Neopan 1600 in Rodinal - advisable?

[Matt5791]

I have searched around, but can't really find an answer to this - What sort of results would I have from Neopan 1600 (exp. @800) in Rodinal? and what woudl be a good dilution for this film.

Or should I forget Rodinal for this emulsion? - and if so what is a popular alternative?

Many thanks,

Matt

 

[clogz]

Although I have never tried this combination I think that it will yield some pretty grainy negatives with the standard 1+25 dilution. 1+50 may give less grainy results.
I developed Neopan, rated as 800-1250, in Xtol and this looks good to me.

Hans

 

[tony lockerbie]

Hi Matt, I haven't tried Neo 1600 in Rodinal but can imagine that you would have grain like golf balls. I developed Neo 400 in Rodinal and that's what I got, so I can imagine the 1600 to be worse.
I did try some 1600 in D76 1:1 and found it a surprisingly good film, I rated it at 800. The times for this combo are on the massive dev. chart.
Hope this helps.
Tony

 

[P C Headland]

Well I have tried it, and the results were quite surprising - surprisingly good in fact.

I used Rodinal 1+50 for 8.5 minutes (I think this is the same time as for Neopan 400). Agitation was 5 inversions per minute at the start of each minute for the first three minutes, then two inversion per minute thereafter.

I've shot one roll at 1600, and one roll at 1000 in different cameras. The former in a Minolta 500si and the latter in a Canon AE-1. I can't say I could pick much difference.

These links show some examples scanned from a negative:

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

 

[phaedrus]

Same results and dev time as P C Headland, I find it entirely useable:Dead Link Removed

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well I have tried it, and the results were quite surprising - surprisingly good in fact.

Hey! No fair! Actually TRYING things goes against the spirit of the Internet.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Michael W]

I have usually developed Neopan 1600 in Xtol & thought it looked pretty good. Last week I decided to shoot two test rolls & developed one in Xtol & one in Diafine. Both were rated at 1600 & had a variety of typical scenes that I would shoot with this film as well as some zone tests that I read with a densitometer.
Interesting results - the Xtol roll shows as being nearly one stop underexposed. That makes sense as a lot of people regard this as an 800 or 1,000 ISO film. However the Diafine roll read as 1600, spot on. I chose one frame to enlarge in the darkroom & I very much like the look. Excellent tonal range & unobtrusive grain. This is just a 5x7 print. in a few days I will do an 8x10 for a better look. I don't have any way of presenting this online, but I am really pleased with this combination & suggest it to anyone who has access to this dev.

 

[Fotohuis]

Indeeed, Diafine or a speed enhance developer like SPUR SLD is working very nice on this type of Neopan 1600 film.
Standard iso rating E.I. 800 but E.I. 1000 or E.I. 1600 is possible with SLD or Diafine without too much loss in the shadow details.

Some (SPUR) SLD examples:
Dead Link Removed

Best regards,

Robert

 

[abeku]

Another vote for Rodinal and Neopan. A beautiful combination with a nice evident grain. An (there was a url link here which no longer exists).
In my hands, Neopan @ iso 640 in Rodinal 1+25, 20C for 8 minutes works fine. Agitation 30 seconds then three inversions every minute.

 

[patrickjames]

N1600 in Rodinal is an exceptional combination. The film is super sharp and Rodinal brings out this quality. The grain is not objectionable, although it is larger than most 400 speed films. I use it specifically for this attribute alone. It is of course not a true 1600 speed film. I agree with abeku that it should be shot at 640-800. I develop it for only 5 minutes though. Here is an example-

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Hope this helps,

Patrick

 

[Antje]

Well I have tried it, and the results were quite surprising - surprisingly good in fact.

I'd say that too - lovely images!

Antje

 

[Matt5791]

Thanks very much everyone for the help - very interesting - I like the sound of the super sharpness.

I'm going to give it a go and see what happens - I'll post anything I think is worth it!

Matt

 

[Matt5791]

Ok here is a straight scan of my efforts - certainly very sharp!

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Matt

 

[patrickjames]

I'm glad you like the film. From what I understand, Fuji made this film (an actual 400 speed emulsion) faster by using the least amount of gelatin they could get away with resulting in a thin emulsion and very short developing times. This of course gives it its sharpness as well. I of course could be wrong on any of this, so please correct me if it is so.

Patrick

 

[lawrenceimpey]

If it's true that it has very little gelatin then I'm surprised it works OK in Diafine. Surely as a two bath it is essential for the gelatin to soak up plenty of Bath A before the film is immersed in Bath B?