Fuji Neopan 1600 and Paterson Aculux

As I mentioned in the thread on Neopan 400, I have also been testing Neopan 1600 with Aculux. Using Paterson standard times (14 minutes for a diffuser enlarger) the results were extremely dense with blown highlights and little mid tone. I have gradually played around with times and am now using the following:

7 minutes at 1+9 dilution at 20 degrees C with Neopan 1600 rated at an EI of 800. Agitation is standard Paterson recommendations of 10 seconds per minutes. The light I have been shooting in is both outdoor late afternoon light with some cloud and indoor available light. The results are lovely with many negatives possible to enlarge to 10x8 with virtually no grain. What is interesting is that the tonality of Neopan 1600 is very different from Neopan 400 and Acros 100. It does not have the silver metallic look but rather looks a bit more traditional. Mid tones are very nice. It is a bit less contrasty than Neopan 400 to my eye. It also scans (negative scans) very well. I used this at a party in a garden at the weekend and it worked very well. I am guessing that development might have to be reduced even more (or dilution increased) if I was shooting in full, contrasty light at mid-day.

Overall I am really pleased with the combination and will continue to use and refine it.

Paul, I'm very interested in your findings as I shoot a lot of Neopan 400 and 1600.

I have found Neopan 1600 developed in Xtol at full strength to produce very nice tones and can be just as contrasty as Neopan 400. I have also found both films to produce fine grain with deep blacks, nice smooth midtones and retains their highlights well. I have printed from both 400 and 1600 up to 20x20 inch prints with creamy whites (on agfa paper) and silvery whites (on ilford paper) and each with fine grain. I am most impressed with these films.
If you need the speed (which I often do), 1600 at 1600 produces beautiful prints.

I hope you don't mind me adding my 2 cents worth.

Kind regards,
Nicole

Paul, Thanks again for sharing your findings on these two under-documented products. Do you plan to do any testing with Neopan 1600 rated at box speed and dev'd in Aculux-2 ?

I've been t esting these materials for my own use, and rather than make a characteristic :rolleyes: long-winded response, I posted an article in the How To section, under Neopan 400.

It confirms Nicole's observations.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts - I think I will be tempted now to try Neopan 1600 at an EI of 1600 just to compare the difference. To get the extra stop of speed would be most useful.

Don, thanks for the how to article - very interesting. Your comparison of Rodinal - what dilution is this related to? Is it 1+50 or 1+25?

I think Neopan 400 and 1600 are both incredible films that reward personal testing. It is a real joy to create a personal connection with a film - it is a bit like a journey of discovery and basically so much fun too.

Happy shooting everyone!

Paul

pauldc said:

Don, thanks for the how to article - very interesting. Your comparison of Rodinal - what dilution is this related to? Is it 1+50 or 1+25?

Paul

Click to expand...

1+50.