fredus Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Hi there, So I was reading that the Ilford 3200 or Kodak TMZ are more like iso 800-1600 film while Neopan 1600 is considered a real iso 1600 film. So which one should I take if I want to use these fast films under low light condition ?? Should I pull Ilford or Kodak or should I use neopan at 1600 ? Thanks for your help in this. It's quite confusing ... Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dean_williams Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 I havn't found Neopan to be a true 1600 speed film either. More on the order of 800-1000. You can definatly shoot it at 1600 and get good results, but shadows will be lacking. I havn't been able to get any better (than about 1000) with Ilford's offering either. After that it looks like a push to me, with little shadow detail and pretty large grain. I have little experience with TMZ, and I don't like it much, and it's also a push at 3200. For my money I'd take the Neopan for decent grain (large, but they all are) or Tri-X at about 1250 in Diafine for a similar result. Actually, I like Tri-X At 800 in D76 better than any of them, but if I need 1600, then the Fuji stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Someone asked the exact same question yesterday; search for it and you'll find a lot of good answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_waller Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 I would have to disagree with that. I have used Neopan 1600 but I rated it at 800 ASA and even that was a little fast. I'd suggest Neopan 1600 should be exposed at 640 ASA. I would recommend that you use Ilford Delta and rate it at 1600 ASA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Doesn't that depend on the development? I have here a sheet for agfa's refinal (what my lab uses) and that says, neopan 400 should be used at 320 speed, while neopan 1600 at 400(!) speed. Finally i've found out why my neopan1600 "underrated" at 1000 looks like sh!t. I'm so proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 My experience is, Delta 3200 @ 3200 works best in hard light (street light, say), Neopan 1600 @ 1250 works better in softer light, in terms of contrast and tonality. Both I develop in Ilfotec DDX at 20C using whatever times are on the leaflet for their default speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmarkpainter Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 I have tried Neopan 1600 and Delta 3200 shot @ 1250 and developed in Xtol and DDX. Neopan gives a more 'solid' Negative that is comforting to me.... Delta 3200 prints a lot better than the Neg looks... jmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Hah, watch me blatantly ignore my own advice and shoot Neopan @ 3200!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now