GerdK
Hello fellow readers,
I’m looking for a high-speed film for low-light photography indoors. I’d prefer not to use a flash, or if I do, only at a reduced power setting.
I’m considering the Neopan 1600 or the Delta 3200. Which of the two would you recommend if I’m looking for fine grain (well, finer than on APX100 :( and a wide range of grey tones? I’d prefer to develop with A49 if possible.
(I’d like to avoid the Kodak 3200 for political reasons.)
Bye for now, Gerd
Gast
Hello!
I occasionally use Neopan 1600 – a film with a very lovely, distinctive character: although the grain is clearly visible (during exposure at ISO 1600 and when printed as 13x18cm prints), it’s actually quite pleasing. Exposed at 1600, the contrast is also quite high, and you shouldn’t expect too much detail in the shadows – but you do get a distinctive look – it somehow reminds me of those old Hollywood glamour portraits from the 1930s and 40s (because of the contrast; they had much less grain back then – because only 35mm cameras were used...). When exposed at 800, the grain is much less visible, and the shadow detail is fine too – though I can achieve very similar results with a pushed (cheaper) 400 Neopan... So far, I’ve mainly conducted the Neopan 1600 development in Microphen – quite high-contrast; I’m still looking for another developer; Ilford LC29 produces very similar results to Microphen; DDX or Emofin were also recommended to me. But I also want to experiment with A49 – I’ve developed one roll of Neopan at 1600 in A49 so far, but the film was extremely underexposed (there must have been a mistake somewhere in the processing chain – I think the combination could be quite good).
I’ve used Delta 3200 much less frequently – I just can’t warm to this film – it seems to have less contrast than the Neopan (at both 1600 and 3200), and the grain isn’t any larger either – but somehow I find it ‘mushy’ (compared to the ‘crisp’ Neopan), and when the grain does become visible, its texture is unpleasant. So far, I’ve developed the film with Microphen and A49 – with the latter, the subjective sharpness (which is already lower than with Neopan) suffers even more.
In any case, I’d recommend the Neopan – unless you really need more than 1600 ISO, or want to use medium format as well (unfortunately, the Neopan is only available in 35mm).
Roman
fotohuisrovo
Hello,
I can only confirm what Roman has said. Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak Tmax 3200 are much more similar than Neopan 1600.
Furthermore, there are no other films available at this speed.
Kind regards,
Fotohuis RoVo
Robert Vonk
Gast
Hi Gerd,
I’ve often used the Neopan 1600 for available light too... not bad. I
can totally understand why you’ve switched!!!
Bear in mind, though, that the Neopan has a maximum ISO of 1000; the 1600 is probably just
a marketing gimmick by Fuji.
Regards,
Michael
GerdK
So I’d like to thank
Michael, Rovo and Roman
for their expert answers. I’m going to give the Neopan 1600 with A49 a go and test it out for myself. I’ll let you know how it goes. It might take a while, though (buying it, using up a roll of film for testing, taking the photos properly, ... :-)
Speaking of those of you trying out the A49: what’s the appropriate stock solution for this film’s characteristics – 1+1, 1+2, or should I try them all?
Bye for now, Gerd
Gast
Hello!
So, in my tentative experiment, I tried A49 1+2 and calculated the times myself – as I said, the film was severely underexposed, so I must have made a mistake somewhere (or is 100 ml of stock solution per film too little?)
HP5+ dissolves well in A49 1+1 – I’d suggest giving that a go for experiments. Of course, just using A49 stock solution should work too, but as I said, I haven’t yet established a standard for myself with Neopan 1600 ;-)
GerdK
...or is 100 ml of stock solution per film not enough?...
No, Roman,
according to the data sheet (http://www.calbe-fotochemie.com/produkte.html), you can develop six 35mm films in 600 ml of A49.
Your A49 wasn’t brown, was it?
Bye, Gerd :rolleyes:
Gast
Hi Gerd!
