I want Neopan 1600 back!

[snaggs]

It looks like Delta 3200 is the only thing available in 120. Does anyone know how to lobby Fuji?

 

[kevs]

I want Kodachrome back but it ain't gonna happen.

 

[cjbecker]

Tri-x at 3200 looks great at 1600 looks even better

 

[grommi]

"I want Neopan 1600 back!"

You are not alone!!! +1!

I'm a Kodak fan, but TriX is no alternative at all. Just my 2 cents.

Best - Reinhold

 

[fotoobscura]

+3 (I have a few friends that also want it back). Shot some Tri-X today to see if I could get a decent 1600 out of it. We'll see, I never use it.

 

[Michael W]

Neopan 1600 was one of the discontinuations that really hurt, along with Polaroid 55 and 665.

 

[RattyMouse]

I never got a chance to shoot high speed Neopan and I wish it would come back. How does one lobby Fujifilm to get this film back into production?

 

[revdocjim]

I really want Neopan 400 Presto back in 120!

 

[brucemuir]

Actually I found Neo400 just as good but unfortunately that is hard to get also.

I do like the tonal scale for when I want something a bit different than my standby TriX.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Neopan 1600 was never available in 120

 

[MMfoto]

Yup, never was an option.

Best bet is probably Tri-x or Neopan 400 pushed hard. But, you're never going to get the same look. That was a unique film. Delta 3200 is a soulless beast. Great on a practical level, if you want 120 and need the speed. Flat, dull, and has mushy grain. Good in XTOL if you're looking for a smooth look with minimal grain and good speed. But, I'd rather have Kodak P3200 in 120 any day.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear MM Foto,

Firstly, you are truly and entirely allowed and entitled your own thoughts on DELTA Professional 3200and of course to share them... even though its a bit like you calling my kid ugly....it may be ugly... but its still my kid ! seriously, I respect your opinion.

I may be a little unusual in that I really do like grain, and I personally use DELTA 3200 in 120 virtually to the exclusion of all other film, and when I use it ( in my personal opinion ) its not dull, not flat and has grain that is sharp, as an FYI I rate it at 1600 and develop in either ID11 ( D76) or more usually DDX.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[RattyMouse]

I shot some Delta 3200 for the first time a few weeks ago and was VERY pleased with the results. I had the lab use DDX and the images that came back were far less grainy that I was expecting. Much less. I exposed at ISO1600.

 

[dreamingartemis]

Aside from Neopan 1600, I also want black and white for their instax mini line! Sorry, didn't mean to hijack but there are a lot of film I want back! Another one is Fujifilm Fortia SP!!!!!!!!

But sadly, like everything else in the world, making noise is just not enough!

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

My final roll of Neopan 1600 is in my camera.
Delta 3200 is a different beast altogether, but a very good film none the less and unlike Neopan 1600 and Kodak P3200TMZ, is also available in 120 roll-film.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yup, never was an option.

But, I'd rather have Kodak P3200 in 120 any day.

It is my impression that it was never made in 120. If Kodak had put as much faith in P3200 and produced it in 120( and this may well have been justified by potential sales) then we might occasionally have the benefit of a Kodak equivalent to Simon Galley on APUG who represents a company that listens to its customers.

P.S. I needed to crop a 120 D3200 neg to get a 5x7 print and to do so I had the equivalent of about an 11x14. In Xtol and I am sure DDX as well which I used to use, the grain was still pretty unobtrusive IMHO but to each his own.

pentaxuser

 

[RattyMouse]

Aside from Neopan 1600, I also want black and white for their instax mini line! Sorry, didn't mean to hijack but there are a lot of film I want back! Another one is Fujifilm Fortia SP!!!!!!!!

But sadly, like everything else in the world, making noise is just not enough!

I totally agree with that. Black and white film for the Fuji Instax cameras would be AWESOME! Why not Fuji? Why???

 

[perkeleellinen]

Delta 3200 and Neopan 1600 are different beasts for sure. I think Delta is more 'impressionistic' and Neopan more 'gritty'. Or maybe that's just my processing...

 

[dreamingartemis]

I totally agree with that. Black and white film for the Fuji Instax cameras would be AWESOME! Why not Fuji? Why???

I figure, wouldn't it be actually cheaper to make black and white instax film as opposed to color?:confused:

 

[sehrgut]

Neo 400 and Tri-X 400 I've both pushed to 1600 with good results. However, that's in DDX . . . they don't seem to push so well in HC-110 or TMax.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I want my Palatomic-X.

A beautiful film I miss it too.

 

[Roger Cole]

Dear MM Foto,

Firstly, you are truly and entirely allowed and entitled your own thoughts on DELTA Professional 3200and of course to share them... even though its a bit like you calling my kid ugly....it may be ugly... but its still my kid ! seriously, I respect your opinion.

I may be a little unusual in that I really do like grain, and I personally use DELTA 3200 in 120 virtually to the exclusion of all other film, and when I use it ( in my personal opinion ) its not dull, not flat and has grain that is sharp, as an FYI I rate it at 1600 and develop in either ID11 ( D76) or more usually DDX.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

I love Delta 3200, and I don't work for Ilford. If it's flat, develop it more. It actually works great in T-Max developer since I happen to have that. I prefer to develop per data sheet for 6400 when shot at 3200 etc. Develop for one stop more speed than you shoot it at and it isn't flat. Looks great, amazingly little grain for the speed, available in 120. Great film.