Like Neopan 400 but finer grained = FP4+ ?

[NJH]

I guess I am not alone in wondering what to shoot in the future now that neopan 400 is gone. I read somewhere someone saying that the nearest thing in terms of tonality to neopan 400 is FP4+, I am going to try a few rolls anyway but I was wondering on your opinions and experiences in this area.

I really love the tonality of neopan 400 but find it a little grainy, probably because the grain looks very sharp to me rather than the amount. I guess I got conditioned by the extremely fine grain of Acros as that is where I started back in again in B&W. T-max 400 grain I don't mind but nothing else about it got me excited like neopan 400 did. Its a pain the light here in the UK as for 3 months of the year on the south coast its easy shooting the slower films but the rest of the year, well one could easily standardise on a 400 speed film all year round. If the FP4+ does the job for me I may shoot that and just keep some neopan 400 in the freezer for when I really need a faster film. I only shoot 35mm and have had an experienced local lab do all the processing in ID-11 to date.

 

[Athiril]

I had assumed T-Max 400 would have been closer.

 

[NJH]

I may try some more T-max 400 as well, I have a roll in the fridge. I didn't like the tonality of it that much, loads of grey tones but then I am sure I was overexposing it, it could well look much nicer with less exposure so I will be trying that. I found that with Acros, much nicer tones if exposed less but looked a touch soft in the fine details to me. Its tricky though because I am not developing it but I do know the guy that does it well enough and he is very consistent as he should be after doing it professionally for 3 decades.

 

[andrew.roos]

FP4+ is not an especially fine-grained film, and of course it's 100 ISO.
Perhaps try Ilford Delta 400? It has a fairly flat H-D curve, which I like as it helps preserve highlight and shadow detail, but of course I don't know what you are looking for. And quite fine-grained, although since I shoot MF not sure what it would look like in 135.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I may try some more T-max 400 as well, I have a roll in the fridge. I didn't like the tonality of it that much, loads of grey tones but then I am sure I was overexposing it, it could well look much nicer with less exposure so I will be trying that. I found that with Acros, much nicer tones if exposed less but looked a touch soft in the fine details to me. Its tricky though because I am not developing it but I do know the guy that does it well enough and he is very consistent as he should be after doing it professionally for 3 decades.

I've not found Acros lacking in detail at all. It might not have the "bite" because of its grain structure, but it is a sharp film for me. It also holds up very well for fairly large prints. I've used different developers, but like Perceptol 1+2 or 1+3 and Rodinal the best with Acros. Just me of course. John W

 

[JW PHOTO]

I've not found Acros lacking in detail at all. It might not have the "bite" because of its grain structure, but it is a sharp film for me. It also holds up very well for fairly large prints. I've used different developers, but like Perceptol 1+2 or 1+3 and Rodinal the best with Acros. Just me of course. John W

WHOOPS! I shoot 120 also and didn't see that you shoot 35mm. That being said, I've shot more than a few rolls in my Minox 35 and old Leica IIIa with no real complaints about sharpness. I've only went as large as 11x14 with 35mm, but it looked pretty darn good. Not equal to a print from a 6x6 or 6x7 negative, but not all that bad either. John W

 

[Devlog]

I guess I am not alone in wondering what to shoot in the future now that neopan 400 is gone. I read somewhere someone saying that the nearest thing in terms of tonality to neopan 400 is FP4+, I am going to try a few rolls anyway but I was wondering on your opinions and experiences in this area.

I really love the tonality of neopan 400 but find it a little grainy, probably because the grain looks very sharp to me rather than the amount. I guess I got conditioned by the extremely fine grain of Acros as that is where I started back in again in B&W. T-max 400 grain I don't mind but nothing else about it got me excited like neopan 400 did. Its a pain the light here in the UK as for 3 months of the year on the south coast its easy shooting the slower films but the rest of the year, well one could easily standardise on a 400 speed film all year round. If the FP4+ does the job for me I may shoot that and just keep some neopan 400 in the freezer for when I really need a faster film. I only shoot 35mm and have had an experienced local lab do all the processing in ID-11 to date.

What what what? Neopan 400 gone? Discontinued? When? Where?

 

[Colin Corneau]

I had assumed T-Max 400 would have been closer.

That's what I would suggest. Granted I usually shoot it at EI-800 which gives it the snappy contrast I like.

If you prefer shooting at 400, you could try developing for 10-20% longer to up the contrast, as well. It's not as forgiving a film to exposure or development variances as films like Tri-X, etc. but it's quite noticeably sharp and fine grained.

 

[NJH]

No Acros has amazing detail, I could post 100% crops from 5400 dpi scans which show it the point is more that the few times I exposed it less I got nicer tonality that was easier to scan but looked a touch soft in comparison to those exposed more.

Also my lab does tend to develop long I believe, looking back through all my B&W they have developed its consistently very dense looking.

I would prefer to work at 160 to 200 ISO as a general rules as its often the case that 80-100 is not enough here, but going back to where we started this thread I love the tonality of neopan 400 as it is. Pulling it 1 stop might help in some regards but harm others. This is why I mentioned FP4+ as its close enough to a general purpose working EI for me and the grain certainly looks nice in the crops posted here recently by Dag in his film mega test. When 125 is not enough its likely the contrast boost of a slight push would be quite welcome.

 

[RattyMouse]

What what what? Neopan 400 gone? Discontinued? When? Where?

Early this year Neopan 400 was discontinued, across the line. No size of this film remains in production at all. If you can still find some, buy what you can because after that, it is gone for good.

