Neopan 1600 problems: advice

Little Prince · 09-24-2005

As I'd mentioned before I developed my first roll of Neopan 1600 and it was disastrous. I'm not sure of development method for this film or in fact anything at all about it.

Since most people seemed to indicate that the true speed of the film (in a standard developer) was less than 1600, I arbitrarily shot by rating at 1000. Then for some reason while developing I followed times for 1600 speed. Also, I just did what was indicated in the box.

Some pics seem ok. I mean, they are grainy and all but that is probably expected. Too contrasty also, but the conditions might have been such. Some pics are just a wash of dull grey with huge grain. They don't seem to have developed properly at all. Then there are one or two with some portion of the negative (seemingly) underdeveloped and some portion ok. Can anyone clue me in on what's going on?

Here are some examples of the above three conditions:

back alley · 09-24-2005

i wonder if parts of the film were touching in the tank?

joe

Little Prince · 09-24-2005

I remember someone else asking the same thing. Now how can I tell something like that? Might this have something to do with being a 36 frame roll? More film perhaps? I always use 24 exp. rolls only if I have a choice and I've never had such a problem with any of those before.

back alley · 09-24-2005

when taking the film off the reel, i watch the film unroll. that's where i would normally catch that particular screw up. i have done it a few times in the past, mostly when tired or in a hurry.

joe

Doug · 09-24-2005

That looks rather like a light leak, except for the strange streaks associated with the sprocket holes. My experience with film touching film on the reel is relatively sharp edged, and a total white-out. The problem is that some areas of the print are lighter than they should be. Therefore representing excess density in the neg. So rather than a LACK of development, they'd seem to represent areas of overdevelopment, perhaps from very vigorous agitation? This fits with the extra contrast and grain, and also with the sprocket hole streaks. Something strange about the fluid flow in that tank! Odd...

Roman · 09-25-2005

Well, to me the second and third example pics look like they show light-leaks.
Also, can you tell us more about your development method (what tank, chemistry, inversion cycle,...)?

Roman

RObert Budding · 09-25-2005

I palyed around with Neopan 1600 for several months. I shot film tests and, for me, found that EI 1000 provided nice shadow detail. I also found that my normal development was 14min in D76 1:3. The only problem was the grain at the high dilution. Any print over 4x6 just sort of fell apart. So, I found that I can't develop this film with the same dilution I use for HP5.

Next I tried stock d76 using the film box times. My negatives were really dense with high contrast, but the prints were better. I even produced some acceptable 8x10 prints (quite grainy).

I then abandoned Neopan 1600 because it's only available in 135. Now I'm just starting to use Delta 3200. I'll put some real effort into learning how to use this film because I can buy it in 120.

Good luck.
Robert

Kin Lau · 09-25-2005

Doesn't look like a light leak to me, but improper fixing. Especially #2 & #3.

If you're going to shoot Neopan 1600 outdoors in contrasty light like beach, then rate it at 1600 for those shots instead, but 1000 for the rest of the roll.

peter_n · 09-25-2005

I rate it at 1250 for everything and get it developed in a lab in XTOL and it seems to be fine.

Little Prince · 09-25-2005

Useful responses here. Got some questions. But I'll return later, think about it and ask.

Little Prince · 09-26-2005

Ok, thought a little about this and revisiting. Been in a major time crunch these past few days.

As Roman suggested, here is the development method I used:

Develop in D76 1+1 (temp might have been 74 deg) for around 6 min 45 sec. Not sure if I remember exactly. Agitated for first 60 sec and then 5 sec per minute. This is what the Neopan film box says to do. Regular small tank with the usual plastic self-loading kind of reel.

Stop bath for 30 sec - agitation.

Fix for 4 min 30 sec - agitated first 15 sec then 15 sec every minute.

Perma wash - 2 minutes.

Water rinse - 10 minutes.

Photoflo/ wetting agent - 30 sec.

Ok, this is pretty much my normal procedure (with D76). The first 60 seconds of inversions during development seemed excessive to me, but since I hadn't done this before I just followed directions.
Kin (and others), if this is improper fixing, what do you guys use? I don't know any specific fixing method for different films. I just use the same for all.

So Doug (and others), what are these sprocket hole streaks? What do they have to do with overdevelopment?

Kin, I'm a little confused by your rating recommendation. Would you say that the film is true 1000 (in D76), meaning yields manageable contrast etc when shot and developed for that rating, and that I ought to underexpose in very contrasty situations? Or is it the otherway round? That is, I overexpose ordinarily and 1600 is the rating to develop for?

