Neopan 400 @ 3200 in rodinal?

Hello.

Ive got 6X120 rolls I shot in a 6x9 folder at 3200.

Im wondering if I could get away with using Rodinal as I have pleanty on hand, I know neopan 400 can be developed

at 1600 with this developer

Has anyone done this or should I stick with something more conventional ie: d-76, HC 110 or Microphen?

I realy want to try the Rodinal but would love to hear from someone who has done this

Cheers

Tim

<p>I'd use Microphen. Rodinal is excellent within its limits, but it's not good for pushing unless you want lots of grain and chalk-and-soot contrast (which is okay by me for some stuff).</p>

<p>I haven't used Neopan 400, let alone pushed it, but the data on the Massive Dev Chart sounds about right: 16 minutes in Microphen stock solution for 3200. I usually run 15-20 minutes when pushing TMY up to 3200, and up to <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=318832">half an hour at 1+1 up to 6400</a>. The latter is pretty much a salvage effort but can be done if needed.</p>

<p>If you want to try Rodinal and don't mind sacrificing a roll to the voodoo gods, try it at 1+200 or 1+300 for two hours in stand development. Agitate normally for one minute, then let it sit for a couple of hours. At the other extreme, 15 minutes at 1+25 or 1+50 with slow but continuous agitation (one turn every few seconds) might produce some interesting results - verrry contrasty, but possibly interesting, depending on the exposure conditions.</p>

Ok thats great advice.

I have taken most of the shots at night around the bars at Glastonbury fest, real dark but quiet a lot of fire and festoon lighting, im was thinking an EV of 2-3

I dont mind over developing the highlights. As a rule of thumb all of these shots were taken at f4.5 1/100

There are some daytime shots that I exposed at f32 1/400 the meter told me i was over a step.

Does this help? Im thinking all of my shots are almost stop over which could put the actual exposure closer 2000-3000.

I gues the film will be developed to exhaustion.

Stand developing is looking good. is it a normal rinse and fix afterwards?

<p>Tim,</p>

<p>Please post some of those pictures once you get them processed. I was in Glastonbury for the "real" turn of the millennium (Dec 31, 2000) and fell in love with the place. Haven't been able to return since. Thanks ... and good luck! I haven't shot Neopan 400 for awhile but last time I did, I was pleased (but I shot it at box speed).</p>

I will be posting several on my Flickr Page "www.flickr.com/people/notreallytim" when they are all developed.

Cheers

<p>Xtol does a stunning job @ 3200. I use a motor base, but I use 1:3 @ 20 mins. Try 25 by hand.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/4762139330_c95ee2029a_z_d.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="414" /></p>

<p>Just tons of detail in this 35mm shot.</p>

<p>Yes, it is Neopan 400 @ 3200. The trick is to dilute and use longer development times to bring out the details. That was taken with my F-601 and a Tamron 28-200. </p>

<p>I stumbled on to this combination when I wanted some high iso for street photography. Recently I shoot @3200 in daylight on my kiev4a (Contax clone) which allows me to use F22 which gives me such a large depth of field at infinity that I don't have to focus.</p>

That's a great combo. I'll have to get me some Xtol, I've been looking at a higher-speed developer to use next to Rodinal (for which I shoot at 320)

Roughly how much agitation would expect to work best for hand processing, or would stand processing work best?

<p>I was a stand developer addict until I got my motor base. That's when I got around to using XTol. It works differently than Rodinal in that it gets fine grain by dissolving some of the edges. That's probably why there is not too much stand development with this stuff.</p>

<p>I suspect that 30s should do fine for this. Back it off to 1m if it gets too contrasty, as Neopan has nice blacks all by itself. XTol dev times tend to be %20 less for rotary processing which is why I suggest at least 25 mins for developing @ 1:3. I have never used XTol before I got my motor base, such I have only guesses for you. That is what test strips are for... :)</p>

<p>" That is what test strips are for... :)"<br>

Yes. If you want to use Rodinal you'll want to test. I suggest stand processing (no agitation after first minute), then one or two inversions (not agitation) part way through (only to even-out development). I'd try 1 hour and 2 hours. You may not notice the grain with 120 film, and you may like grain anyway.</p>

Are you thinking 1:100 mix or 1:200,

How big a differance between one hour and two will I get. To act as a guideline?

