Neopan 1600 and minimal/semi-stand?

[MMfoto]

I'm wondering about using minimal/semi-stand development to get long enough times to get good speed out of Neopan 1600 without too high contrast. I'd like to get an honest ei 800 out of this film. My "sunny 16" attempts at an ei of 800 in XTOL 1:2 with Kodak's rec. times for that ei and dilution have been promising, but the negs look like they could use an extra 1/2+ stop exposure.

Any guesses on a good development time for ei800, XTOL 1:3, agitation say every 3rd minute? Any other recommendations? I also have FX-39 and TFX-2 in my arsenal.


I wonder... if you exposed and developed Neopan 1600 for a true zone 1 and developed for normal contrast, would you end up with an ei higher than 400??

 

[Roger Hicks]

All the reputable research that I have read, plus my own experience, indicate that more agitation = more shadow detail at a given contrast, so decreased agitation for more speed is a complete non-starter. Otherwise you are trying to combine speed-enhancing development with grain-reducing and compensating, which does not happen.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[df cardwell]

Whew, you're tough !

I use Xtol 1+2 for 20 minutes, with agitation every 5th minute.

( that's conveniently twice the Kodak time for 1600 / agitation at 30 second intervals. )

No promises about Zone I, but try it. It surely fills in III and IV.

Roger: reputable researchers usually leave out the bit where they clap their hands and say they believe in fairies. Welcome to Neverland.

.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Don,

Well, many at Ilford distinguish clearly between (I quote) 'the science of colour and the alchemy of black and white.'

Yours by moonlight, holding a rabbit's paw, walking widdershins around the CPE-2,

Roger

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Data talks

 

[df cardwell]

Widdershins, eh ?

It's beautiful symmetry that the same man whose 'speculative densitometry' has encouraged my practice of the twilight craft also had some fun with fairies.

Don

 

[df cardwell]

Data talks

Tom,

No it doesn't; it just sits there until somebody begins to question it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Widdershins, eh ?

It's beautiful symmetry that the same man whose 'speculative densitometry' has encouraged my practice of the twilight craft also had some fun with fairies.

Don

You mean Geoffrey Crawley?

Lachlan

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Tom,

No it doesn't; it just sits there until somebody begins to question it.

Don, your data (images) talked to me...

 

[df cardwell]

gracias, tom

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

gracias, tom

de nada, Don, well seen and captured.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

You mean Geoffrey Crawley?

Lachlan

Lachlan, Maybe Aleister Crowley??

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Tom,

Nah, you can't get plain Grade 6 nowadays, let alone 666.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[df cardwell]

Lachlan, Tom, Roger.... yes, Mr. Crawley. Although, to some, his simple craftsmanship may be categorized as akin to Mr. Crowley's.

But my own tastes run more toward garden variety Episcopalianity; I prefer Evensong to Opium.

I wonder how MMfoto is faring, trying to squeeze a little more shadow speed from Neopan ?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lachlan, Tom, Roger.... yes, Mr. Crawley. Although, to some, his simple craftsmanship may be categorized as akin to Mr. Crowley's.

But my own tastes run more toward garden variety Episcopalianity; I prefer Evensong to Opium.

I wonder how MMfoto is faring, trying to squeeze a little more shadow speed from Neopan ?

I don't know if you heard back in the early 1980s of Crawley's investigation into the Cottingley Fairies hoax?

As for Crowley, not many people have actively wanted to be called a 'sex fiend' by the tabloid press!

Lachlan

 

[df cardwell]

Yep, it was the COTTINGLEY business i was thinking about. Charming. Silly. The 21st century doesn't really do Silly, Charming, or even Whimsy very well. Shame.

Below, please behold Frances Griffiths and a Leaping Fairy, 1917.

Some Neopan 1600 would have come in handy.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I wonder how MMfoto is faring, trying to squeeze a little more shadow speed from Neopan ?

What about using 777 not 666?

Lachlan

 

[MMfoto]

I'm afraid I haven't souped a single roll of film this week, so I can't say I'm any further than I was when I first posted. Though I do have my head around it a little better.

At this point I'm feeling like I should just let the material do what it want's to do.... Either expose till you get the shadow detail you want or push the hell out of it.

I'll try again this weekend!

 

[MMfoto]

OK, I just developed a roll of Neopan 1600 in XTOL 1:2 per DF's recommendation for 20 minutes. Agitating 30 seconds initially and then 10 seconds every fith minute. Oh yeah! Rich and full without any spiky looking highlights....

 

[df cardwell]

Can you see the fairies ?

d

 

[MMfoto]

Can you see the fairies ?

d

Uh..... Oh, I see them, I see them!