Now that Fuji 1600's gone...

[vince-p]

<p>Being a newbie at processing my own film, I'd finally discovered a combination I loved, or two, really: Fuji 1600, shot at 800-1000, processed in Xtol or, occasionally, divided D-76. The results in both were outstanding: I had the flexibility of EI 800 and results that looked like 125.</p>

<p>What I particularly love (I just bought 12 rolls from a joint online that's clearly running out of them now) is the depth, contrast, richness and almost total lack of visible grain. The shadows are very deep but not without detail (particularly after a little messing around in PS).</p>

<p>So, I've seen lots of discussion historically on here with people's opinions of Delta 3200 and T-Max P3200 but here's a specific question: which will provide high contrast, rich shadows, no grain to speak of, shot at roughly 1000? I.e., which will be the closest replacement in your opinions for what I have just learned to love in the Fuji Neopan 1600? I know, I should experiment myself, and I will: but I (still) make mistakes in processing sometimes and it helps a lot to know that something if done correctly SHOULD work in a certain way.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Tri-X in Acufine. E.I. 800-1000 no problem nice grain.</p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>I hear people (and I do too) get good results with Neopan 400 pushed 2 stops.<br>

I also think Neopan 1600 is still in production... for 35mm anyway.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

Both Neopan 400 and Tri-X 400 will give good results from a two-stop push. Tri-X in diafine is also good

for close to EI1600 if you're scanning the negtivess and processing them digitally.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I never got around to using the Fuji b&w films I bought years ago so my impressions are based on the scans and prints I've seen from other photographers who have used the Fuji films.</p>

<p>The impression I get is that you'll come closer to getting the results you're accustomed to with either T-Max 3200 or pushed TMY. Delta 3200 will deliver true shadow detail (per the standard method, not subjective impressions) at EI 1000-1600 but with moderately low contrast. Even pushed to 3200 (a very moderate push for Delta 3200), contrast increases only a little. Grain is very visible even at EI 1000-1600, unless using the 120 version for only moderate enlargements.</p>

<p>I usually prefer TMY pushed to 1600 in Microphen. It lacks the true shadow detail of Delta 3200 at EI 1000-1600, but offers a more conventional overall tonality that doesn't look pushed, even in fairly contrasty lighting. Grain is much less pronounced in my 35mm negatives from pushed TMY compared with my 35mm Delta 3200 negs.</p>

<p>I doubt pushed TMY will quite deliver the results you're accustomed to with Fuji 1600 in all situations, but you may find it satisfactory in some lighting scenarios. If you'd rather not push, T-Max 3200 will probably come closest to what you expect - I've seen some very good prints in local galleries from a local photographer who used TMZ extensively for theater and other low light photography. Her prints look very different from mine using Delta 3200, even tho' the subject matter and lighting were very similar (same venue). However I preferred the lower contrast look and higher grain of Delta 3200 - just a personal quirk, not a declaration of superiority.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>Thank you (Lex in particular -- thanks for getting up!) for all the very helpful info. For now, in my relative innocence, I cling to the belief that a pulled film will be less grainy than a pushed film. I think I am going to try TMX at 1000 first, or perhaps 1200, in Xtol 1:1. Continuous agitation and a very diluted wash in selenium toner should help with contrast. I'll probably try a roll of 3200 that way too at some point. If I were to push any film I would push Tri-X to 800 or 1200, as the Fuji has something much closer to that look than to a TMY look. I like HP5 too -- looks to me, after only a few rolls, admittedly, like a very fine grain 400 film but not as much contrast as Tri-X; and I suspect it won't push as well as Tri-X. Anyone's views and counter-testimony on any of that are most welcome. </p>

[brian_quinn2]

<p>What starting time, temp and dilution do you recomend for TMY pushed to 1600 in Microphen?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>What starting time, temp and dilution do you recomend for TMY pushed to 1600 in Microphen?</blockquote>

