Attention former Tri-X users!

[Mike Kennedy]

Thought that might draw a bit of attention.
I would like to continue a post started by luvmydogs (HP5 in Rodinal) except my inquiry is about developing Neopan (400 & 1600) in Rodinal or HC-110.
Like many of you I was weaned on Tri-X and T-Max developer. Used it in my first photo class and have continued with it for the past 6 years. Now I am in the process of changing brands.
My fellow Apuger from Montreal just sent me some Neopan in 400 and 1600 configurations (thanks again Michel) and I am wondering if those who have made this transition might share in their knowledge. I have both Rodinal and HC-110 on hand and will be developing my first roll of Neopan tomorrow (iso 400 rated at 400).
All sugestions welcomed.

Thanks Much,
Mike

 

[eric]

I have both Rodinal and HC-110 on hand and will be developing my first roll of Neopan tomorrow (iso 400 rated at 400).

I just got out of the darkroom (aka, the garage) and printed a bunch of 8x8's from Neopan 400 in 120 size. I did, however, use D76, 1:1. I love it. I have 1 more roll of Neopan 400 and I'll try to develop it in Rodinol next time. What's your usual Rodinol dilution? 1:50? or 1:25? For economy sakes, I was thinking of getting some of that JandC Classic 400. Not sure what it would look like in any of my developers but I'll get some rolls to test out.

 

[GeneW]

I am wondering if those who have made this transition might share in their knowledge. I have both Rodinal and HC-110 on hand and will be developing my first roll of Neopan tomorrow (iso 400 rated at 400).
All sugestions welcomed.

Thanks Much,
Mike

Mike, I developed two rolls of Neopan 400 (rated at 400) today in HC-110 1:100. Triple the time for Dilution B, with 3 gentle inversions every 3 minutes. The drying negatives look really good -- not too dense or contrasty and with plenty of shadow detail. I'll be scanning them tomorrow. I've not tried Neopan 1600 yet.

Gene

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

J&C Classic 400, I think, is the most Tri-Xish film out there, tonally, right now. Think of it as being like TXP 320 with more manageable highlights and a more delicate emulsion surface. I've tried it in a number of developers, and my times and speeds for Tri-X work pretty well as starting points for J&C 400.

 

[fhovie]

Are we really saying good by to tri-x? By doing that, we hasten it's unavalability. I think the fat lady is not yet singing for tri-x and so I will still use it where I want to use it. It is APX100 that is being sung about by the large female. I now have to decide to be content with FP4 or continue to experiment with J&C100 - Probably FP4 for money shots.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Thought that might draw a bit of attention.
I would like to continue a post started by luvmydogs (HP5 in Rodinal) except my inquiry is about developing Neopan (400 & 1600) in Rodinal or HC-110.
Like many of you I was weaned on Tri-X and T-Max developer. Used it in my first photo class and have continued with it for the past 6 years. Now I am in the process of changing brands.
My fellow Apuger from Montreal just sent me some Neopan in 400 and 1600 configurations (thanks again Michel) and I am wondering if those who have made this transition might share in their knowledge. I have both Rodinal and HC-110 on hand and will be developing my first roll of Neopan tomorrow (iso 400 rated at 400).
All sugestions welcomed.

Thanks Much,
Mike

I don't get it. You like Tri-X, I like Tri-X, we all like Tri-x. It's still available, what sense then is there in abandoning it? Maybe in 10 years it'll be gone. Then you'll be kicking yourself in the ass for walking away from the best film out there years before its demise. No thank you, I'd rather not cut off my nose to spite my face.

I buy it when I can. Presently I have 300' of 35mm in the fridge, 3 dozen rolls in 120 and about 50 sheets in 4x5. I'll keep buying it as long as possible. If you don't buy it then there's more for me and all of the other photographers who still have noses on their faces.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

"Cutting off my nose to spite my face"

On the contrary,I would rather call it "waking up and smelling the coffee". In a perfect world where my finances were unlimited I would stock a freezer full of Tri-X.(A new freezer at that). Alas that is not the case.
The "Big Yellow Machine" has never been forthcoming about their future plans and all one gets are news releases like yesterdays,from the Associated Press. "Kodak has posted a 1.03 billion dollar loss in profit for the 3rd quarter of this year".
I simply want to test the waters. If , and more likely when, Kodak bails from B&W totally I want to have a working knowledge of other brands of film. Last year I reintroduced myself to Ilford FP4+ and Pan F+ in Rodinal and am loving it. I always thought T-Max 100 was a great fine grain film until I tried the others and now see how flat my negs.were using T-Max.
When my local photo supply shop can no longer get Tri-X and I must order from the states it will cost approx.$70.00-$80.00 CDN.to feed my bulk loader. Too expensive to justify.
I have always followed the old axiom "ya dance with the one that brought ya" but now the melody is changing and I might even find a new partner with better moves.

