Available light portraits, Neopan 1600 and Xtol

[pauldc]

I want to learn to use Xtol with Neopan 1600 for available light portraits of my family. In the past I have used Aculux2 very happily but with Aculux2 I find you lose a lot of speed (typically EI 500). Hence the experiments with Xtol.

What I need is some advice / experience from those of you who use Xtol and Neopan 1600 and in particular which EI's you use (I will probably stick around the 800 and 1600 speeds) and which dilutions of Xtol you use (here I am a little confused as to the costs/benefits of the different dilutions when pushing a film).

I will shoot in 35mm with my T90, probably using centre weighted metering or spot metering the face and adding a stop of exposure (effectively placing the skin tones on zone 6 in a rough kind of way).

I will be printing up to a maximum size of 10*8

Looking through the gallerys I know there are a number of APUG'ers using this combination and getting lovely portraits and family shots.

Thanks everyone!

 

[df cardwell]

The problem with Neopan 1600 (and Ilford and Kodak ) is that they are EI 640 - EI 800 films. You can "PUSH" [ develop to a higher than normal contrast to raise the midtones to a density that would be normal to a faster film ] but you don't really increase the shadow speed.

What you get is a set of high values, even at 3200 and faster, that can be printed: they have not built super-proportionate density.

The real virtue of Neopan 1600 is the range of highlights that can be achieved. But it is typical that if you want to shoot these films, you have to give more development than you might think, if you are making seeking normal negs.

So, you really don't lose much speed with Aculux 2, just develop longer. But Aculux wants to make higher density highlights than XTOL, so if you will need to "PUSH" Neopan to get a normal - ish neg at 1600, XTOL is a better choice. AT least that's MY reason for doing it.

There are different design philosophies at work with Neopan 1600 vs TMZ 3200: Neopan uses a gentle shoulder in the highlights to let you shoot high contrast scenes and not lose printable highlights. TMZ has an extremely long straight line that doesn't lose energy until 2.65 or so. TMZ also has a little better shadow density than Neopan.

If I'm using Neopan, I'm diluting it 1+2, and going 12 minutes or so at 68 degrees. That is the "old" ei 3200 time, but shoot at 1600. The advantage of the 1+2 dilution is lower highlight gains while squeezing the most from the shadows. But the shape of Neopan's curve gives LESS shadow and MORE midtone than a normal film, and you may find you're using a lower contrast paper than normal to print the faces.

I choose Neopan when shooting on stage when the hot lights are more of a problem than losing a little shadow.

Were I shooting portraits, I'd go straight to TMZ in Xtol 1+1 for 13 - 15 minutes, and shoot at 800.

Of course, Delta 3200 is an option, and IT gives a curve about midway between Neopan and TMZ. Xtol, or DD-X, would be excellent. Use Ilford's data as a starter.

g'luck

.

 

[gchpaco]

I shoot NP 1600 at 1600 in XTOL 1+3 using the Massive Dev Chart times. It's a very pretty film, gives fantastic portraits, I wish it was available in 120. Never used it at 800.

I use 1+3 more or less out of superstition. XTOL straight is not a good push developer, but Anchell & Troop claim that it gets much better as it gets diluted more. I am not equipped to prove this one way or another. I do remember thinking that I was getting marginally better results with TMax Developer when I was using the 1+1 dilution, but it was not clear and since XTOL is my standard developer it was much more convenient to continue using it. DD-X or Microphen might give better results as they're more oriented toward pushing film, but I'm not familiar enough with either to say confidently.

 

[pauldc]

Thanks for the advice - I will begin testing this weekend. Both your replies have given me a reference point to work from. Much appreciated.