<p>Usually around 12 minutes at 70F in stock solution, or 10 minutes at 73F. I've used it 1+1 as well but at the moment can't find my data for that - lost a lot of stuff when a hard drive crashed last month. I do recall a fairly extreme example of having to develop pushed TMY in an 80F darkroom in summer, and it was around 9' at 1+1.</p>

<p>Some of my photos in <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=304490">this portfolio</a> have the processing info (click on the "details" tab under each photo). Unfortunately most of my descriptions, narratives and critiques vanished during a 2009 glitch so not all photos still have details describing the exposure, processing and printing info.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Lex this is why I just backed up all my hard drives recently on a 1 gig external hard drive. I lost 1 drive that was enough. I also still have a few drives i pulled from my old computers that i am going to put on it too. amazing how low the price is for them these days.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Let me correct that I meant the Terra bite drives.....</p>

[brian_quinn2]

<p>"lost a lot of stuff when a <a href="../black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00Xok9" target="_blank">hard drive</a> crashed last month"<br>

Aren't you glad you shot film now!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Fortunately I'd already archived the most crucial stuff: original scans of negatives and prints; camera raw and JPEGs from my digicams. None of those were lost.</p>

<p>Over the years I'd moved from using notebooks for the darkroom to just scribbling notes of the reverse of my work prints and somewhat more organized data stored on various computers. The only thing lost was the darkroom and photo-related data on the hard drive. But most of that was duplicated on the negative sleeves and work prints, so I can eventually recover it.</p>

<p>But I'm shopping for a new computer this month, my first in a decade. I'm still using the same Compaq Pentium III I've had for 10 years (and will keep it around now that I've replaced the hard drive). I suppose I regard computers the same way I do cameras and darkroom equipment and materials - if they still work, why replace 'em? But I hadn't realized how cheap external HD's had become. Less than $100 for a TB drive - pretty amazing. The last significant component I bought was an external CD/DVD burner in 2005, and that thing cost over $100. At the time external USB 100-250 GB drives were well over $100.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I think I may have the answer to your 1600 problem. I shot a roll of Fuji Neopan 400 at 1250 and 1600 then souped it for 7 minutes 20C in Acufine. Grain and sharpness was real nice better that any of the 1600 films I had ever used with HC-110 even when I pulled them to 800. I also could not tell much differance between the 1250 and 1600 exposures.<br>

Examples here as because they are so sharp and grain-less I was shocked.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jokerphotography/sets/72157625462845683/</p>

<p> </p>

[gary_gumanow]

<p>Fuji Neopan of any sort is not in production any longer. Any stock of Neopan films is just inventory that Fuji is unwilling to say is now End of Lifed.</p>

[tim gray]

<p>Fo reals Gary? I hadn't heard that in relation to 35mm 400, but I don't listen too closely.</p>

<p>I wonder what the deal is for Acros. I'm sure we'll find out in the coming year.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Where did you hear this about 35mm Neopan 400? Fuji announced the 120 was gone but not the 35mm.</p>

[mubeen_mughal]

<p>Alternative: Switch to digital, and use DxO film pack or Alien Skin film pack. See my samples here:<br>

<p><a title="IMG_5095 Alien Skin Fuji Neopan 1600 small by The Third-Eye, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6636892775_865d9df78a_o.jpg" alt="IMG_5095 Alien Skin Fuji Neopan 1600 small" width="1067" height="1600" /></a></p>

<p> </p>

[vince-p]

<p>Many of us do shoot digital, but we love film, the actual stuff, so this -- and I've been interested in these programs, btw, in the context of expanding what I do digitially -- delivered in this forum, is like telling us to give up taking pictures and hire someone else to do it. </p>

<p>That said, I do love the results I've seen some people get with these two programs. I haven't yet seen it in exhibition quality prints.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>I should add, when I said I do love the results I've seen -- these portraits of yours among them. Very nice work.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>If most of us wanted to switch to Digital we would not be in this forum.</p>