Ive never tried this "black art" developing process and yes a test roll is going to be in order.

<p>Don't sweat the small stuff too much with stand processing, especially in very dilute Rodinal and pushed film. It's voodoo, not science. Especially with pushed film. You won't get true shadow detail, that's not possible. If you do, the film wasn't really underexposed.</p>

<p>The end results depend on a lot of variables that often aren't accounted for in anecdotes:</p>

<ul>

<li>Subject value range. If the entire subject would fit neatly into Zone IV-VI, results won't inform the likely results for a subject with a larger range.</li>

<li>Available light. My results with TMY pushed to 3200 under a single 60 watt bulb indoors look completely different from TMY pushed to 3200 in bright daylight. I can't use one situation to make assumptions about the other. (Ilford discusses this succinctly in one of their PDFs - might be one specifically about pushing film.)</li>

<li>Metering biases. We all do it, we just tend to deny it. Especially when using TTL or other camera-supplied meters, including those old near-the-lens rangefinder and TLR meters. We learn to fudge based on experience and personal biases. I've read accounts where someone will claim to have pushed film-X to zippitythousand or pulled it to a fraction of the box speed, but the exposure data they give for the likely EV scenario indicates they were often way off in their estimations. To rule out personal metering biases we'd need to settle on standard incident metering, which isn't always practical.</li>

</ul>

<p>With candid low light photos my own personal bias is determined by how slow I can handhold a camera reliably, and subject motion. I can't handhold steadily below 1/30th, and some days not below 1/125th. In dim light I'll tend to shoot 400 film at around 1/30th-1/60th at f/1.4-f/2.8, with lots of guesstimating about the light. It may vary from EV 4-8. I'm not really concerned about it, as long as the shots aren't blurry. I'll handle the variations in printing or scanning. And if the actual EV dips down closer to 0, I'm outta luck no matter what I claim I'm pushing the film to. Not ideal, obviously, but if I get the shot I'm satisfied.</p>

<p>Anyway, give it a try if you don't mind risking a roll or three. I've been satisfied with stand souping in very dilute Rodinal for normally exposed Tri-X, which includes guesstimating for reciprocity characteristics in long nighttime exposures. But I'm not expecting or even wanting "correct" results, just something that appeals to my personal aesthetics. I like the salt and pepper grain in nighttime skies produced by this technique.</p>

<p>Stop the experimenting, here is how it would look.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4766595648_c2e1b9bed6_z_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I came back from this trip with over 20 rolls shot and did the first in rodinal 1:100 / semi-stand 3hrs (adj every 30 mins) for 3200 ei. Overall it was not bad and was what I expected. When you look at the skin, it's hard to tell what is dirt and what is grain clumps. That's why I did the rest in xtol.</p>

<p>Sorry, I should have posted this one sooner.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Stop the experimenting</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't believe I typed that.... Sorry... too much fixer fumes...;)</p>

<p><em>"Are you thinking 1:100 mix or 1:200, How big a differance between one hour and two will I get. To act as a guideline? " </em> ... Tim D</p>

<p>Tim, it's definitely "black art," like all real photography, so it's hard to go wrong. Difference between 1 hr and 2 hrs may depend mostly on subject matter and lighting situation. Try both 100 and 200 plus-one. If your background is even you may notice a wedged development, half stop difference or more top to bottom due to accumulating development by-products (don't worry about it). If your background isn't importantly even, don't worry about it.</p>

<p>Anybody who applies theory and densitometry to this stuff should of course be ignored. Unless your parents were excessively agitated about grain you'll have fun with stand development. </p>

<p> </p>

Cheers for the great advice.

I developed those rolls to day and found out a classic lesson; every day shot was pefect and I really like the look. The night stuff was a failure I think a was still a couple of stops under.

The first roll I processed at 1+200 for two hours, all of the day shots were great, night stuff was invisible except for lights.

The second roll I decided to go for 1+50 for 30 mins, same again as above

The third roll I processed at 1+25 for 30 mins, improvement with the night shots but still two stops under.

As it was looking like a case of massive under exposure I took a gamble and went 1+25 for a hour on the last two rolls! Some of the night stuff came out ok and the day shots have some really massive contrast, I dont mind it though.