Neopan 1600

[pvdhaar]

Just completed a test roll of Neopan 1600 shot 1/3 of a stop slower than the lightmeter said.. and developed by a lab :eek:

I asked about Neopan about two weeks ago, and you all told me it has an enormous contrast..

Well, here are some scans, and how shall I put this? Neopan doesn't like to be overexposed. Even a little over and it loses all contrast. It's less forgiving than I expected..

Now for the pictures:

1. Wood: FED-50 at f4
2. Cat: 50mm M-Hexanon at f2
3. Bin: CV25/4 at f4
4. Wheel: 50mm M-Hexanon at f2 (excuses for the shallow dof)

[MadMan2k]

It doesn't look bad, you could use that style for some high-key type shots, the shadows and low-mids look good.

[P C Headland]

It is a really nice film, and does well at EI1600 even in Rodinal. The biggest problem with it is that it is only available in 35mm!

It may pay to ask the lab what they processed the film in. If you know this, and are going to continue using them to develop the film, you can tailor the speed at which you shoot this film to suit their process. The other option is to sacrifice a roll, and shoot a series of shots of the same scene at 2 stops under, 1.5, 1, 0.5, 0, then 0.5 over, 1.0 etc. That way you'll see what works best.

The best option though is to develop it yourself. Get a one shot liquid developer like Rodinal or HC110, or a re-usable one like Diafine, and start from there.

[irq506]

Well I think they look lovely.
Neopan 1600 is actually a 1000 iso film and shoots extremely well at this speed. As said above, try developing it yourself. I think KODAK XTOL is an extremely good match for Neopan 400 and ACROS rendering a full grey tonal range with deep rich blacks and finely piqued whites. http://www.flickr.com/photos/devtank/251071592/ This is an example of Neopan 400 under XTOL at 21c for 8'15''.
Getting back to 1600 though, its a beautiful film and can be processed in a number of ways. Can be rated sucessfully at 400, 800, 1000, 1600 and 3200, though I wouldnt recommend anything higher.

[Pherdinand]

i had similar look from the lab dev'ed neopan. A danish know-how guy told me, it looks overdeveloped, not overexposed. If i look on the neg itself, it does indeed look very harsh, with very black highlights.
Your highlights also look shot. I would expect the development affects them more than the exposure.
Especially that you only overexposed by a third stop.

I was told that labs generally use 20% more dev time for black and white films of customers, erroring on the underexposed side. This "trick'" works well with general slow or medium speed films but neopan1600 is a very fast-developoing film (fuji commercialize it as "you can develop it together with the 400iso version since it needs the same dev time) therefore it is more sensitive to extended development time.
Or something like this.

I will try it with diafine at 2400 as soon as I get that damn package from freestyle.

Here's an example on neopan (sorry not rf but it shows the high contrast, especially the blown-out highlights)

[varjag]

That's a beautiful shot Pherdinand.

[Never Satisfied]

Hello, I've used Neo 1600 at 1600 for years and developed it in T-Max dev per instructions and have never had an issue. I would be more inclined to balme your lab than this film, Fuji is renown for consitancy, labs aren't. Buy a tank and do it your self, cheers Andrew.

[pvdhaar]

So far, the consensus seems to be that I have to develop the film myself, as the labs are too inconsistent...

Trouble is, I've not that much confidence in my own consistency. :rolleyes:

I can't even prepare rice twice the same, notwithstanding the completely straightforward instructions on the pack and a digital timekeeping device.. :confused:

That, and I'm hesitant about mucking around with chemicals.. Maybe I should try something that's more forgiving, like 100 ISO colour print film or so :(

But first, there's a couple more rolls lying around, and I'm sure I can factor in some of the overdevelopment.. :cool:

[Bill58]

Pherdinand:

Awesome shot!!!!!!!!!!!!! The damn stuff is big bucks here (Korea)--about $8.00 a roll of 36. What do ya'll have to pay for it?

