 Posted September 1, 2009 Lucky you Andy! It's an interesting film. I've only used it at 1600 developed in TMAX as I bought a load that Jessops were selling off cheap! Very gritty images, so not for everyday use, but I like it. James, if you drop the film speed and reduce development, the contrast will be tamed and it becomes more like a 'super 400' film, giving another stop of speed and similar look to regular films. At 1600 it is getting about a stop (or more if one uses rodinal or HC110) of underexposure and is then being overdeveloped most likely. I had contrast issues when I first used it ten or so years ago, but then read about the real speed of it. Now I have images on my walls that have a smooth, full tonal scale and you would not immediately pick out from the TriX shots. This of course assumes that it is what you want, but personally, I found it pretty nasty to handle at 1600 as you could never quite tell how important the shadow drop out would be. With some frames it worked, but others were ruined. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPerson Posted September 1, 2009 Author Share #9 Posted September 1, 2009 Thanks for the replies. Interesting that when i type "Neopan 1600 in Rodinal" into Google it brings up some decent examples: "Neopan 1600 in Rodinal" Guess it is time to experiment - especially with Rodinal 1:100 and one hour stand. Tom - Panthermic 777 here. Kenneth - that is an ad for the musical "Chicago". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejd Posted September 1, 2009 Share #10 Posted September 1, 2009 Andy -- I have a few packs of Fujifilm Microfine developer. It is a slow speed 'ultra fine grain film developer', and the pack gives times for neopan 1600 exposed at 800. Each pack makes up a litre of developer, and is used 1:1 for the neopan 1600, so it should do about 6 films. You're most welcome to have one if you'd like to try it. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 1, 2009 Share #11 Posted September 1, 2009 I have even maybe come into the conclusion that there's no point in even trying to struggle with the other super fast films. I don't have massive experience on them, but I'm under the impression that Neopan 1600 is better at 1600 than TMZ or Delta 3200. Neopan@3200 can't be much worse than TMZ and Delta are already. In my experience D3200 is a whole stop faster than Neo 1600. I actually rate D3200 at 1000-1600 depending on intent, so I find it much better at these speeds than Neo 1600, which comes nowhere near a true 1600 speed. Note that I am talking contrast and exposure/tonal range and not grain. Neopan 1600 at 640 is a whole lot finer grained than D3200 at 1000/1200, but then again the looks are very different. I would not dream of using Neo 1600 at 1600 unless I wanted very poor shadow detail i.e I knew I wanted to underexpose the film, in which case the '1600' designation becomes moot, because it is a 640 film being underexposed more than a stop! I rate it at its real speed so I know what is going on! My main use of D3200 is in MF. 6x7 negs print with a truly unique grain and tonal scale which can be incredibly beautiful on large prints or small, but I think it looks glorious printed large (20x24) if you have old world images which mesh well with that tight, jultra crisp grain. Neopan 1600, as I say, can really be regarded as a super 400, with similar look. I have very little experience with D3200 in 35mm, but will be shooting is for some upcoming projects. I also fully intend to use it when I want beautiful crisp visible grain. I think it would excel for fog scenes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 1, 2009 Share #12 Posted September 1, 2009 James, if you drop the film speed and reduce development, the contrast will be tamed and it becomes more like a 'super 400' film, giving another stop of speed and similar look to regular films. At 1600 it is getting about a stop (or more if one uses rodinal or HC110) of underexposure and is then being overdeveloped most likely. Interesting, I'll give it a go at a lower speed. I do like the gritty/contrasty look at 1600 but its definately one I'd use for specific subjects in future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 1, 2009 Share #13 Posted September 1, 2009 James, its grittier than Neo 400 and a little grittier than TriX/HP5, but the grain structure seems to vary quite a bit depending on developer. In DDX I find the grain not as crisp as dilute Xtol for example - seems a little fluffier. I think you will really like it if you rate it 1-1.5 stops faster than you would neopan 400 or HP5. You should end up with a neg you can print as hard as you like but at least you will have info in the shadows and highlights if you want it. If you want lots of contrast from such a neg, high contrast filters and pre-flash works wonders, still giving hightlights. I think images with completely washed out highlights mostly look ugly, but thats a personal thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattLain Posted September 1, 2009 Share #14 Posted September 1, 2009 I love it. I've often used it for unorthodox subjects and always dev'd in HC-110 dil. H (1+63). In sunlight photographing anything that doesn't make me squint I use 1/250 @ f16, if its white or bright its 1/500 @ f16. Its the combination of tonality and grain that I love the most out of this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted September 1, 2009 Share #15 Posted September 1, 2009 I have even maybe come into the conclusion that there's no point in even trying to struggle with the other super fast films. I don't have massive experience on them, but I'm under the impression that Neopan 1600 is better at 1600 than TMZ or Delta 3200. Neopan@3200 can't be much worse than TMZ and Delta are already. I'd have to disagree. 95% of pictures I've seen of Neopan 1600 at 1600 are pretty damn contrasty. As in really pushed looking - *very* little in the way of shadow detail. I know TMZ and Delta 3200 aren't even ISO 1600, but shot at 1600, they give a pretty good impression of having a film speed close to it. Things start to look a bit pushed at 3200, but you can still get some very useable pictures that aren't in 'chalk and charcoal' territory. Neopan is slower than the other two. It's also less grainy, so if finer grain and EI 800 sound good, then go for it. Or if finer grained and really pushed looking turn you on, you're in luck. I personally like less of a pushed look, but don't mind larger grain, so TMZ suits me fine. I've shot TMZ at 800, but I see no real need for it (for me) - EI 1600 is a pretty nice sweet spot for it. Here's a shot on TMZ at 1600. Her hair is dark brown and the shirt was black: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPerson Posted September 1, 2009 Author Share #16 Posted September 1, 2009 Andy -- I have a few packs of Fujifilm Microfine developer. It is a slow speed 'ultra fine grain film developer', and the pack gives times for neopan 1600 exposed at 800. Each pack makes up a litre of developer, and is used 1:1 for the neopan 1600, so it should do about 6 films. You're most welcome to have one if you'd like to try it. John John - many thanks for the offer, I really appreciate it but I think I will stick with the devs I know rather than learn a new film and developer at the same time. Thanks again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPerson Posted September 1, 2009 Author Share #17 Posted September 1, 2009 I love it. I've often used it for unorthodox subjects and always dev'd in HC-110 dil. H (1+63). In sunlight photographing anything that doesn't make me squint I use 1/250 @ f16, if its white or bright its 1/500 @ f16. Its the combination of tonality and grain that I love the most out of this. Matt - your blog was - yet again - a useful source of information. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n Posted September 1, 2009 Share #18 Posted September 1, 2009 I love it. I've often used it for unorthodox subjects and always dev'd in HC-110 dil. H (1+63). NP1600 & HC-110 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aurora_borealis Posted September 1, 2009 Share #19 Posted September 1, 2009 For low light I would recommend Neopan 1600 @ 1250 in Tetenal EMOFIN (2-bath developer) and play around with it from there. (EMOFIN is also superb for developing Tri-X 400 @ 1600) Try it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejd Posted September 1, 2009 Share #20 Posted September 1, 2009 Andy - very wise not to introduce too many unknowns at once. i got the Microfine to try with some Acros. i might get some more fuji film, including maybe some of the 1600, and give it another go. Best, john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.