Neopan 1600 from 1994.

[Boris Mirkov]

I am thinking of buying this but having in mind that it is a high sensitivity film with an end date of 1994. I am not sure if it is worth the trouble. Any thoughts on this? And if I do purchase it, what speed shoud I set it to? Maybe some 400?

 

[Trask]

I do buy and use expired film myself if the emulsion is something I want to try. My criteria is essentially anticipated benefit of using the film vs cost, bearing in mind that the investment could turn out to be worthless. So if you want to try Neopan 1600 and the price seems reasonable, go for it. I've got some original Agfa Superpan 200 (not the recent Superpan) from the mid-1980's that produced fine images; I rated it at ISO 100 and developed it as if it were APX100. 400 might work for your 1600, but obviously you'll have to test.

 

[railwayman3]

Like Trask, I enjoy experimenting with discontinued film, and it can be surprising how long film can last past its expiry date, unless it has been abused by very bad storage conditions. As said, worth a try if the cost is low and you are happy to experiment, with the knowledge that it could be a waste of time.

400 ASA might be good as a starting point (I've used very expired Kodak Royal-X with a box speed of 1250 ASA at 250 ASA, with printable results).

 

[mnemosyne]

In a nutshell: I wouldn't waste my money and/or time on it. High speed films are highly susceptible to ambient and cosmic radiation, the effects of which even deepfreezing cannot prevent. The material will be massively fogged by now.

 

[Colin Corneau]

What mnesmosyne said...there's no guarantees in life, but I guarantee that film will be fogged beyond even Lomo-style appreciation by now.

 

[gone]

Right. 1600 ISO film that is 11 years past the expiration date, and I assume no one knows how it has been stored. Bin it.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

In a nutshell: I wouldn't waste my money and/or time on it. High speed films are highly susceptible to ambient and cosmic radiation, the effects of which even deepfreezing cannot prevent. The material will be massively fogged by now.

Agree. I shoot lots of expired film. Tried expired high speed and will never again.

 

[railwayman3]

Right. 1600 ISO film that is 11 years past the expiration date, and I assume no one knows how it has been stored. Bin it.

Actually 21 years.

If it were "only" 11 years, I'd be a bit more confident to give it a try.

 

[pentaxuser]

If Neopan 1600's real speed is about 650, as I have seen stated then this is only a half stop faster than 400 film and while even 400 21 year old film is a long way out of date, I wonder if a real 650 film as Neopan is alleged to be is so far past its use-by-date to render it useless?

pentaxuser

 

[Trask]

OK, so it's high speed, but the OP is willing to live with a reduced ASA. Older films can work just fine -- here are two on Agfa SuperPan 200 expiration July 1984 as I mentioned above, shot in a Leica III with a Topcor LTM lens, developed in ID-11 just six months ago. I fully understand that recently manufactured film does not present some of the difficulties you may/may encounter with older film, but if the investment is minimal why not give it a try if it turns you one? I read some of the other comments here as being a bit dogmatic -- you shouldn't do it, as if doing so is in violation of some inviolable rule. Sometimes you've got to let your backbone slip, as long as you understand the financial or photographic risks you're running.

 

[Boris Mirkov]

Thank you all for the replies.

I am not sure how it was stored so I don't know if it will all be any good but since this film is on auction currently, if it doesn't go much higher than it is right now I will be giving it a go.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have been using NP1600 on and off for the past 20 years, it is an excellent film and I have not really had any issues with it.

I bought all of my NP1600 as bulk rolls, as in 30m long, so it’s slightly different in long term storage, sort of, but not really.

The oldest NP1600 I have used, is stuff that expired in 2000, I am still using it, did so last week, will develop the negs in the coming week.

I don’t expect any problems, other than the contrast for anything shot in bright daylight, but that contrast is a difference and can make some quite interesting photographs.

My take on NP1600 is that I expose it at 800 ASA and develop it as though it was 1600 ASA, this has worked very well for me.

Currently I am developing NP1600 in D76 1+1 at 20ºC for 10’45” in a Jobo rotary processor. For hand inversion processing, I would probably use about that time and dilution.

Some people say if you convert rotary processing times to inversion times, you should reduce the time. I don’t change if I do hand inversion processing.

Let me explain, I do all of my own processing on my Jobo rotary processor, however whenever I teach someone B&W film processing, it is always done by hand inversion. Usually I use the same processing times and realistically with NP400 and NP1600 there is no difference.

I have a reasonable amount of experience with NP400, having gone through about 30 x 30m bulk rolls so far, which is about 550 rolls of 36 frame film. I don’t quite have the same amount of experience with NP1600 as I have only gone through about 10 x 30m bulk rolls of NP1600, which equates to about 185 36 frame rolls. I have 2 x 30m rolls left in the refrigerator.

NP1600 is a pretty good film, works brilliantly under wet daylight conditions, cloudy bright, and just generally where low light is offered. It works very well under fluorescent lighting, with 1/60 at f/2.8 being about right.

I would go for it, especially if it’s reasonably cheap. You’ll probably never get another chance to try this film.

By the way, you can process it alongside NP400, works a treat and was one of the design criteria of this unique film. Developing times for NP400 and NP1600 are identical according to Fuji at the time. My experience has been that that is pretty much a true thing, although sometimes I would push the NP1600 a little to 1200 ASA and develop it on its own.

Mick.

Edit, I forgot to mention I use a diffused enlarger light, so if you have a condensor enlarger light, then perhaps a reduced time should be factored in to your processing time guess.