120 Neopan ISO100, strange look ? [Archive]

View Full Version : 120 Neopan ISO100, strange look ?

Bertram2

05-12-2005, 06:19

Hi to all,

got yesterday a roll of Neopan 100 back with 13X13cm enlargements, again I am badly disapointed. :mad:

The first two rolls were already surprisingly bad with black shadows and blown out highlights and assuming that this all had been my own fault I did another roll , very carefully exposed this time .
But again the same problem, all very contrasty , many totally closed black shadows TOGETHER with ugly highlight details in these nature shots, tho the sun was not very bright but quite dimmed by some feather clouds.

My Question. Does my lab mess up my Neopan negs with the wrong dev or is this an extreme contrasty film for cloudy weather, and grey skies ? :confused:

I just cannot believe what I see, unfortunately I have no scans available.

Thanks for all input !
Bertram

.

pshinkaw

05-12-2005, 06:33

Do you know what developer, times and temperature they are using.?

Your resuts sound atypical.

-Paul

tom_f77

05-12-2005, 06:46

The first two rolls were already surprisingly bad with black shadows and blown out highlights and assuming that this all had been my own fault I did another roll , very carefully exposed this time .
But again the same problem, all very contrasty , many totally closed black shadows TOGETHER with ugly highlight details in these nature shots, tho the sun was not very bright but quite dimmed by some feather clouds.
.

Bertram,

I got results very like this the first few times I tried to do my own Acros 100 in Rodinal using suggested times from digital truth, I think. It was a few rolls from a holiday, 35 mm and 120. Mine were shot on a very sunny day, but the contrast was so extreme that I can believe it would have been the same in less bright conditions.

I didn't do further experiments; I didn't want to waste any more film so I stuck the rest in Diafine and they came up so nicely I never went back to the Rodinal.

This isn't really an answer, but it does suggest that your lab needs to rethink its developer choice or times for that film?

Tom

tetrisattack

05-12-2005, 06:48

Agreed on the atypical comment. I've only done a couple of rolls of Acros, but I've always been shocked at how nicely the film behaves in HC110, dilution H. The shadows seem a little more veiled than with Neopan 400 but it always seems to retain contrast in the highlights. Maybe I'll try to post a picture, if my early-morning brain can handle such a task. ;)

Pherdinand

05-12-2005, 06:49

Bertram2

05-12-2005, 06:56

This isn't really an answer, but it does suggest that your lab needs to rethink its developer choice or times for that film?
Tom
Tom,
This is a quite good answer I'd say, it confirms my suspect of the wrong dev !
Not doing my own souping I'll try another lab the next time. Tri-X they do very good, but Neopan is simply terrible ,
Your suspect is they use Rodinal , but the APX I gave them was disappointing too related to tonal richness, compared to Tri-X. APX loves Rodinal I presume ?
Would old soup cause a similar effect ?
Thanks !
Bertram

Bertram2

05-12-2005, 07:05

i definitely think it's the lab. You did look at the negs too, i guess? Are they also very contrasty?
It reminds me my own struggle with Neopan and commercial processing, exactly the same problems - but hey, that was Neopan 1600 !!! [See example]

Well the face lost all details in that very bright portion but the photo itself is a really strong one, who cares about such deatils ? It looks a if it was intentively made this way. :-)
Seems one can have problems Neopan with the commercial dev, a matter of trial and error to fins decent lab.
I confess I am simply too lazy to do my own souping and so my lazyness is driving me insane from time to time it is still stronger than the disappointments are. Shame on me !!!
Regards,
Bertram

tom_f77

05-12-2005, 07:10

Your suspect is they use Rodinal , but the APX I gave them was disappointing too related to tonal richness, compared to Tri-X. APX loves Rodinal I presume ?
Would old soup cause a similar effect ?
Thanks !
Bertram

You are presuming right about the APX/Rodinal, I think. My absolute best negatives (although many here will probably have better ones developed in old coffee) are 120 APX 100 and 400 done in Rodinal.

About the old soup idea, I would have thought that might lead to disappointing tonal richness, but not the extreme contrast problem; not sure which you were thinking.

Tom

phototone

05-12-2005, 07:31

Most volume commercial labs that still do b/w tend to use one catch-all developer, and they may actually use "one" developing time for all films. They may actually batch process all their b/w films at one time and temperature due to automated machine processing. Some films will come out OK this way, others will not. Processing Neopan 100SS, and Neopan 400 myself, using D-76 1+1 dilution, I have not found either to produce blocked highlights. Both have a very long tonal scale. The Neopan 100SS has a violet tint to the film base. This is not a problem in scanning or printing.

As a general rule, when using outside labs to process your b/w negatives, it is always correct to suspect the lab work first, when encountering an error such as blocked highlights, scratches on film, or extremely thin negatives. Getting the lab to admit their errors, is another thing, though.