Mike

 

[mikeg]

Hello,

Neopan 400 is my standard film and I tend to dev it in Rodinal 1+25 for the published time of 6 mins. Nice sharp, obvious grain. I don't tend to enlarge beyond 9.5 x 12 ins so the grain may be a bit too intrusive if you do. An example is in my gallery at (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Neopan 1600 is fantastic, but not in Rodinal. It's great in Xtol 1:1. Never tried HC110, so I can't comment.

Cheers

Mike

 

[gnashings]

I don't get it. ...

Well, we agree on one thing.

 

[P C Headland]

Hello,

Neopan 1600 is fantastic, but not in Rodinal. It's great in Xtol 1:1. Never tried HC110, so I can't comment.

Cheers

Mike

Ooo, I wouldn't say that.

I'm quite impressed with Neopan 1600 in Rodinal 1+50 for 8.5 munutes. Good detail and very little grain, especially considering the film's speed. I exposed it at box speed, as the camera it was shot in has no DX override. I shot another roll at ISO1000 in a different camera and can't see much difference.

A couple of examples of Neopan 1600 in Rodinal 1+50.

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

I just wish Fuji would make this in 120 as well!

I've also done Neopan 400 (120) in Rodinal 1+100 for 20 minutes, exposed at ISO250. Nice and sharp, good tones and little grain.

Paul

 

[Gerald Koch]

Tri-X is Kodak's bread-and-butter film. They probably sell more of it than any other B&W film. If we boycott Kodak because we are mad at them for leaving the B&W paper market then we guarantee them abandoning B&W film.

Agfa is now geput and Ilford is still shakey with an uncertain future for all the hype. Yes, there are second tier producers but their quality control is spotty. So in our own best interest we need to continue to buy Kodak.

 

[juan]

I agree with David about Classic 400 from JandC - I develop in Pyrocat HD - or occasionally in divided D-23.

As for getting it - I shot Tri-X and developed in HC-110 for about 20 years. Why change? Because, although I live in a city of one million people, I can't buy Tri-X locally anymore. Kodak's ordering requirements have forced the local stores to stop selling the products Kodak still makes. If I have to order film, it's easier and quicker for me to get it from JandC than places such as B&H.

I tried HP5+ and didn't care for it, but that's just my personal opinion. It's a good film from a good, reliable manufacturer - just not the film for me. At least now.
juan

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'm still shooting both Tri-X and Classic 400. I do like the highlights and the price of the 400, but for 8x10" I like the fact that Tri-X holds up a better to tray processing. For 11x14", Tri-X is just too costly to special order, and it's not worth scrounging eBay for other people's past date overstock, so I don't see myself purchasing more of that while there's are perfectly good films available fresh at a moderate price (Efke PL100 and Classic 400).

 

[SchwinnParamount]

you can get 100 feet of new Tri-x from B&H for $25 (USAW) if you shoot 35mm. Who's bank is that going to break? It's all about supply and demand. As the suppliers leave the marketplace, those who remain can and will charge more for their product. With AGFA gone we will see price increases across the board. The best quality films will go up first but then eventually the others will follow suit. There will come a point when there is no more cheap film.

If we stop buying Kodak film because we believe the sky is falling and they cease production of it, don't you think those films which remain on the market will see a perfectly valid reason to raise their prices to balance the supply/demand equation?

 

[mikeg]

Ooo, I wouldn't say that.

I'm quite impressed with Neopan 1600 in Rodinal 1+50 for 8.5 munutes. Good detail and very little grain, especially considering the film's speed. I exposed it at box speed, as the camera it was shot in has no DX override. I shot another roll at ISO1000 in a different camera and can't see much difference.

A couple of examples of Neopan 1600 in Rodinal 1+50.

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

I just wish Fuji would make this in 120 as well!

I've also done Neopan 400 (120) in Rodinal 1+100 for 20 minutes, exposed at ISO250. Nice and sharp, good tones and little grain.

Paul

Thanks for that Paul. I tried Neopan 1600 with Rodinal at 1:25 and really didn't like it. Then I tried Xtol and loved the creamy look and relatively fine grain. I'll give 1:50 a go, I've got some photos of a jazz concert to dev.

By the way, those are nice images of yours. I do like both Neopan 1600 & 400.

Cheers

Mike

 

[Tom Stanworth]

why not shoot TriX in parallel with a new choice for experimentation?

