Fuji Neopan 400 pushed?

[Joze]

Over the holiday I shot several rolls of Fuji Neopan 400 (120)....in the snow. A couple of them I had to rate at 1600 in order to get depth of field and decent shutter speeds to hand-hold my Mamiya RZ (didn't take my tripod).
Does anyone have any advice as to developing these, as well as the normally rated rolls, in terms of developer and times, (and possibly considering the snowy scenes)...I haven't used much Neopan before, have been working mostly with Ilford Delta and XP2.
Also, although I have done a fair bit of printing, I am quite a beginner when it comes to film processing, having only used what's available at College, and not having experimented much.
Any help most welcome.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

If you type in "fuji data guide" on your server, I use goggle, it will take you to the web site that gives times/temps. of pushed Neopan 400 in 120 format.
Havn,t tried it myself as I am also new to Neopan. I always use Tri-X when pushed film is required.

Good Luck,
Mike

 

[Harry Lime]

Use a developer like Iford DD-X, which is good for push processing.


Harry Lime

 

[mawz]

Neopan 400 @1600 is my standard high-speed film. I develop in D-76 using the times printed on the box.

 

[mario Ag+]

Microphen works well with Neopan. I think the the dev time for ISO 1600 is 9 mins in stock solution.

 

[htmlguru4242]

I've actually done this before, and it's certainly doable. At ISO 1600, it works great in D-76 (not sure what times I used, but it's listed on either hte box or hte massive dev. chart). In really dark scenes, the shadow detail is a bit lacking; in brighter light it works OK.

I've pushed it to about ISO 5,000 - 6,4000, though at that point, there is NO detail in the shadows and the grain is odd.

 

[df cardwell]

Neopan 400 and Xtol is an exccellent combination.

Look at Kodak's data: it is very reliable. Use the 1+1 times: you get a bit more shadow speed ( about a full stop more than D76 ) and the highlights will be gentle.

If you can, try a test roll. If you have to 'hope for the best', then use Kodak's times for the EI you used.

Ilford's DDX is good too, but I don't think you'll find comparable reliable data.

 

[Joze]

A Question about Xtol

Thanks to all for your replies, they are very helpful, as always.

I am looking into all the developers suggested, and learning more, thanks...

I looked at Xtol and in the info I found, a Kodak download from the Silverprint website, there was nothing given for Neopan 400 at 120mm, only 35mm. Would I be safe using the 35mm times?

I also looked at Fuji's specs and Xtol isn't listed as a possible developer -

So - can anyone tell me what would be the best thing to do if I want to use Xtol for Neopan 400 pushed to 1600??? Unfortunately I don't have a test roll, though I suppose I could do one for the purpose and put it through....

 

[PhilippeBachelier]

Neopan at 1600 iso

14 mn in D76 at 20° C for Neopan 400 at 1600 ISO.

 

[john_s]

.......
I looked at Xtol and in the info I found, a Kodak download from the Silverprint website, there was nothing given for Neopan 400 at 120mm, only 35mm. Would I be safe using the 35mm times?

I also looked at Fuji's specs and Xtol isn't listed as a possible developer -

So - can anyone tell me what would be the best thing to do if I want to use Xtol for Neopan 400 pushed to 1600??? Unfortunately I don't have a test roll, though I suppose I could do one for the purpose and put it through....

You might have found an older version of the instructions. The Fuji downloadable file af3_706e.pdf shows times for 35mm and 120 Neopan400 in Xtol.

It shows times for 400 and 800 settings. No times for a speed setting of 1600, but one should not be deterred by such absence or inconsistency in a manufacturer's listing. It lists times for HC110 at 1600 speed, and I think the Xtol would be better than HC110.

If you can't find the file on a Fuji website, I can email it to you. You can estimate a time by applying percentage increases of other developers listed for 400,800 and 1600 in the same pdf.

Of course, a test would be worthwhile if the images have some value.

 

[thomas_m]

Check the Massive Devlopment Chart:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

T.

 

[df cardwell]

Do one roll with the 120 times for XTOL and Neopan 35mm. It should be just fine.

Having not tested this in advance ( and broken 14 of the 10 commandments in the process ) getting 'perfect negs' is like throwing darts in the dark. But you'll be on the board, and that's probably enough.

 

[Joze]

Thanks all for your help.

Having not tested this in advance ( and broken 14 of the 10 commandments in the process ) getting 'perfect negs' is like throwing darts in the dark. But you'll be on the board, and that's probably enough.

As I'm not convinced i've ever produced a 'perfect neg' so far, this is good advice. It's a balance between getting the information, and not getting too anxious over it, thanks.
_

 

[Joze]

O.K., I've now put a roll through my camera as a 'tester' - no snow, but some high-key portraits of my fairly pale-skinned son, so hopefully that will translate to some highlight issues!

Although I'm attracted by Xtol (replacement for D76?) it seems to be commonly used in pro-labs, and as I feel I should be doing something different, this puts me off a little - or is that just perverse?

Another question I've been wondering about - obviously Neopan is not available in medium format ISO 1600 so you have no choice but to push ISO 400. However 35mm is available in both formats, and I'm wondering what the difference would be between shooting on ISO 400 rated 1600, and shooting on ISO 1600 in 35mm. Is this a silly question? Would there be no difference? Or could you aim to get less grain using ISO 400 and using a fine-grain developer, than would be inherent in the 1600 film? I know a lot of people like 35mm Neopan ISO 1600, but I find it very grainy (maybe haven't used the 'right' developers). Obviously grain is less of a problem in medium format anyway, but I'm wondering whether it's worth trying pushing Neopan 400 in 35mm, if you didn't want to go beyond, say, 1600 (for even faster speeds I suppose you would probably be better off with the ISO 1600 film).

Does this make any sense or am I talking rubbish?

 

[df cardwell]

After shooting both a great deal, Neopan 400 is my choice for when I need a 'boost' in the low midtones. With XTOL, I can count on more mid tone detail than Neopan 1600.

VERY different films.

Xtol is only 60 years newer than D76. The phenidone/ascorbate gives (depending on your working style) 1/2 to a full stop more shadow speed. That means more actual detail, not an artificial 'push' as with Microphen or Acufine... or D76. Most importantly, Neopan and Xtol are a brilliant combination. I doubt that you will get printable negatives with any other developer. MAYBE D-76 1:1.... but you'll get less detail in the shadows and your negs will be harder to print.

I won't say that it is perverse to shy away from it because labs, whose livelihood depends on their clients' results, use it. But it is a little silly.

 

[Joze]

I guess it's Xtol, then

Thanks for your help

 

[Joze]

After shooting both a great deal, Neopan 400 is my choice for when I need a 'boost' in the low midtones. With XTOL, I can count on more mid tone detail than Neopan 1600.

VERY different films.

a quick p.s. - so when would you choose to use Neopan 1600 over Neopan 400?

 

[df cardwell]

Hard to say, it's an intuitive thing for me.

Shooting higher than 1600, Neopan 1600.

Getting a really long scale image, 1600.

All the 3200/1600 films are really low contrast 800 films.

But I'm an eccentric trying to get the hang of 2006. Outcome, uncertain.

.