Neopan 1600 Question

[echang24]

I am a newbie to developing my own black and white film so pardon the "stupid

questions."

 

I shot a roll of Neopan 1600 (EI at 1600) and developed it in DD-X (68F, 5

minutes (which is what Ilford recommends).

 

The negatives I have are fairly thin and I needed to use 4 or 4.5 contrast

filters to get the prints I wanted out of them.

 

I used to have my 3200 speed film (Delta 3200) developed by a lab with similar

results.

 

My questions are:

 

1. What are recommended soups for Neopan 1600 for minimal grain and good

contrast ouput?

2. I want to increase the development times but don't know exactly where to

start. Any recommendations?

3. What temperature do you recommend developing Neopan 1600 in?

4. Is it common to get thinner negatives when developing pushed film? Is is

normal to use contrast filters 4 through 5 in these cases?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Eric

[chris_waller]

If you are having to print at grades 4/4.5 then that indicates under-development. If you intend to continue with DD-X then I'd suggest an increase in the development time to about 7 minutes.

 

I don't know DD-X, it's not a developer I use, but I don't know of any reason why it shouldn't work with Neopan 1600. Strictly speaking, you are not pushing the film - it is already a fast film and you are developing as per the manufacturer's instructions. It should give a full range of tones at rated speed. So, I recommend shooting a second roll and giving it 7 minutes, then look at the results.

[john_stockdale2]

Like all very high speed b+w films, Neopan1600 at its advertised speed is over rated. It's really a stop slower than 1600, and if you use a strict definition of speed based on shadaow detail, it's more like EI=640. Many users have reported thin results at 1600. As Chris has suggested , a little more development will help the lack of contrast, but a little more exposure will improve the thinness too. If you're using this in a high contrast situation, which many low light situations are, then your metering needs to be done with an appreciation of the resulting emptiness of shadows that usually result.

 

You have said "...to get the prints I wanted out of them." If you have the prints you wanted, well done! If you'd like them to be a bit better or easier to print, then either more development or more exposure are needed.

 

Base the exposure or development of your next test roll on whether you have close-to-adequate shadow detail in your current prints. Using high contrast paper/filter is a normal part of dealing with the suboptimal negatives that result from pushing. Neopan 1600 at EI=1600 is pushing. I would expect DDX to be a good developer for this film. I have used Microphen with it which by most accounts is quite similar, if a little grainier. I exposed it at 800.

[larrydressler]

Try Rodinal 1-50 at 8 minutes... it looks prety good....

 

My times for Ilford DD-X are 9 minutes ..... give or take 1/2 a minute at that speed. and keep it around 20c

 

Larry

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

Eric: before taking any suggestions on pushing, read this paper:

 

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/push%20processing.pdf

 

As usual, since you are new, if you do accept suggestions on photo.net, accept them from people who know what they're doing. There are too many people who give bad advice, especially people who say they haven't done it, but it should/shouldn't work, etc. Take all advice with a grain of salt.

 

After you read and understand that paper, test for your light and equipment (quite a bit). Pushing well is not easy. Don't give up.

 

DD-X and Microphen and Diafine should work well once you figure out correct times. I've used Microphen and Diafine successfully with this and other films. When you test don't be afraid to overdevelop the living crap out of this film in a compensating developer such as Microphen/DD-X/Diafine. Here's a picture from Neopan 1600 I developed yesterday in Diafine bath A (without soaking it in the Bath B). Agitated for the first couple of minutes, then let stand for an hour or so. EI ~1250. A little overdeveloped for this EI for the light on the street, I think 40 minutes would do.

 

Plenty of density and detail even in the blacks.<div></div>

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

Another one from that roll, EI around 1250:<div></div>

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

In the daytime, you can push Neopan 400 to 1250 with ease. On foggy, overcast days it will only help the tone and contrast. This one is admittedly overdeveloped a bit in Diafine "Bath A" stand, but I still like the look.<div></div>

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

Another 400 to 1250.<div></div>

[rich_ullsmith1]

How are you monitoring your temperature? A four or five degree swing either way, coupled with more or less agitation, you will get divergent results.

 

As mentioned above, this film at EI 1600 is already pushed, so lack of contrast should not be a problem. By the way, the few times I've gone to Ilford guidance for times with non-Ilford films, I have had problems. I don't mean anything by this, just an observation. With digitaltruth massive chart, it's always gotten me very close very fast.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

"How are you monitoring your temperature? "

 

Same way as with other developers - with a thermometer. 20 - 22 Celsius is fine.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

"As mentioned above, this film at EI 1600 is already pushed, so lack of contrast should not be a problem."

