Fuji B&W films (Neopan 100 Acros, Neopan 400 and Neopan 1600)

[boris_brecelj]

Hi,

 

I have just acquired the above mentioned films (in 135 format) for the

first time and I would like to hear your experience regarding film -

developer combos.

 

I need some starting points from those that have used these films.

What results can one expect with a given developer? Which developer do

you prefer for a certain film?

 

Thanks, boris

[aki_dick]

Neopan 400 with Rodinal was and still is my new-to-developing combo (well, semi-new..., its half a year now and dozens of rolls...)<br>Some observations in no particular order:<p>Usually I rate the film at 250 and use a dilution of either 1+25 or 1+50, depending on astral moods, schizophrenic onsets and other uncomprehensible influences. (Times according to the Massive Dev Chart)<p>With 35 mm this gives a very accentuated, extreme sharp grain. Beautiful for portraits, though not shure yet if I really like it for every other purpose.<p>With 1+25 this grain seems more well-defined than with 1+50.<p>1+50 seems to give better separation of midtones.<p>I haven't tested the true speed of the film but I did not notice that much difference between ASA 400 and 250 when done in Rodinal 1+25.<p>Hope this helps.

[eric merrill]

<i>I need some starting points from those that have used these films. What results can one expect with a given developer? Which developer do you prefer for a certain film?</i>

 

<p>

 

I'd start at this <a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html">developing chart</a>.

 

<p>

 

For all practical purposes, these three are the only films I use. I develop Acros 100 and Neopan 1600 together. Both for 12 mins in Xtol 1:3 at 70 F. Neopan 400 gets 14.5. All exposed at their indicated ASA.

[hans_beckert]

I have used the 400 and 1600, and they do very well in any standard developer, preferably metol-based. I have found that Acutol works quite well with them.

[beau 1664876222]

Boris,

 

I have had bad luck with 400 and 1600, but I LOVE Acros, exposed at 64, developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 10 minutes at 68F. Rodinal is PERFECT for this film.<div></div>

[hans_beckert]

Beau * , jan 30, 2004; 11:11 a.m.

"I have had bad luck with 400 and 1600, but I LOVE Acros, exposed at 64, developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 10 minutes at 68F. Rodinal is PERFECT for this film."

 

How are you developing them? I have had wonderful results so far.

[beau 1664876222]

Hans,

 

For me the highlights blow out too easily on Neopan 400 and I lose the shadows too easily with Neopan 1600. I've tried Rodinal, xtol, and D-76. Maybe I haven't tried hard enough, though -- I'm very happy with Tri-x as my 200 to 1600 film.

[hans_beckert]

Beau * , jan 30, 2004; 12:35 p.m.

Hans,

 

"For me the highlights blow out too easily on Neopan 400 and I lose the shadows too easily with Neopan 1600."

 

The 1600 is a strange beast. It develops very quickly. I have had good results with Acutol 1+14 at 7.5 minutes, using a condenser enlarger. Speed is about 800-1000, definitely faster than Tri-X. No doubt at all.

 

"I've tried Rodinal, xtol, and D-76. Maybe I haven't tried hard enough, though -- I'm very happy with Tri-x as my 200 to 1600 film."

 

No doubt Tri-X is good, but the Neopan 1600 is faster and is almost indistinguishable from Tri-X. HP5 is finer-grained, but the 1600 Neopan is so fine-grained it seems hardly necessary to use HP5 unless one is making 16x20's.

[goemon]

I shoot Acros in medium format exclusively, and like it a bunch. I used to use T-Max

Developer or D76, nowadays I use XTOL; I don't notice a huge difference at the sizes I

print at. I've recently standardized on Neopan 400 for my standard 400 speed film;

it'll be done in XTOL as well.

 

In my experience Neopan 1600 is the most sensitive to developer choice; I noticed

more shadow detail in T-Max at 1600 than I did at XTOL 1:1 at 1600. Perhaps I'll try

XTOL 1:3 later.

 

I use the Massive Dev Chart at http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html for times.

[r.m.]

I've done ok with Neopan 400 & 1600 in DD-X.<div></div>

[robert_grasing]

Neopan 1600 has a rather unusual curve shape. A very short toe, a

dramatic rise until the midtones and an equally dramatic rolloff of

the highlights. In other words, very contrasty shadows with somewhat

flat highlights. If you bracket, you'll notice little change in the

highlights, but a very noticeable difference in the shadows. Fuji's

own published charts show an almost Tri-X Pan kind of curve, that is,

a slight emphasis on shadow contrast, with a very gentle rolloff.