Bill

[wyk_penguin]

Eeeeck, excuse me, but 'poorly developed' is really an understatement. It looks totally blown out. I like my Ilford Delta3200 more. They seem to be able to withstand my inconsistencies better.

[varjag]

Peter, color stuff is much harder to develop at home, requiring to maintain temperature to a fraction of degree, and is not really economical.

Classic BW on the other hand is easy: after your first roll you'll be wondering what you paid the labs for. It allows for some sloppiness as in cooking, you'll still get something just the results won't be optimal.

[Pherdinand]

Bill: Here in NL in a real shop it costs about 5,50 euro per roll. I can buy on the net and then it's 4-something. Still affordable, i would say.

Peter - if you are afraid of consistency and forgetting to watch the time, try to find some diafine developer. With that, the time is not important as soon as it is over 3 minutes for each solution. And it is supposed to hold back the highlights.
Come on, it's really easy to do it (as long as you manage to load the reels, hehe)

[kully]

I am the same with cooking, but B&W I can now do.

I had the same problem taking a roll to Jessops and getting back negatives and prints which were horrifically developed (pretty much completely pure black and pure white) and for which they charged me £15!

[goo0h]

Trouble is, I've not that much confidence in my own consistency. :rolleyes:

I can't even prepare rice twice the same, notwithstanding the completely straightforward instructions on the pack and a digital timekeeping device.. :confused:

That, and I'm hesitant about mucking around with chemicals.. Maybe I should try something that's more forgiving, like 100 ISO colour print film or so :(
I'm about the same way in the kitchen. However it's not so bad with developing, and I'm still learning. So far the hardest part with XTOL was in mixing it into the stock solution; it wanted to cake up on me. But eventually with enough stirring it was OK. It's nice not having to wait on a lab.

[ffttklackdedeng]

I wouldn't go the underrate-to-compensate-for-probable-overdevelopment route.. Developing yourself is easier than rice cooking :)

.. although I must admit that the first time (after shaking of the previous HP-5 film for 16 minutes) I went out of the bathroom after 8 minutes to check the digitaltruth data for the Neopan 1600 just to see that I should shake for 6 minutes :bang: :D

[rich815]

I personally do not find this film all that contrasty (even indoors with flash) but I tend to shoot it more towards it's true speed (@ 1000) and then still pull back and slightly "under-develop" it. Labs are notorious for overcooking negs, somehow with some mentality that just a little more is better than too little development, which is actually the opposite of what's best, IMO.

Some examples of my use with it:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=130866629&size=o

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=130866684&size=o

[peter_n]

Fantastic pic Pherdinand! Kodak HC-110 is also good for NP1600 if you soup at home.

[Russ]

I really like Neopan 1600. I burn it @ 1250 and the lab soups it in X-Tol. The negs are always nice and consistent. I think if you souped it yourself, or tried another lab, you'd get better results. I love the neoapn 400 & 1600 films.

Russ

[Russ]

[QUOTE=pvdhaar]

I can't even prepare rice twice the same, QUOTE]


Peter

Put the desired amount of Rice, in the Rice cooker. Now, just add water until it is one finger joint (first knuckle) above the top of the rice. Regardless of how much rice you are making. (seriously). I assure you that your rice will always come out perfectly. I was taught this by an old Sushi master.

As for the lovely Neopan 1600 film, try a different lab, or soup it yourself.

Russ

[boilerdoc2]

pvdhaar, I'd fire your lab. They really screwed up that roll. Whew! Develop yourself. Have it scanned or print in a real darkroom. Irq506 has pictures that show what Neopan can do. Try again. Fuji is in the game with us film shooters until the end, so support them by buying their film.
Steve

[P C Headland]

As others have mentioned, if you're worried about lacking consistancy etc., grab some Diafine.

You just have to mix the two solutions, and store one in bottle A and the other in bottle B. Providing you don't add any B to A, it'll last for years. The temperature just has to be somewhere between 18 and 25C . Leave the film in each solution for at least 3 minutes & you'll get pretty good results.

FotohuisRovo in Holland carries Diafine, as do several UK sellers (like Retrophotographic).

