Neopan 1600 as alternative to TMZ

[MMfoto]

I'm trying to get a handle on Neopan 1600 and have been having some difficulty. I'm looking for an alternative to TMZ rated @800. I've shot about half a dozen rolls of Neopan 1600 and have developed them in Rodinal 1:50. The images that have worked have been very beautiful.

TMZ has been a wonderfully flexable film for me. If I need to grab a quick shot and I underexpose a stop, or more, I can often work a print out of the neg. Worst case cenario I have to intensify it. If I treat Neopan 1600 the same way I often end up with transparent shadows, and no print.

For most of my work I put a higher premium on getting something, anything, on the negative and doing what I have to to make it work, over ultimate image quality. I am, at the same time not entirely happy with the look of TMZ. Neopan 1600 is far and away a much more attractive film, I just don't know what I need to do to make it work for me.

As it stands now I think the way for me to use Neopan 1600 is to rate it @400. In the same fashion as I rate TX at 200. That leaves this film as a full stop slower than what I feel comfortable shooting TMZ at, 800.

Comments, suggestions?

 

[clay]

I know it is heresy to talk about a developer other than Rodinal, what with those scandinavian Rodinal worshipers running rampant through the woods around these parts wearing their viking helmets and swinging their battle axes, but you might want to experiment with a developer more known for speed maintenance. One example is FX-39. Another is Xtol, especially if diluted a bit. I think you might find you can get closer to a 800 speed film with the Neopan with either of these developers, albeit without the gritty 'eternal flame of truth and beauty' that Rodinal seems to give

 

[fschifano]

I know it is heresy to talk about a developer other than Rodinal, what with those scandinavian Rodinal worshipers running rampant through the woods around these parts wearing their viking helmets and swinging their battle axes, but you might want to experiment with a developer more known for speed maintenance. One example is FX-39. Another is Xtol, especially if diluted a bit. I think you might find you can get closer to a 800 speed film with the Neopan with either of these developers, albeit without the gritty 'eternal flame of truth and beauty' that Rodinal seems to give

ROTFLOL! Very well put Clay.

 

[gnashings]

I know it is heresy to talk about a developer other than Rodinal, what with those scandinavian Rodinal worshipers running rampant through the woods around these parts wearing their viking helmets and swinging their battle axes... (snip)
...albeit without the gritty 'eternal flame of truth and beauty' that Rodinal seems to give

I am in stitches! (now, where is my honorary Viking helmet...)

 

[Nicole]

MMfoto I'm not sure what your photo subjects are, but for my portrait work I've been using a lot of Neopan 1600 and 400 in Xtol at 1+1 and am very happy with the results. My Rodinal collection is used for other projects and I assure you there are no vikings around here.

 

[Soeren]

MMfoto I'm not sure what your photo subjects are, but for my portrait work I've been using a lot of Neopan 1600 and 400 in Xtol at 1+1 and am very happy with the results. My Rodinal collection is used for other projects and I assure you there are no vikings around here.

No Vikings ? Now we are going "Baersaerk"
Off course using a speed increasing developer will do a lot to hign speed films. DDX is another of those.
I must say, though that i have had good results with Rodinal (1:50) and Neopan 1600.
Regards Søren

 

[timeUnit]

I too would stay away from the NP1600/Rodinal combo. You are, IMO (and no offence), ruining the very special look of Neopan with Rodinal and it's exaggerated grain. Neopan in XTOL (I use 1+2) is very nice a combo I can recommend. I have souped NP1600 in D76 stock, but that only works up to 15x10 cm prints, larger than that, and the grain loses its "tight" look.

 

[MMfoto]

What would you all say if I told you that the look of this film w/ Rodinal is just about perfect. XTOL is great stuff. Amazing even. It is probably the most perfect developer on technical points, and I am completely bored with it. Not a look that suits my work, though it makes other peoples sing, and does indeed give better speed.

 

[Oren Grad]

I think the problem for you is that NP1600 has very narrow latitude compared to TMZ. It's just inherent in the film. In my own experiments with D-76 1+1 when the film was fairly new on the market, I found it to be quite nice when the exposure was right on, but it had latitude more like a transparency film than a B&W negative film - less than a stop off optimal exposure was enough to either kill the shadows completely or make the highlights flat and mealy.

 

[MMfoto]

I think the problem for you is that NP1600 has very narrow latitude compared to TMZ. It's just inherent in the film. In my own experiments with D-76 1+1 when the film was fairly new on the market, I found it to be quite nice when the exposure was right on, but it had latitude more like a transparency film than a B&W negative film - less than a stop off optimal exposure was enough to either kill the shadows completely or make the highlights flat and mealy.

I guess this may not be the film for me, though I would love for it to work out. I'll try a few rolls in dilute FX-39, and maybe even one in XTOL 1:3 to see
if I can rewrite that curve a little. If that doesn't pan out I'll keep working on squeezing a bit more tonality out of TMZ... I guess.

There is surely something to be learned in the continuous compromise that is photography.

 

[timeUnit]

I don't agree with Oren. I have very seldom exposed a shot so bad on NP1600 that it's unprintable. Sometimes it's off, but I think NP1600 handles it OK. As I understand it NP1600 has a true speed of about 640. You might want to choose a developer and then do some quick tests to determine the real speed you get.

I find that NP1600 is the perfect compromise between speed and grain. I would gladly shoot it in full daylight, but I do more MF stuff now and _sadly_ NP1600 is not available in that size. In extreme contrast situations one might be better off with Delta 3200, as it's a bit flatter.

 

[bjorke]

I was just looking at this Fuji datasheet and see that the 8 minutes they cite for Rodinal they cite for BOTH ISO 400 and ISO 1600!

My new 1600 negs look thin, I'm guessing that the 1600 takes a bit more than 8 minutes (and that this oversight has been propogated to other web sites too)

 

[P C Headland]

I've only shot a couple of rolls of neopan 1600 as I don't shoot much 35mm. I shot one roll at box speed (no DX override in a Minolta 500si) and one at 1000 (Canon AE-1). Both developed using the same times(8.5 minutes) using Rodinal 1+50, and I couldn't see much difference. I was suprised at the lack of grain!

Two examples (EI1600):
Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

And one stop underexposed:
Dead Link Removed

Next roll I may try 1+100 for around 20 minutes and see how that works.

 

[Rolleijoe]

Have you tried Rodinal 1:100 for semi-stand development @ 1 hour? Works for me.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I've only shot a couple of rolls of neopan 1600 as I don't shoot much 35mm. I shot one roll at box speed (no DX override in a Minolta 500si) and one at 1000 (Canon AE-1). Both developed using the same times(8.5 minutes) using Rodinal 1+50, and I couldn't see much difference. I was suprised at the lack of grain!

Doesn`t surprise me at all, it may be a fast film, but it has very good sharpness and definition for it`s speed as you have discovered for yourself.
More like a slightly pushed ISO 400 film than the Kodak TMZ and Delta 3200 films.

 

[bjorke]

Have you tried Rodinal 1:100 for semi-stand development @ 1 hour? Works for me.

I hadn't trusted stand dev for 35mm (though I do it regularly in MF using Acros) but I tried it out and it worked pretty well, I put a (there was a url link here which no longer exists)