Neopan 1600

[sherm]

Need some ideas on Neopan 1600.

I'd like to use a faster film than Tri-X

Examples would be great, and push/pull info. also appreciated......

Thanks,

Scott

[ruben]

Neopan processed with Tmax developer (I hope I am not starting WWIII): SUPERB.

My two cents: do whatever you can to stay with neopan1600 as your maximum ISO speed. Beyond that you have to be a big fan of hard grain.

Cheers,
Ruben

[peter_n]

Take a look at the following two PN threads:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D2Am

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E1zO&tag=

[goo0h]

Not that my present gallery is all that spectacular, almost all of it was shot with NP1600 at 1600 and more recently 1250. Been using XTOL using pretty close to the numbers listed at the Massive Dev Chart (http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html). Since I'm rather green at developing, I tend to use the tag feature of flickr to track what I did. However, please note that I'm currently using an Epson 2450 scanner, so detail a bit soft.

[bob irvin]

Here is the Neopan 1600 shot at 3200.

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4526733

Bob

[VictorM.]

I used the film for a job early in my career and really liked it. I rated it at 1200, after some experimentation, and had a lab process and contact it to save time. Now I prefer Delta 3200 at 1600 (mostly 120 in a Rolleiflex).

[sherm]

Thanks everyone!!!!! Looks like I'll have to pick some up tomorrow if I can get out of my driveway here in Austin.

Supposed to have ICE tonight and that's just no fun here in the South :bang:


Thanks again

Scott

[BILLC]

Not fun in the north either.
Bill

[goo0h]

Supposed to have ICE tonight and that's just no fun here in the South :bang:
No, it's not.

[thafred]

Hi,

I´ll second Neopan1600 in T-Max developer! great combo with good tones:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/135/338621847_4beaed6283.jpg

If you an get the Rollei chemistry go and try the RHS developer with Neopan or other faster Films...highly recommended for speed and sharpnes!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/355144160_ec1c424dfb.jpg

A buddy of mine developes N1600 in Rodinal 1:50 and has got really nice negs with sharp grain and very good detail.
Search the Tag Neopan1600prof @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ocularis/ excellent photos too

I´ve other examples under the tag Neopan1600 at my Flickr

enjoy this fast contrasty juwel!

[Nokton48]

I just reordered two more 100 foot rolls of Neopan Super Presto 1600 from Dirk at www.unicircuits.com That's bulk Neopan 1600, and the film is still available from Fuji in Japan, although the bulk rolls will be discontinued shortly:(This time I elected to go with the economy shipping 3-4 week delivery.

[kaiyen]

oh no! Megaperls is out of the 1600 bulk, it appears. argh. now I'm not sure what to try...

allan

[drewbarb]

I don't want to start any wars, here either, but I like Neopan 400 shot at E.I. of 1600 and processed in Microphen (straight). It has full detail across the range. In fact, it looks so good, I don't carrying faster film. I just use 400 speed film, and adjust my E.I. and processing regimen to suit the light. Depending upon the chemistry, temp, and needs I get good printable negatives at E.I. 200 through 1600, carrying one emulsion. SOMETIMES, if I'm feeling fancy, or just HAVE too, I will even change speed mid-roll. I shoot an empty frame, remembering which one, and cut the roll in the darkroom later, against a template I made. This is getting silly, though, and it's far easier to shoot the whole roll at on E.I.- but I digress...

I am currently without a scanner, or I'd post some examples, (and I'm an obsessive printer; I really like to show prints rather than digital images); but I'll see what I can do if anyone is interested.

[goo0h]

I don't want to start any wars, here either, but I like Neopan 400 shot at E.I. of 1600 and processed in Microphen (straight).

....

I am currently without a scanner, or I'd post some examples, (and I'm an obsessive printer; I really like to show prints rather than digital images); but I'll see what I can do if anyone is interested.
If you can manage it sometime, I'd sure like to see the results. How's the contrast of NP400 pushed to 1600?