 

That's funny. I develop to high contrast index often, and I always end up with some very low contrast shots. Development being equal, everything depends on light and careful or lucky exposure in pushing. Very low contrast weak light will still give you a thin, unprintable negative. Speaking from experience, or theory, Rich? Where may we see your work?

[echang24]

Dan -

 

I like your prints. May I ask what grade of contrast filters you used to print your pictures?

 

Thanks,

 

Eric

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

Those are negative scans. I haven't printed those yet, but grade 2-3 seems about right.

[rich_ullsmith1]

Sorry, Dan, I was not putting that question to you. And I do hope to show some images soon, as I have just bought a scanner and am in the process of learning to use it.

 

The experience I speak of is based on only several hundred rolls of film shot and processed, as opposed to the several thousand that you have. I don't claim to be an expert. I do see what I see.

[rich_ullsmith1]

Forgot, if you want to see my prints, I have twenty or so on display, 1101 North Forest, Suite 6, Bellingham Washington. Mostly liths, lots of split toning with gold and selenium. If you are in the area, I would be pleased to present them to you.

[Rob F.]

Eric: I've done only two rolls of Neopan 1600 so far. Both were shot at 1600. I processed one in Microphen for 5 min at 68 degrees. It was excessively contrasty and grainy. While Microphen is usually my preferred push developer, I concluded that it's not ideal for Neopan 1600, as the developing time seems too short to get consistent control over contrast.

 

The other roll was in TMax 1:7 (the usual dilution for TMax), for 5.75 minutes at 68 degrees. I haven't printed it yet, but the negs look a bit softer, so I expect them to be easier to print, without such high contrast.

 

This film seem to have a reputation for being contrasty. Sylvia Zawadski pointed out in a magazine article not too long ago, that we ought not describe films as "contrasty" or "flat" because after all, it just depends on the developing time. I got too much contrast, you got not enough--with the same film (different developers). Sounds like these differing results support Sylvia's argument. Yet, I wonder why so many have reported high contrast with this film. Maybe we've simply been overcooking it, given the relatively short development it seems to require. In your case, it could use a little more time, though; and maybe drop the EI a notch.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

"The experience I speak of is based on only several hundred rolls of film shot and processed, as opposed to the several thousand that you have. I don't claim to be an expert. I do see what I see."

 

Thousands? How do you figure? I don't claim to be an expert either, it's just that it seems people are giving unsubstantiated advice, often to newbies.

 

Rob: Microphen is a great developer for this film. Try it 1:1 or 1:2, with reduced agitation. Agitate once every three minutes, or use stand development. Multiply the standard 1:1 or 1:2 development time by 1.5. This will compensate highlights, and improve shadows.

 

The short development times (not to mention the same development times as regular Neopan) for this film are a feature, not a bug. When you want a very hard push, the times are long even with this film. Delta 3200 times in some developers are just ridiculous, even for 1600/3200. This film's another advantage is finer/sharper grain, and much lower base fog off-the-shelf compared to Delta 3200. 2/3 a stop less speed? Yes.

[m m]

Dan:

 

Hi, I've never heard of anyone using just the A bath of Diafine. I always assumed 100% of development took place in the B bath, though I did always wondered why the A bath instructions indicated to agitate "VERY GENTLY." How did you come to use this technique?

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

I assumed Part A is weakly-active since it has hydroquinone and phenidone in it, so I just started developing in Part A alone. It works rather well. Part B is strong alkali - lots of grain. I just use Part A - agitate for a few minutes, then let the film sit in the developer on its own (no agitation - stand development).

[larrydressler]

Well I have heard of a A bath of Diafine and then Diluted Dektol.... never tryed it..... Some day I may.... But I think an A-Soak and Tmax may be better.

[Rob F.]

Dan: I'll definitely give Microphen another shot--this time as a diluted one-shot--with this film Thanks!

[Rob F.]

A follow-up post: I haven't tried the Microphen at 1:1 yet, but I tried something else first. I shot a roll at EI 1000. Then I developed it as follows. I like to mix D-76 and Microdol together in equal amounts. I call this "Micro-76." A liter of D-76, and a liter of Microdol. For use, I mix them together, then dilute the stock solution 1:1, or sometimes 100ml of stock to 150ml of water.

 

I developed the Neopan 1600, shot at 1000, in Micro-76, 1:1 for 9 minutes at 68 degrees. It looked like a whole different film. Nice tonality, fair to middling shadow detail, and grain looks about the same as Tri-X. I think this is promising. But as "Micro-76" is not really a speed increase developer, I think I will soon try a roll in straight D-76.

 

My experience so far is that Neopan 1600 and Microphen don't like each other. But I have not tried it with very short developing times of 3 to 4 minutes in Microphen, which may well be the best answer. I avoided this because of the usual advice to avoid developing times shorter than 5 minutes.