Neopan comes out very smooth indeed in Aculux 2 or any fine grain dev and is sharp in Pyrocat. I a not that used to it yet and cannot put my finger on it's look. Kinda like a more modern looking TriX with less grain and less acutance. Still, it is much contrastier than HP5 plus to my eyes so appeals for the UK! I am actually starting out on TriX and love it for its punch. I will continue using it until it is gone, when I will use Neopan (and a bit of HP5 for when I need to reduce contrast with rollfilm).

 

[Jennifer]

I must be dumb, and have to ask. With the declining use of film, raw materials
unique to making film and paper will increase in price due to lower volume production. I can under stand this. But I keep reading that many people keep stating film and paper will go up, and up due to major companys getting out or going bust. Agfa is going away. That's more sales for other companys. Any film or paper company that would increase "jack up" prices on this basis would be insane. Supply and demand, a slogan created to "BS" people and screw them out of their money. If I were making wood field cameras to sell, after materials, labor, and profit the cost were $500.00 and I could make 2 a week, but the demand was 4 a week, would it be fair, honest, to claim the supply is low and demand high to now charge $800.00.


I see this alot, and it "pms's" me. Locally there is a housing sales boom. Homes have gone up "jacked up" many thousands of dollars. The old cry...demand is high. The reality is demand is high, lets screw"em and jack up the price. That house is worth no more now, then it was 6 months ago.

If materials, labor, shipping costs increase, then I have to pay more. On the other hand, don't admit your willing to pay more just for the heck of if, because someone will make your dream come true !.

 

[moose10101]

Supply and demand, a slogan created to "BS" people and screw them out of their money.

Nothing like flushing 200 years of economic theory down the toilet. Would you like the government to step in and set prices for everything?

 

[timeUnit]

Nothing like flushing 200 years of economic theory down the toilet. Would you like the government to step in and set prices for everything?

Well, with the dinosaurs like Kodak ruling the market, they kind of are the government...

Supply and demand, ie market economy, is changing due to the enormous size of some companies. A market with different companies of roughly similar size, trying their best to outsmart and outproduce the others is not the reality anymore. Now we have a few giants in every sector calling all shots. That means they set their own price, they choose where to sell and how, all regardless of what the customer wants, because the customer has very little choice.

On the other hand, with the internet there is a huge potential for small companies to reach a large customer base. I'm hoping for our sake they jump on that train.

Just my thoughts on the matter...

 

[SchwinnParamount]

TimeUnit, it would probably be a good idea to go back and review your notes and text from your economics 101 class in college. Moose10101 is right. Anyway, the theory behind demand/supply says that if the demand globally for a product outstrips the supply globally of that product, the individual willing to pay the most for the product will buy it. In other words, if there is 1 widget for sale (regardless if it was manufactured by a huge corporate entity or your uncle) and there are 3 people who want that one widget, the manufacturer can and does raise the price 'as high as the market will bear'. If 2 of the 3 individuals are only willing to spend $5 but the 3rd individual is willing to spend $7 then the widget sells for $7. On the other hand, if the manufacturer chooses to offer the widget at $10 and there is nobody willing to buy it at that price, the widget will not be sold.

In this simple example, there is only 1 widget being sold. In actual fact, there are a million film widgets being sold to slightly less than a million people today. As manufacturers leave the market place, the number of film widgets available for sale is reduced. If there is not a commensurate reduction in demand for the film widget then we arrive at a place where the manufacturer can and will raise the price simply because they can. No, there is no material justification for it. The manufacturing costs have not changed, the marketplace has. And the marketplace is where the selling price of the film widget is set.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Economic "REALITY" 101

The only thing that economic theorists do is to explain "what happened".Sort of like deducing why the horse ran off when the barn door was left open.Cloaked in verbiage and wordage theirs is the modern equivalent of the Kings soothsayer.
Case in point.A paper mill that once operated close to my hometown made products for Kodak. My friend Dave was employed there and he had a good job ,supported his wife and children. The Big Yellow Giant found it more cost efficiant to move south (Brazil?) where folks worked for pennies. That was in 2003.
Today the mill is idle and my pal lost his house.Moved back into his parents place with a wife and two children. I am not saying that Kodak killed the mill,it sort of aided and abetted . They got huge government kickbacks to keep their business here, but when workers demanded a "living wage" they bailed.
Guess it didn,t help when we said NO to sending our kids,brothers and sisters,husbands and wives, to battle Georges demons in the East.That noosed our paper export south. Money talks,eh?

Its getting tough folks,
Lets all pull together.

Mike

 

[timeUnit]

TimeUnit, it would probably be a good idea to go back and review your notes and text from your economics 101 class in college. Moose10101 is right.

Always nice to find people who knows right from wrong... and although I never attended college, as it doesn't exist in Sweden, I have learned enough at university to know that there are many sides to every story -- and there are lots of different theories in economics.

I did not mean to be offensive in my post, nor do I think I came across as that, so please refrain from comments that are.