No, I’d set up the A49 properly a few hours earlier – something else must have gone wrong – sh** happens!
Anyway, I’ll give it another go with A49 1+1 when I get the chance.
Roman
Gast
Hi everyone,
Have you ever tried pushing the HP5 a bit? According to Ilford, the film can be pushed to 3200 ISO in Microphen.
That’s perfectly adequate for my jazz shots. And it’s well known that jazz musicians tend to skimp on lighting and get startled by flash.
By the way, I take normal stage photos at 400 ISO with spot metering (blues, rock, cabaret...)
Go for it from Lübeck
Gast
You can really push the HP 5; yes, you can push it up to 3200.
That said, if I’d known that beforehand, I’d have gone straight for the Delta 3200 ASA. I’ve already used it successfully for photography underground. I could only use a camera without any electronic parts, which meant I had to estimate the exposure.
What can I say: this film is simply brilliant.
Gast
Hello!
Yes, for medium format I also like to use HP5 at ISO 1600 or 3200 – it works very well in A49 1+1; Microphen is also OK (albeit with much sharper contrast); I once tried pushing it with Rodinal 1+50 – with good (albeit rather expensive) results.
Gast
It depends on what you want to photograph. For people and objects that aren’t moving, a standard, unpushed 400 film and a monopod should be enough. I’m not familiar with the A49, but I think you can always push it by one or two stops if you’re willing to sacrifice the highlights.
Otherwise, I’d recommend the Delta 3200; it has a much finer grain and is more reliable than the Kodak 3200.
However, you should avoid both products at the moment.
Regards, Matthias
Gast
Hi lads,
Looks like I’ve got the right bunch here. Has any of you ever tried developing something like this (i.e. available light with high contrast, e.g. the jazz photos I mentioned) using a two-bath developer (Emofin, MZB) or a water bath?
Cheers
Martin
Gast
Ask me again in a few months... ;-)
No, seriously, just before the weekend I developed my first roll of medium-format HP5+, pushed to 1600 in Emofin (subjects: portraits in an artificially lit interior, very high contrast); unfortunately I haven’t been able to make any prints yet (so I can’t say anything about tonality and sharpness), but the negatives look good! The contrast should be far less steep than with HP5 @1600 in Microphen (1+1). I’ll be trying Neopan 1600 with Emofin soon as well.
Generally speaking, two-bath developers should be ideal for your purposes; you can control the contrast by adjusting the duration of the two baths (bath 1 develops the highlights, bath 2 the shadows); I think the agitation rhythm (3 sec / 30 sec / 60 sec agitation) should affect the sharpness, which is apparently not that great with two-bath developers.
But as I said, I’ve only just started testing this; perhaps others have more experience with it?
Roman
Gast
Ask me again in a few months... ;-)
No, seriously, just before the weekend I developed my first roll of medium-format HP5+, pushed to 1600 in Emofin (subjects: portraits in an artificially lit interior, very high contrast); unfortunately I haven’t been able to make any prints yet (so I can’t say anything about tonality and sharpness), but the negatives look good! The contrast should be far less steep than with HP5 @1600 in Microphen (1+1). I’ll be trying Neopan 1600 with Emofin soon as well.
Generally speaking, two-bath developers should be ideal for your purposes; you can control the contrast by adjusting the duration of the two baths (bath 1 develops the highlights, bath 2 the shadows); I think the agitation rhythm (3 sec / 30 sec / 60 sec agitation) should affect the sharpness, which is supposedly not that great with two-bath developers.
But as I said, I’ve only just started testing this; perhaps others have more experience with it?
Roman
Emmofin produces excellent results with Delta 3200. I think this will also apply to other two-bath developers.
However, even with these developers, you’ll have to re-expose the highlights heavily in some cases, but unlike with other developers, this isn’t a hopeless endeavour.
Gast
Hi Max,
I don’t use Emofin, but I haven’t tried it yet either. I prefer the old Microphen, followed by Ultrafin and that stuff from Maco.