General question after suffering a lot of confusion with this roll: Since I shot it rating at 1000, I should have developed for a time consistent with that rating right? Then I could have expected appropriate contrast (assuming the true speed is not 1600). By not doing so, I have merely overexposed. All this of course assuming everything else was done right (which it wasn't).

Finally, as for light leaks, if there are any would they not affect all shots (more shots)? The previous roll was a 100 speed chrome that suffered NO ill effects at all.

Huh, that was a long reply. If you read all that, you sure have patience

.

kaiyen · 09-26-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Prince

Regular small tank with the usual plastic self-loading kind of reel.

Hm. The plastic reels are pretty hard to misload in terms of the film touching. I doubt this is the issue. That leaves light leak and underfixing.

Quote:

Fix for 4 min 30 sec - agitated first 15 sec then 15 sec every minute.
Kin (and others), if this is improper fixing, what do you guys use? I don't know any specific fixing method for different films. I just use the same for all.

How fresh is your fixer? if it's relatively fresh, 4:30 should be enough. Some recommend longer fixing times for new emulsions like the TMax, Delta, and Neopan lines. However, we're still talking in the same ballpark - 4-6 minutes, in my opinion.

So, other than exhaustion, your fixer should be fine. Let us konw how old your fixer is.

Quote:

So Doug (and others), what are these sprocket hole streaks? What do they have to do with overdevelopment?

They have to do with overagitation. At least, I think that's it. I actually forget whether those are surge marks, which mean overagitation, or bromide drag, which is underagitation. That's not very helpful, I know.

I have some comments and answers about the EI and development time but am not clear-headed enough right now to be sensible.

I would say that your first example is probably a bit overdeveloped - it looks like it's from a pretty dense negative. The other two are some entirely differnt problem. I think it looks a lot like a light leak, too. Is it possible you opened the back up by accident at one point? Did you run it through some powerful radiation (I'm kind of reaching now).

that's my equally long reply.
allan

Little Prince · 09-26-2005

Quite sure I didn't open the back anytime, but who knows maybe it happened accidentaly. Actually, on the CLE I feel it's difficult to open by mistake.

Thinking about it, the film did run through airport x-rays! The carry-on type (not check-in) though. Once when it ran under the x-ray it was a half exposed roll. Hmm..

The fixer may be old I don't know. It's not my own setup. I use a school darkroom facility. Who know how long the fixer has been lying around. I doubt that it would be very old though becaus quite a few people use the same facility and unless everyone's been saving the fixer everytime it should be getting fresh updates.

I'll look up the two agitation phenomena you mentioned.

Kin Lau · 09-26-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Prince

Kin (and others), if this is improper fixing, what do you guys use? I don't know any specific fixing method for different films. I just use the same for all.

Kin, I'm a little confused by your rating recommendation. Would you say that the film is true 1000 (in D76), meaning yields manageable contrast etc when shot and developed for that rating, and that I ought to underexpose in very contrasty situations? Or is it the otherway round? That is, I overexpose ordinarily and 1600 is the rating to develop for?

Your method sounds fine. Just looking at the neg's, the way the image is somewhat developed but very dark and the "flow" around the sprockets reminds me of what happens when film is not properly fixed, such as if it was touching or something. Is that portion of the negative greyish like the rest of the neg or is it a different colour? If it's a different colour, then just fix it again and wash.

Underexposure usually causes a negative to have less contrast. By under exposing NP1600 in high contrast scenes such as the sunny beach, you hope to flatten it out a bit.

Doug · 09-26-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Prince

The fixer may be old I don't know. It's not my own setup. I use a school darkroom facility. Who know how long the fixer has been lying around. I doubt that it would be very old though becaus quite a few people use the same facility and unless everyone's been saving the fixer everytime it should be getting fresh updates.

This actually opens up a whole new set of possibilties for problems! There have been instances when a student (through distraction or confusion) returns fixer to the developer supply or vice versa. In a school lab the possibilities for contamination are endless... I'd suggest using your own solutions and containers.

Oh, on the sprocket hole streaks... This may be caused by overly vigorous agitation, causing the developer to flow rapidly through the holes, for a higher fluid flow velocity there and stronger developing action. They'll often streak from a hole across the film because that's the direction of the flow due to the reel's proximity to the bottom or top of the tank.

kaiyen · 09-26-2005

Is the film milky-looking at all? If so, you should first try refixing in fresh fixer. I'm sure someone at your school can point to a bottle and verify that it's fresh (or just break out a new bottle in the first place).