[peter_n]

oh no! Megaperls is out of the 1600 bulk, it appears. argh. now I'm not sure what to try...

allanThere will be more. Fuji is not discontinuing production until March.

[Biggles]

My heart just stopped. Thought for a minute you were saying they were discontinuing the emulsion altogether.

(Pulls himself togther)

Ahem.

Apart from the odd roll of Neopan 400 I carry for bokeh emergencies, the 1600's the only stuff I use.

I've seen any number of beautiful, subtle pictures taken with Neopan 1600 by actual competent photographers, and I like the way it renders tonal changes. In my hands, though, I find it's contrasty as hell, and absolutely opaque when over-exposed, but I adore those results.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Seaslug/Wire.jpg

In my hands, it's cartoony. Soot and ashes.

(Lens was a Leitz 40mm Summicron-C. As if I didn't already have enough contrast issues...)

[kaiyen]

Peter.,
Thakns for the info. I am pretty happy with my current high speed options, but wanted to give NP1600 at least a try. I'll keep an eye out.

Biggles - sorry about that. The ceasing of production of NP1600 BULK :-) was announced a while ago, I was just slow in reacting. I can imagine how that would freak someone out.

allan

[peter_n]

Cracking photo Biggles!

[Biggles]

Thank you, mister_n.

[wintoid]

Yes, that is a stunning photo :D

[rodneyAB]

oh no! Megaperls is out of the 1600 bulk, it appears. argh. now I'm not sure what to try...

allan

not to gloat...but i just got a mailer from Megaperls with one 30.5M can of SuperPresto1600....feels like it was the last can sold:( , as i went back to the site several hours later and there was no more listing...
i hope PeterN is right and there will be more yet before the march cut-off

[Nokton48]

I double checked with Dirk, and my two rolls are goin' out:p

Hope he gets some more in. Have three rolls in the deep freeze.

[Björn Ylinenpää]

I prefer to push Neopan 400 instead of using Neopan 1600. Usually in T-Max dev or Rodinal.

[rover]

I have never liked Neopan 1600, but recently dropped a roll in some Diafine and I liked the results. I shot at 1600 too by mistake, my intent was to shoot at 1000 and use Diafine. I liked it enough to want to try the combo some more.

[kaiyen]

Bjorn,
What characteristics are you seeing that you prefer in pushed NP400 as compared to NP1600 at, presumably, the same speed?

From examples I've seen, I'm not particular optimistic about NP1600 as a truly high speed film. TXT handles my higher contrast needs up to 6400, and I have used Delta 3200 in the past. And I think TMZ is close enough to Delta for me to try that as well, in terms of contrast control. But the availability of NP1600 in rolls is tempting.

Then again, having a bulk roll of high speed film just means more fogging as it takes me longer to shoot.

allan

[goo0h]

Somewhat on the topic of NP1600, how long do folks develop it when shot at 800 and developed in XTOL(1:1)? The massive dev chart has 6.75 min, which I guess is where I'll start at.

And on the topic of fastness, while browsing around at the DR5 site, I noticed quite a lot of praise for HP5+ and it's push-ability:

http://www.dr5.com/hp5.html

Has anybody tried HP5+ pushed to 1600? How does it compare with others, like say NP1600?

[kaiyen]

HP5, in my opinion, does not push well. However, the definition of "push well" is extremely subjective, especially here on RFF. Usually, a film that pushes well retains shadow detail even as you decrease exposure. For instance, TXT at 800 looks almost the same as 400, and in some developers you can push it to 1600 or 3200 with more shadow detail than other films.

So...HP5 blocks up in the shadows pretty quickly as you decrease exposure. Contrast goes way up quickly. Some people like this look quite a bit. I personally would rather shoot TXT, have a bit less contrast, and then add it if I want in PS.