 

[Devlog]

Early this year Neopan 400 was discontinued, across the line. No size of this film remains in production at all. If you can still find some, buy what you can because after that, it is gone for good.

Thank you very much, even if it's sad news. I have bought fourteen rolls of Neopan 400 in 135 format recently, but it makes no sense for me to buy more, because I wouldn't be able to use the knowledge how to use it. All right, another 20 rolls, but that's it. I adore the tones of Neopan 400.

 

[mexipike]

I'm a big fan of Ilford Delta 400. I soup it in Dd-x and rate it at 500 in both my Leica M6 and Mamiya 7 II. I find it sharp, not too grainy and scans and prints very well. I also feel safe that ilford will continue to make it for quite some time.

 

[RattyMouse]

Thank you very much, even if it's sad news. I have bought fourteen rolls of Neopan 400 in 135 format recently, but it makes no sense for me to buy more, because I wouldn't be able to use the knowledge how to use it. All right, another 20 rolls, but that's it. I adore the tones of Neopan 400.

I bought 120 rolls of Neopan 400 as it is still available in the stores here in Shanghai. Every time I make a film run i grab another brick of this film. $40 for 10 boxes! I think Fujifilm sent their last batch of this film to China.

 

[Athiril]

I suggested T-Max 400 as it has a closely matching spectral sensitivity. Delta 400 has extended red, I do like Delta 400 myself though.

 

[ericdan]

I always thought that Neopan was a different animal all together. Nothing really like compares.
Why not put that behind and find another film you really like and shoot that while it's still in production?

 

[NJH]

Well that is my problem, I don't really see T-max 400 as being anything much like neopan 400 but at least twice now I have read elsewhere from guys that partnered neopan 400 with FP4+ for the tonality.

 

[ericdan]

Interesting. I assume developer and developing method play a big part in that, too. Maybe you can have a look over at filmdev.org.
The problem is judging those recipes based on scans is not ideal.

 

[mauro35]

I personally think Tri-X in D76 leave nothing to be desired regarding sharpness and fine grain. I don´t know how the resolution compares to Neopan, but I would give the Kodak 400 a try. Besides, in D76 you also get full speed and good shadow detail at EI 400-800 if the light conditions are far from optimal.

 

[Devlog]

Sigh. Just bought another twenty rolls - probably they won't find enough space in the fridge. Now I have to go somewhere and cry.



Saturday: Les sœurs by Dead Link Removed, on Flickr

 

[RattyMouse]

Sigh. Just bought another twenty rolls - probably they won't find enough space in the fridge. Now I have to go somewhere and cry.



Saturday: Les sœurs by Dead Link Removed, on Flickr

Shoot it while you can get it. Once it is gone, there's nothing you can do to get more.

 

[Xmas]

I always thought that Neopan was a different animal all together. Nothing really like compares.

Fomapan 400
Trix
Tmax400
Doublex
HP5+
Delta 400
Kentmere400
Agfapan400 (new)
etc.
real difficult to tell them apart in a blind trial of 8x10s?

Why not put that behind and find another film you really like and shoot that while it's still in production?

Too rational, nostalgia sells... tough if the other companies fall apart while the hoarders grief.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Fomapan 400
Trix
Tmax400
Doublex
HP5+
Delta 400
Kentmere400
Agfapan400 (new)
etc.
real difficult to tell them apart in a blind trial of 8x10s?

Too rational, nostalgia sells... tough if the other companies fall apart while the hoarders grief.

I've done that kind of comparison more than once (not the whole list of course) and disagree. The curve shape has a big impact with some subjects and lighting conditions. TX vs TMY or the old Acros are about opposite poles. Foma, Kentmere, and probably HP5 sit on the TX side of things.

Now, if you are talking about different pictures on each film, then comparing finished prints, sure they would be hard to tell apart, but in a direct comparison the differences are obvious and many of us find some films work better for our needs. For me it is films with a bit of a shoulder, but others prefer a straight line response and at least accept the somewhat upswept highlight curve that occasionally shows up.

I've never been quite sure where Neopan fits into this range, but it seems more like TMY than a traditional film to me. I prefer TX, but would think TMY would be your closest match in a 400 film. Delta 400 was also mentioned and would be worth a try, but when I used it years ago it was more like TX tonally. It may well have changed since then.

And FP4 Plus does seem like a truly great film all around and would be well worth exploring.

 

[Xmas]

I've done that (not the whole list of course) and disagree. The curve shape has a big impact with some subjects and lighting conditions. TX vs TMY or the old Acros are about opposite poles. Foma, Kentmere, and probably HP5 sit on the TX side of things.

Now, if you are talking about different pictures on each film, then comparing finished prints, sure they would be hard to tell apart, but in a direct comparison the differences are obvious and many of us have found some films work better for our needs.

I was thinking of a dozen test chart photos without information on development method. Be easy to separate the TMax and Delta - from the rest. The toe signature and grain for the others difficult. The Foma easy on high contrast it burns.

Id not like to bet on separating...

 

[NJH]

Guys I have decided to shoot XP2 until we move and I can setup for my own development. Looking back through all my negs processed by the lab I believe they are consistently overdeveloped, with Tmax 400 or Acros this has turned out OK but I seemed to have got way more grain on the Neopan 400, I would say a much bigger gap than the one between Tmax 400 and Acros. Given that Neopan 400 is a dead end I think I will then try processing HP5 and FP4 myself next year.