However, Shashin Kogyo (Photographic Industry) magazine has published

tests on this film since it first appeared in the 80's. The last set

I have is from September 1998 and they show the unusual

characteristic curve as I described above. In other words, be careful

with your shadow exposure but don't worry too much about the

highlights.

 

Fuji's own suggested developing times for this film at EI1600 are for

a gamma of 0.81!, which is of course very high. For a more typical

gamma of 0.50, the EI drops to 400.

[hans_beckert]

Robert:

 

About the curve: that is exactly what I have found. It reminds me of Tri-X very much. only faster.

 

About the speed: there is no question it is faster (about 1 stop) than HP5 or Tri-X when developed to a similar contrast. I have conducted tests using several rolls of each in several developers, and the Neopan always has the same shadow detail at half the exposure.

[robert_grasing]

Hans:

I'd say Neopan1600 has a more exaggerated tonal distribution than

Tri-X Pan (the old stuff, I haven't used the revised(?) version).

It's as if you printed Tri-X with a high contrast filter for the

shadows, and a low contrast filter for the highlights. Of course,

sometimes this is just what you want, but I generally prefer the more

understated Tri-X (or Neopan400, which seems to have virtually the

same tonal distribution, along with finer grain).

 

Boris:

I don't think you should expect to get the kind of high EIs Fuji has

suggested for this film, ie, 1600 or 3200. With D-76 or ID11, diluted

1+1, my experience is an EI of about 400 or 500 for a condenser

enlarger, 500 or 650 for a diffusion type. Think of it as Neopan800,

rather than 1600.

[hans_beckert]

Robert Grasing , feb 01, 2004; 08:18 p.m.

"Hans: I'd say Neopan1600 has a more exaggerated tonal distribution than Tri-X Pan (the old stuff, I haven't used the revised(?) version). It's as if you printed Tri-X with a high contrast filter for the shadows, and a low contrast filter for the highlights."

 

"Of course, sometimes this is just what you want, but I generally prefer the more understated Tri-X (or Neopan400, which seems to have virtually the same tonal distribution, along with finer grain)."

 

In my tests, it seems to resemble Tri-X very much, though I have not compared them side-by-side. The point is, that among the three very fast films, this one is the finest-grained. It is also about EI 800 in my tests, which makes it a valuable material.

[johnmarkpainter]

Neopan 1600 is great when shot at 800-1250 and developed in Xtol. Has a nice glow

to it.

 

jmp

[hans_beckert]

John: I think the minimum on this film is about EI 500, with a fine-grain developer. With Acutol, I get about EI 800-1000.

[nina_sagan]

Hans, when you say that, do you mean rate the film as ISO 800 on camera and develop as 1600? Or, shoot as 1600 and develop as 800? Sorry if my question is too stupid...

[hans_beckert]

Nina Sagan , feb 09, 2004; 04:00 p.m.

"Hans, when you say that, do you mean rate the film as ISO 800 on camera and develop as 1600? Or, shoot as 1600 and develop as 800? Sorry if my question is too stupid..."

 

I am not sure that I follow you. The TRUE speed of this film is about 800 with standard developers, not 1600, when you develop it to normal contrast. I have worked out that Acutol 1+14 for 7.5 minutes gives wonderful negatives that print with very fine grain and excellent sharpness.

 

That means I set my meter to '800' and develop in Acutol 1+14 for 7.5 minutes @ 20C/68F, and when I do, I get perfect densities for prints on Ilford Multigrade IV paper with a grade 2 1/2 or 3 filter, using a condenser enlarger.

 

See attached image.

 

 

HB

[nina_sagan]

Hans,

 

Thank you very much for your reply. It is very clear to me now and I will follow your recipe (as I have both Fuji 1600 and Acutol... I have never thought of using Acutol for such high speed film, so this is quite exciting challenge).

 

And the attached image is great, the last time I used 1600 found it too contrasty and grainy, but your photo is not.

 

Thanx!!

[hans_beckert]

Nina:

 

Be sure to follow these instructions:

 

1. Get a good accurate thermometer, and check it against another frequently.

 

2. Agitation: I recommend one agitation cycle per minute, which consists of two inversions, with a twisting action. This keeps the contrast from building up. Remember, two inversions together, once a minute.

 

3. Be sure to dilute 1 + 14, NOT 1 + 9.

 

4. The Neopan 1600 is very fine grain if you develop it for 7.5 minutes in Acutol @ 20C/68F. I use the same time for HP5 Plus, and perhaps the Neopan 400 will also take the same time. I have not tried that yet.

 

HB

[discpad]

Hans,

 

Was the photo above shot with MF -sized film?

[hans_beckert]

Dan:

 

Neopan 1600, 35mm film, Acutol developer, condenser enlarger, Leica lenses.