Some examples at 3200 of HP5:
http://www.pbase.com/romosoho/image/22567337/medium
http://www.pbase.com/romosoho/image/23089848/medium
http://www.pbase.com/romosoho/image/23089849/medium

allan

[visiondr]

I'm sorry if this is a thread hijack, but... You guys are making me want to buy a bulk loader. Is there one kind I should get/avoid. There seem to be plenty of used ones in stores around here.

Ron

[Björn Ylinenpää]

Kaiyen:
It just looks better to me, it's cheaper and I find it easier to get good results with pushing Neopan 400. The midtones look a lot better too, and the contrast has a tendency to run away with Neopan 1600.

I even found a scan of a photo taken with pushed Neopan 400 on my computer. It's exposed at 1600 and developed in T-max dev, can't remember the time and my I don't got my notes nearby, but the temperature was probably 20C and when pushing I agitate for ten seconds every second minute.

[Simon Larbalestier]

I don't want to start any wars, here either, but I like Neopan 400 shot at E.I. of 1600 and processed in Microphen (straight). It has full detail across the range. In fact, it looks so good, I don't carrying faster film. I just use 400 speed film, and adjust my E.I. and processing regimen to suit the light. Depending upon the chemistry, temp, and needs I get good printable negatives at E.I. 200 through 1600, carrying one emulsion. SOMETIMES, if I'm feeling fancy, or just HAVE too, I will even change speed mid-roll. I shoot an empty frame, remembering which one, and cut the roll in the darkroom later, against a template I made. This is getting silly, though, and it's far easier to shoot the whole roll at on E.I.- but I digress...

I am currently without a scanner, or I'd post some examples, (and I'm an obsessive printer; I really like to show prints rather than digital images); but I'll see what I can do if anyone is interested.

Yes i'd like to see some result too. Carrying 1600 and 3200 films through multiple Xray machines is a non starter for me.

[kaiyen]

Well, carrying 400 speed film pushed out to 1600 and 3200 isn't far off from using 1600 film in the first place, in terms of x-rays.

anyway. I still got one more bulk roll of TXT to finish.

allan

[peter_n]

I'm sorry if this is a thread hijack, but... You guys are making me want to buy a bulk loader. Is there one kind I should get/avoid. There seem to be plenty of used ones in stores around here.

RonMy only experience is with an old fashioned Alden 74. Very reliable, foolproof light trap (even for an idiot like me) and won't scratch the film...

[Simon Larbalestier]

Well, carrying 400 speed film pushed out to 1600 and 3200 isn't far off from using 1600 film in the first place, in terms of x-rays.

anyway. I still got one more bulk roll of TXT to finish.

allan

Please correct me if i'm wrong here but i always thought if i'm exposing 400 film at 1600 then i'm underexposing by two stops which is only taken into account when i process the film. Surely 1600 film is more senistive to xrays as it's ISO is already 1600? :confused:

I know film is more sensitive once exposed but then the 1600 would be even more senstive once it had been exposed especially to Xrays. :confused:

TriX in my experience (especially recently where i had to undergo 8 Xrays in several airports back to back) copes extremely well with the current Xray machines.

just a thought and not wishing to take the thread OT :)

[tedwhite]

Visiondr:

Watson bulk loader. Excellent and lasts forever. I've had mine for ten years and if there's a scratch on a negative it came from a reusable cassette, not the Watson. My system with the cassettes is to load them twice and then toss them. They're not that expensive, especially if you buy a bunch at a time. That way you avoid schmutz build-up on the velvet lips of the cassette.

Ted (lots of dust down here)

[rodneyAB]

Visiondr:

Watson bulk loader. Excellent and lasts forever. I've had mine for ten years and if there's a scratch on a negative it came from a reusable cassette, not the Watson. My system with the cassettes is to load them twice and then toss them. They're not that expensive, especially if you buy a bunch at a time. That way you avoid schmutz build-up on the velvet lips of the cassette.

Ted (lots of dust down here)

thanx for the tip on cassettes! i just got my Watson loader today...and some cassettes:D