Go on, give it a try!

[irq506]

So far, the consensus seems to be that I have to develop the film myself, as the labs are too inconsistent...

Trouble is, I've not that much confidence in my own consistency. :rolleyes:

I can't even prepare rice twice the same, notwithstanding the completely straightforward instructions on the pack and a digital timekeeping device.. :confused:

That, and I'm hesitant about mucking around with chemicals.. Maybe I should try something that's more forgiving, like 100 ISO colour print film or so :(

But first, there's a couple more rolls lying around, and I'm sure I can factor in some of the overdevelopment.. :cool:

Hey slap me if im repeating myself... but XTOL is Hypoalergenic (sp?). Ive lost sensitivity at the tips of all my fingers, and have dermatitis from putting my hands into trays of chemicals. I am now very cautious, though I dont wear gloves, there are other options out there like barrier hand cream.

[summaron]

There's not a complete free lunch with Diafine. Some consistency in temperature and time should be maintained. And agitation in solution B can make some difference in the contrast and perhaps the density of negatives. At least that's the consensus of this good photo.net discussion.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008d0p

[rich815]

There's not a complete free lunch with Diafine. Some consistency in temperature and time should be maintained. And agitation in solution B can make some difference in the contrast and perhaps the density of negatives. At least that's the consensus of this good photo.net discussion.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008d0p

Summaron brings up some good points. In terms of temp and agitation I use it around 20C or so, and gently agitiate myself, as recommended on the Diafine box. But I use Diafine strictly for when I want more contrast control, like dark urban outdoor night shots with street lights and such in the photo. Otherwise under typical situations and subjects I find Diafine can give results that are a bit flat and lack needed "bite" IMO.

Works great for stuff like this though:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/222903028/

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=222902958&size=o

[Pherdinand]

Ive lost sensitivity at the tips of all my fingers, and have dermatitis from putting my hands into trays of chemicals. I am now very cautious, though I dont wear gloves, there are other options out there like barrier hand cream.

If you have these problems and you don't wear gloves, excuse me but you are everything but cautious.
Come on, nitrile gloves are not that expensive! ANd they are washable, you can re-use them!

[Pherdinand]

Works great for stuff like this though:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/222903028/



rich - what happened there? acros 100 in this magnification and looks like huge grain size! Scanning problem, or is it really this grainy?

[irq506]

If you have these problems and you don't wear gloves, excuse me but you are everything but cautious.
Come on, nitrile gloves are not that expensive! ANd they are washable, you can re-use them!

Hey, when I worked darkrooms, I worked in a very busy newspaper, I think I wore gloves for about 20 minutes on the first day and soon realised that this aint gonna work! When you are printing 400-600 images a day, gloves just get in the way.

[Pherdinand]

Well, you might be right, I never printed 400-600 images, and it also might be personal, but I sometimes do have tow ear latex gloves at work (cleanroom) next to stupid paper costumes and sometimes even protecting plastic goggles
i hate the gloves, always sweat under them, but i prefer that instead of messing with methyl-ethyl-butyl-keton or PRS3000 with bare hands. (And it's also not allowed.)
If you really have the allergy and you really can't do it with gloves, then you should switch to friendlier chemicals or get into digital...

[titrisol]

DDX did the trick for me, very creamy negatives with enough punch.

[irq506]

Well, you might be right, I never printed 400-600 images, and it also might be personal, but I sometimes do have tow ear latex gloves at work (cleanroom) next to stupid paper costumes and sometimes even protecting plastic goggles
i hate the gloves, always sweat under them, but i prefer that instead of messing with methyl-ethyl-butyl-keton or PRS3000 with bare hands. (And it's also not allowed.)
If you really have the allergy and you really can't do it with gloves, then you should switch to friendlier chemicals or get into digital...

Well Keton is particularly obnoxious. What I was saying was that I developed dermatitis from my days in darkrooms. I didnt have it before. If I was darkrooming now, Id would be considerably different in my aproach to working....

Happy xmas