Unlike b/w film, ALL color negative films process for the same time in the same chemistry (C-41), and ALL Color Slide Film processes for the same time in the same chemistry (E-6). It is far less likely to have poorly processed color neg or color slide film. Scratches and dust, yes, but poorly processed, in regards to density. no.

The processing times for b/w film vary all other the place, and the recommended developers vary, also, and it is a rare "custom" lab who will fit developer to film, and the cost to the customer would be high.

phototone

05-12-2005, 07:35

peter_n

05-12-2005, 16:02

I recently gave a bunch of 100 Acros and Neopan 400 & 1600 to a local lab that soups in XTOL. Everything was fine except for some of the 1600 film which was underexposed - entirely my own fault. Neopan and XTOL seem to work well together.

Bertram2

05-12-2005, 16:45

Phototones Universal Axiom #1

If you are going to use an outside lab (not your own darkroom), to process your silver-based b/w film negatives, you MUST choose a film that THAT PARTICULAR LAB can process well. Stick with that film and you will be happy.

Phototone,
Tri-X they do quite nicely, so this would be my only silver film beside a chromogenic one. No prob, I love Tri-X but I wanted to see if the 100 ISO films have a significantly better grain at the modest enlargement rate which are relevant for me,
max 40X40cm.
Best,
Bertram

John Robertson

05-12-2005, 23:33

Hi Bertram
I've used the Acros100 + Rodinal combination, I used it 1 + 100, the contrast was OK but it was very grainy. Rodinal is my standard developer (or Fomadon R09 which is the same! ) but it suits older type films best. Although Ilford Delta 100 is good with it. An old guy in my camera club who uses MF and produces superb quality says the Arcos is VERY fussy about the developer it's dunked in. He uses D76 I think! My best results with Rodinal are with Konica IR750.

Bertram2

05-13-2005, 02:40

Guy Mann

08-17-2005, 21:57

I'm not an expert so take this w/ a grain of salt but my local lab uses Ilford's Ilfotec DD for everything. I've been very pleased w/ how my Neopan 400 and 1600 negs look from this lab and took them my first roll of Acros last week. I was pretty disappointed in the results. I need to get my own darkroom going.

agphotography

08-17-2005, 22:14

Ill have to agree with the guys here, it had to be the lab,

I swear by Neopan films 1oo Acros, 400, 1600 , in both 35mm and 120 formats. i develop them myself, but i have never had an issue like that. it is such rich film, i dont see why you would have those issues unless they are using some funky developer. you should definately ask them about it

Hektor

08-17-2005, 23:24

Hi all, I've devd acros 100 at home in Paterson FX39 with good results. I understand Paterson now recommend FX50, which can be used one or two bath. See Roger Hicks' review on the Paterson website. I suspect most labs are changing to XTOL these days.

However my main message is that I have had just as good results from XP2s, and if lab processing is essential they nearly always get the negs right because it's C41 process.

They don't always get the prints right though, because XP2s doesn't have a colour mask for printing onto colour paper. This doesn't matter, they're good proofs, and the negs are therefore ideal for printing onto conventional B/W paper, or scanning.

Also, although I haven't got my neg scanner going yet, I'm told ICE works on XP2s and it doesn't on Acros 100. -- Has anyone any experience on this point ?

Regards, John C, Birmingham U.K.

Tim

08-18-2005, 00:57

Man, at least you guys get a choice. Down here it's damn near impossible now to find a lab that will process traditional b&w. I'm sure there are some, but who knows where they are. I think there's one or two in Melbourne that do it (only 1,000 km away....)
Which means, of course, that if you want to work in b&w you either use the C-41 films or you do it yourself. Encourages you, so to speak :)
Anyway, I second and third what others have said - Neopan is a GREAT film, my personal recipe is stock ID-11 for ? I think ? 6 1/2 mins at 20 deg C. omes out very nice indeed.....

Tim

08-18-2005, 00:59

Also, although I haven't got my neg scanner going yet, I'm told ICE works on XP2s and it doesn't on Acros 100. -- Has anyone any experience on this point ?

Regards, John C, Birmingham U.K.

Yeh, ICE she no work on any traditional b&w neg. It works just fine on chromogeneic (c-41) films, which of course all the "new" b&w's are.

I did read a long explanation somewhere of just how and why it works like this, but of course now I can't find it, or remember the details - except that it made perfect sense at the time! :D

darkkavenger

08-18-2005, 01:32

Here is what my lab developed with Neopan 100 ACROS. I find the quality outstanding! I've no idea of what kind of chemical they used, alas.

http://www.deviantart.com/view/21675520/
http://www.deviantart.com/view/21825927/

torhan

08-18-2005, 01:42

I'm not a specialist on automated B/W developing but I don't think any commersial lab use Rodinal.

Take a look at the negs. Can you see details in the thin parts (shadows)? If you do then you can always make another copy thats not totaly black in shadows.

The blown out highlight is a matter of using a lower contrast paper to get details there. The lab should have used less time in developer but that's too late now.