 

[Lee L]

What happens when you have giants going out of the market is that production costs increase. The plants designed for modern, high volume film production can spit it out faster and more cheaply. When they leave, you have people producing on older machinery like Efke, which is more costly a process even if your labor pool is cheaper. Add to that increased shipping and distribution costs (in the US) because it's not coming out of Rochester, but China or eastern Europe, and the price goes up.

It's called economy of scale, and with a smaller market and fewer, more widely spaced producers using older production equipment and costlier methods of production, you're going to pay more. The simple fact is that Kodak figures it can't afford to produce paper (and maybe later film) in the way it's set up to do (very efficient large scale production) and still make a profit large enough to keep their big boat afloat. Digital is obviously the way for them to do that.... (break for derisive laughter)

It would be nice if smaller producers would build modern plants with smaller capacity that could be run efficiently to meet current demand, but the payback on that is probably too long term. Given the volatility of the market for silver photography materials and uncertain prospects, and the fact that the size of the market in the future is currently unknowable, I can't see anyone taking the plunge and building new production facilities. Maybe in a few years when people decide that they're tired of $300 digicams being disposables with an 18 month lifespan.

Mike Kennedy is right, economists don't set up the world, they just build models to try and replicate and understand the way it functions. Blaming economists or economic theories for the state of the world is like blaming Newton because you fell when you jumped off a cliff.

Lee

 

[SchwinnParamount]

...Mike Kennedy is right, economists don't set up the world, they just build models to try and replicate and understand the way it functions. Blaming economists or economic theories for the state of the world is like blaming Newton because you fell when you jumped off a cliff.

Lee

Lee, I entirely agree with your analysis. When Agfa production capacity is taken off line then the loss cannot be filled by the little eastern europe manufacturing companies without monumental investment in new capital equipment. The result is less film is produced at a lower quality and higher price. It matters not that there may be 2 new small companies that take the place of one giant Agfa. The delta between the demand for quality film and the supply of quality film grows at this point.

My discussion about marketplace based pricing is more about business and less about economic theory. As you all know, the cost to manufacture film is the absolute lowest selling price. Since business exists to make a profit, it is their nature to sell at the highest possible price in order to 'maximize profit' Market realities and competition from companies producing an equal product dictate that the manufacturer sell at a 'reasonable' profit. If a company (large or small) sells a product at a much lower price than the market demands without sound stratgic reasons, their executives are failing in their duty to stockholders. That is, they are not 'increasing shareholder value'.

At the other end of the scale, an industry where monopolistic companies exist and demand for product also exists, you will see very large profits as the manufacturer may sell for whatever they wish (think Microsoft).

The variables from which market price derive are: demand, supply and competition amongst manufacturers. Increased demand drives price up. Increased supply drives price down, increased competion drives price down as long as the overall demand outstrips supply. Conversely, decrease competition to sell in the marketplace and prices will tend to rise... again as long as demand is greater (or perhaps equal to) supply.

To make a long story short, it is the marketplace that establishes the 'value' of a product. The properly run business can produce a product at a cost substantially less than the market value. If they cannot, then they leave that marketplace.

 

[Papa Tango]

Sigh. Lee and Paramount have good points, but they will not play out in reality. How do I know this? Economics is my business. Some things we need to hoard. I have 175' of nitrogen packed Pan-X in the freezer. Efke 25 is close, but no cigar in the shadow to midrange. Every time I order from B&H, I get another box of Azo. No one else makes a product like it. Same deal for Tech Pan. Did you like Super XX? Go for the Bergger BPF200. J&C 200 comes out of the same plant. A little economic difficulties there. We can hoard everything like Tri-X and Plus-X until we are like Michael & Paula with a walk-in freezer, and it will not deter what Kodak will do in the next year or so. They dont care about bread and butter film. A Kodak moment is now shared by the stockholders in a digital revolution.

Ilford may be a little shaky coming out of reorganization. That is even more the reason that we need to lay down our yellow fetish and jump on what will very soon be the largest producer in the world of BW films. Do you really think that Fuji will be pumping out BW in five years? The reality is that we need to begin fully supporting companies that in the very near future will be our main outlets for BW film and papers. Chemistry we can make. This means making the jump to Ilford for FP4 instead of Plus-X, and any other product they make that has a comparable result. It will not hasten what Kodak does, and even in an Alice in Wonderland twist if it did, so what? They fully intend on leaving us. As to the Chinese production boosting the price of film, go back to Econ 101 and pay attention to how they flood the market with goods. Keep an eye on Lucky Film boys. It's a mover for the consumer segment.

Three cheers for Ilford, Efke, Foma, Forte and all the photo paper manufacturing companies. We must support them now, or they may not be there for us when we need them. That is supply and demand.