You can get some nice results with the Classic Pan 400 too, by the way, though it doesn’t seem to cope well with strong spotlights because of its slight sensitivity to red. Also, with Microphen, it tends to show grain even at 400 ASA – that shows up in the highlights. But as soon as there’s more grey, it’s fine. Dona Rosa, Ulla Meineke and Quattro Nuevo worked quite well; Alstersirenen and Lightning Moe were also OK and could be printed at 18/24 without any problems. However, the film doesn’t seem to like falling temperatures or starting temperatures that are too low... On Wednesday I’ll be shooting a Phantom, which I’ll probably have to push quite hard – the technical rider only has two flat-beam spotlights... We’ll see.
rhf
Hi Gerd
Indoor settings – and stages, of course – are a problem. Firstly, artificial lighting can create high subject contrast, and secondly, you have the issue of differing colour temperatures: artificial light is around 2900–3200 Kelvin and the film is 5500 Kelvin. You might not get any colour shift :-)) well, actually you do...This results in a loss of speed of up to half a stop...
So, lower speed and predominantly high subject contrast, which means pushing the exposure is really out of the question if you still want to get any shadows onto the paper...Well, and using a flash ruins the lighting atmosphere... if you can, start by using a monopod, and if possible, with exposure times between 1/2 and 1/15 sec, use mirror lock-up wherever possible; the effect is immense at these speeds.
I’ve been using A 49 for years; for me, it’s THE developer par excellence. The paraphenylenediamine is a colour developer and guarantees the very highest sensitivity utilisation and an absolutely fine grain, almost on a par with Microdol or Perceptol.
Like all developers with a high sulphite content, it reacts strongly to dilution; I worked for years with a 1+2 ratio at 24°C in a rotating tank and have switched to a 1+1 ratio at 24°C with agitation – the grain is finer and the speed increases slightly. With Papa developers, the so-called initiation phase is crucial – the moment the developer comes into contact with the film emulsion. No more than 15 seconds should elapse between pouring in the developer and the first agitation.Then agitate vigorously for the first minute; this strengthens the shadows. Up to the 10th minute, it doesn’t really matter whether you prefer a 30- or 60-second agitation, but from the 10th minute onwards you should reduce the agitation to two agitations every two minutes; this reduction prevents excessive grain growth.
As for the films, this whole 3200 and 1600 ASA business is a massive joke, and Kodak is miles ahead. I wanted heavy grain and developed it according to the Zone System standard: Zone 1 at 0.12d and Zone 8 at 1.25 in Rodinal – result: 250 ASA!!!! At first I thought I’d made a mistake, but I repeated the process and got the same result... The Fischer guide lists further data: in T-Max developer at 12.3/4 mins, 400 ASA; in Emofin, 640 ASA; and in Atomal, 250 ASA. Any questions??? Fuji Neopan in T-Max developer: 640 ASA at 3.5 mins. I haven’t run the Delta through the densitometer yet, but I reckon it’ll be a bit higher – around 800 ASA could be realistic. The tonal range on the Max films is a disaster anyway. I think you should use the HP 5; it has a realistic 250–320 ASA in A49. If you develop it as described for a maximum of 10.5 minutes, you’ll be surprised at how fine-grained it is; from 10.5 minutes onwards, the grain increases rapidly, but it is by far the film with the finest grain and the most forgiving characteristics I know; I wouldn’t subject it to more than 800 ASA, though. Why Microphen is always described as a tool for push processing is a complete mystery to me; the two-bath developers are also said to work wonders – increasing speed whilst simultaneously balancing it out...but miracles belong in the realm of fairy tales; I’ve never been able to verify that. With Großild and the old thick-film EMUs, the effect was slightly noticeable; have a look at what Adams went to all that trouble for. With thin-film EMUs and Kb, you can just forget about it – which is actually a great shame...
Right, that’s enough now.......