By developing your own B/W film you can make better negs and then scan the negs and adjust contrast digitally. The result is going to be ways better than standard lab results.

P C Headland

08-18-2005, 02:56

I processed Acros 100 (120) in Rodinal 1+100, and the negs came out gorgeous. Huge tonal range, very sharp, and next to no grain. In fact, it was the first roll of B+W I developed myself, and the first roll through the then new-to-me YashicaMat LM.

BTW, the time on the MDC lists a specific agiation scheme for this combination.

Paul

phototone

08-18-2005, 09:31

Tom,
This is a quite good answer I'd say, it confirms my suspect of the wrong dev !
Not doing my own souping I'll try another lab the next time. Tri-X they do very good, but Neopan is simply terrible ,
Your suspect is they use Rodinal , but the APX I gave them was disappointing too related to tonal richness, compared to Tri-X. APX loves Rodinal I presume ?
Would old soup cause a similar effect ?
Thanks !
Bertram

There are labs that use a "Cine" long roll processor and it has a fixed developing time, and if they have it set for Tri-x, or whatever standard they have, it will not be suitable for any other film. Other labs may have various types of semi-automatic, or automatic processors that have programmed-in processing times, and if they do not re-set the time in the developer for your particular film, then the results will be bad.
Firstly, I would try to determine if your specific lab "hand processes" your film in small tanks, where the time can be specific to your particular film, or if they "batch" process b/w in a larger tank, or processing machine with a generic time for all films.
If it is the latter, then find out what b/w film they get the best results with, and then just use that film only with that lab.

Unlike colour negative film which has an absolutely fixed developing time regardless of brand or ISO speed, such is not the case with B/W. You will always get much better results with B/W film if you can process it yourself, or find a professional custom lab that "hand processes" the film in small tanks with the developer of your choice.

For those of you who absolutely "must" use a photofinishing processing service, really your best choice might be one of the Chromogenic b/w films that processes in standard C-41 color negative chemistry, as that is a fixed processing time in a standard chemistry, and most labs can do this quite fine.

phototone

08-18-2005, 09:37

I'm not a specialist on automated B/W developing but I don't think any commersial lab use Rodinal.

Quite right. No automated, commercial lab would even think about using Rodinal. The requirements of a large automated lab are firstly, developer life and cost. Secondly, fine grain. There are large cubes of b/w developer concentrate (to make 25 gallons) available to large photofinishing labs that are similar, but not identical to straight D-76, and that is what most would use in large tanks or processing machines. Results would vary widely in quality between different films. Grain would be similar to straight D-76.

phototone

08-18-2005, 09:38

titrisol

08-18-2005, 09:43

That seems to be a overdelopment problem, either in the negative or in the print stage.
More surely than not the lab is using Xtol, D76, Ilford DD or some similar custom developer and running Neopan [Acros?] 100 through an etra long cycle.

Next time ask them to treat it as TMAX 100 or think in developing yourself.

PS> there is no such thing as a contrasty film, just an overprocessed one ;)

Hi to all,

got yesterday a roll of Neopan 100 back with 13X13cm enlargements, again I am badly disapointed. :mad:

The first two rolls were already surprisingly bad with black shadows and blown out highlights and assuming that this all had been my own fault I did another roll , very carefully exposed this time .
But again the same problem, all very contrasty , many totally closed black shadows TOGETHER with ugly highlight details in these nature shots, tho the sun was not very bright but quite dimmed by some feather clouds.

My Question. Does my lab mess up my Neopan negs with the wrong dev or is this an extreme contrasty film for cloudy weather, and grey skies ? :confused:

I just cannot believe what I see, unfortunately I have no scans available.

Thanks for all input !
Bertram

.

phototone

08-18-2005, 10:20

Just bear in mind that NEOPAN 100 is not ACROS 100. Different films, different developing times. same manufacturer and same ISO.

titrisol

08-18-2005, 11:19

Neopan 100 (SS) and Acros are 2 different films, on eis normal grain the other is t/epitaxial agreed.

P C Headland

08-18-2005, 14:49

Bertram,

I got results very like this the first few times I tried to do my own Acros 100 in Rodinal using suggested times from digital truth, I think. It was a few rolls from a holiday, 35 mm and 120. Mine were shot on a very sunny day, but the contrast was so extreme that I can believe it would have been the same in less bright conditions.

I didn't do further experiments; I didn't want to waste any more film so I stuck the rest in Diafine and they came up so nicely I never went back to the Rodinal.

This isn't really an answer, but it does suggest that your lab needs to rethink its developer choice or times for that film?

Tom

I believe the original poster was using Neopan 100. Fuji Acros 100 is a newer b/w film with the same ISO as Neopan 100.

I should've quoted who I was replying too :rolleyes: - Tom was saying his Acros was too contrasty in Rodinal using the times on the MDC.

I do know there is a difference between the two films, but it is worth pointing it out to avoid confusion.

Paul