AlexFischer
Hello,
Like many of you here, I’m new to this and completely hooked on Tanol.
After a few attempts with NP20, old Foma F21 and Polypan (some of which were devastating, others brilliant), it’s time to give Neopan 1600 a go.
Or should I give it a miss?
Does anyone have any pointers on achievable speed (say, ISO 1000?) or even development times to keep the reject rate down?
I’d be very grateful.
Many thanks and best regards,
Alex
PhilippeGrunchec
Tanol is indeed a great developer, but "With Neopan 1600, I only achieve 400 ISO (24°C, 9 mins); with a strongly S-shaped curve, the mid-tones are blown out," wrote Wolfgang Moersch to me!...
AlexFischer
Hello,
Does that mean the 1600 Neopan isn’t recommended for Tanol?
I don’t think I’ll be happy with this film anyway. I recently had one exposed at 1000 ASA and developed it in Acutol. There were almost no shadows to be seen, but the highlights were spot on.
Overall, the negatives look quite thin (is that normal?).
In my opinion, an HP5 at 1000 ISO has significantly better tonal range and is nowhere near as fussy during processing.
So now I’ve got two more Neopans waiting to be used.
Can anyone give me any tips on this? (I know, you can’t generalise about everything).
Best regards,
Alex
Stagirit
I’d strongly advise against the 1600 Neopan; I developed it once in Microdol and it was completely flat and weak, yet there was still no detail in the shadows. In X-Tol, on the other hand, the contrast was far too harsh. For
available-light photography, I think I’ll stick to the 3200 Delta as my roll film from now on.
Personally, I can’t stand HP5.
What I’ve seen surprisingly good results with was Kodak’s Tri-X, pushed to 1250 ASA and developed in X-Tol* at 24°C for 14 minutes 45 seconds – though that was on 9x12 sheet film. It was of welding work on a pipeline construction site, shot with a Linhof Technika at sunset.
*But I’ve no idea whether it was stock or 1+2.
Roman
Hello!
The Neopan 1600 is one of my favourite films – but it’s not an all-rounder; it’s a specialist for a particular look! If you just want a fast film that delivers ‘normal’ results (in terms of contrast and tonal range), the NP1600 isn’t the best choice; a TMax or Delta 3200, or perhaps a pushed 400, will give better results.
The NP1600 is inherently high-contrast; soft-focusing doesn’t produce convincing results; shadow detail isn’t its strong point. On the other hand, it’s practically the film with built-in drama; street shots or spontaneous portraits instantly look like film stills from a 1940s film noir. It’s ideal for such purposes (i.e. unposed portraits, street scenes, etc.), but not so much for landscapes...
I also like its beautiful grain, which even A49 struggles to soften; however, I deliberately process it in Rodinal 1+50 (8:30 mins, at 20°C, ISO 800–1000).
Just to be on the safe side, I’d like to emphasise once more – NP1600 is only suitable if you’re specifically aiming for a particular look; it’s not an all-rounder!
Roman
Stagirit
@Roman: So what format do you print the NP 1600 on?
Roman
18x24, or perhaps 24x30 – and I LOVE the crisp, sharply defined grain that becomes visible!
Roman
AlexFischer
Hello,
First of all, thank you very much for all the tips.
I’ll give development in R09 a go next time, although my Neo in Acutol should actually be quite similar. Perhaps the development time was too short, or – in my opinion – the negatives were too thin.
Best regards,
Alex
Stagirit
Photography really is, above all, a matter of personal preference, just like beer :lol:
I had the same discussion again today; I wanted to buy some Tri-X but they didn’t have any, and a professional photographer who was there strongly recommended HP5 to me (precisely because of the pushing).
He uses Kodak and I told him I wouldn’t let HP5 into my house or darkroom.
I mean, what would happen if we all did the same thing?
Gast
The NP1600 produces impressive results in A49 (with an exposure of 800–1000 ISO).
Best regards,
Otto Beyer!
skahde
The NP1600 produces impressive results in A49 (with exposure at 800–1000 ASA).
Best regards,
Otto Beyer!
[right][post="6279"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
I have tested it in DS10, XTOL and A49 and the sensitometric curves coincide exactly. Same speed, same grey-scale reproduction.
Best regards,
Stefan
skahde
I’d strongly advise against the 1600 Neopan; I developed it once in Microdol and it came out completely flat and weak, with no detail in the shadows at all. In X-Tol, on the other hand, the contrast was far too harsh.
You underdeveloped one film (obviously the shadows are then flat) and overdeveloped the other. That doesn’t really say much about the quality of the film, does it? :P
Best regards
Stefan