If that doesn't solve it, then it has to be a light leak, or it could be the x-ray. Films faster than 800 are more sensitive than those slower, but that's really a recommendation. I've never actually seen film fogged by airport check-in xrays.

Modifying your agitation regime is another issue - you want enough movement to get the developer moving around in the tank, but not so much that it's really surging through sprockets at high velocity.

allan

titrisol · 09-27-2005

It seems like underfixing to me, do those dark stripes in the frames look "milky" or doe htey have some color?

If you already cut the film inmerse one of the problem strips in fixer (in a tray or cup and check to see if the milkiness/unevenness goes away)

P C Headland · 09-27-2005

I tested Neopan 1600 the other week, purely out of curiousity. It was the first roll of 35mm I've developed (I've stuck to 120 so far), and the first test of a standard lens for my Minolta (SLR).

I shot it at 1600, as there is no DX override on this camera, and developed it in Rodinal 1+50 for 8.5 minutes (since I don't want to start experimenting with other developers, yet...). I agitated for 15s each minute for first three minutes (5 inversions) then one inversion each minute.

I was expecting grain the size of footballs and next to no shadow detail. The results though were pleasantly surprising. I'd definitely use this combo again. I may even try Rodinal at 1+100, but I only have a single reel 35mm tank, so I may be pushing things a bit (no pun intended). I just wish they'd make this in 120 size!

Examples:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3736007

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3735993

This one I deliberately underexposed a stop or two:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3736002

Paul

kaiyen · 09-27-2005

Paul,
What kind of lighting were you dealing with in those photos? Alternatively, what shutter/aperture did you use (roughly)?

allan

Little Prince · 09-27-2005

I'll have to check up on the negatives to see if they're milky. I know to check for this though and I don't recall such a thing when I unloaded the film off the reel. If anyone has used this film+developer combo, can you please indicate your inversion cycles? I have a strong feeling (despite what the box says) I overagitated.

kaiyen · 09-27-2005

Anand,
Keep in mind that you might not have agitated too _often_ but perhaps too violently. If you just agitated too often, the contrast would be up (which it is, of course, but that's a different issue and solution). If you agitate too violently, the dev will surge through the sprocket holes.

allan

P C Headland · 09-27-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaiyen

Paul,
What kind of lighting were you dealing with in those photos? Alternatively, what shutter/aperture did you use (roughly)?

allan

The shots were taken in the carport late in the day, with heavy cloud cover.

I can't remember exactly, but I think the exposure indications were around 1/60 @ f4, except for the bottle shot was a couple of stops slower. I was testing the lens wide open, so they would have been shot at f2.8 or f1.7.

Most of the rest of the roll was of our 4 month old, taken indoors using natural light. I shot those arounf 1/250s @f 2.8 since it was quite bright outside.

Paul

Silva Lining · 09-27-2005

Hi Anand,

Reading through the responses to your problem I am reminded of once trying to develop some 9x12 sheet film in a rollfilm tank. Parts of the the film touched the side of the tank and remained underdeveloped. With the film I used, the effect was a milky - greenish patch, with the rest of the sheet deeloping as expected. Personally I think this looks most likely here, although another possible cause might be a light leak in your changing bag or even in your developing tank.

Silva

Jordan W. · 09-27-2005

In one of your earlier posts you made a comment to the effect that you thought the temperature was 74F. You probably know this, but B&W development times are temperature-sensitive and even a 2F difference in temperature can require a 20% change in developing time, in some situations. You need to be sure you have an accurate temperature and use the correct time for it (or extrapolate).

A second comment I have is that it's easy to overexpose fast film at the beach. I don't know what camera you used, but consider that on a sunny day the "Sunny f/16" principle applies -- the correct exposure will probably be f/16 at 1/1000th for a film rated at EI 1000. Can your camera handle exposures this short?

Thirdly, your streaks look like fogging to me. Did you load or unload this film in bright light? Are you sure there are no leaks in your camera back or in your developing tank?

Finally -- to PC Headland -- those sample pictures are incredible. Are these scanned from prints or negs? I wouldn't have thought it possible to get those kinds of results with Neopan 1600 in Rodinal. I've got a 100-ft roll of Neopan 1600 on the way and will try out this combination.

Jordan W. · 09-27-2005

Something else I would recommend -- as another poster suggested -- is using your own developer and fix. Consider buying your own stash of Kodak HC-110 -- it's a liquid-concentrate that can be diluted just before use and used one-shot. It works well with pretty much everything. More info at http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ Send me a note if you want more info.