Neopan 1600: Really 1600?

[RattyMouse]

Was Fujifilm's Neopan 1600 film a real ISO1600 or was it similar to Ilford's Delta 3200 being of a much lower ISO but designed to be pushed?

 

[john_s]

Fijifilm's sensitometric graphs show that Neopan1600 is 2/3 of a stop faster than Neopan400. I will try to extract the graphs from pdf files and upload them.

 

[john_s]

Attached screen shots from Fujifilm's pdfs. Have just updated from Windows XP to Windows 7 and my handy utilities no longer work. The screen shots are the best I can do. These are just for D-76. I could put the pdf files somewhere for download. Where would be a good place?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I found its real speed was only about 640 in D-76 1+1 if you want decent shadow detail. For high speeds, Ilford Delta 3200 is faster and has nicer tonality.

 

[Michael W]

I rated it 1000 in Rodinal, you could probably get 1600 with DDX.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Just while we're sort-of on the topic, which developer gives the best speed increase?
I used to shoot TMY/TX@1600 in Xtol, but I'm getting waaay better results with D3200/ei3200/10mins/21C in Microphen. I'm sticking with the D3200, but would I get any better doing it in xtol/d76/ddx/etc or just stick with the Microphen?

 

[pentaxuser]

If D3200's real speed is about 1000 or maybe 1250 in a speed increasing developer I'd be surprised if Neopan 1600 is quite as fast as D3200. I have seen 800 quoted for N1600

pentaxuser

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Just while we're sort-of on the topic, which developer gives the best speed increase?
I used to shoot TMY/TX@1600 in Xtol, but I'm getting waaay better results with D3200/ei3200/10mins/21C in Microphen. I'm sticking with the D3200, but would I get any better doing it in xtol/d76/ddx/etc or just stick with the Microphen?

I use Tmax Developer for Delta 3200. I've gotten great tonality at both EIs 1600 and 3200 when developed for the times Ilford recommends for each speed.

EI-1600

EI-1600 at dusk (120 size)

 

[Michael W]

Just while we're sort-of on the topic, which developer gives the best speed increase?

I haven't tried them all, but DDX is amazing. Shame it's $50 per liter in Australia.

 

[Roger Cole]

I use Tmax Developer for Delta 3200. I've gotten great tonality at both EIs 1600 and 3200 when developed for the times Ilford recommends for each speed.

EI-1600

EI-1600 at dusk (120 size)

+1 except that I develop for one stop more. Expose at 1600, develop for 3200, expose at 3200, develop for 6400. T-Max developer is a great match, but I wonder if it's any better in that regard than DD-X.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

+1 except that I develop for one stop more. Expose at 1600, develop for 3200, expose at 3200, develop for 6400. T-Max developer is a great match, but I wonder if it's any better in that regard than DD-X.

I've never tried DDX, so I can't comment on how it compares to Tmax Developer. I've heard that DDX and Tmax are very similar. A lot of people online say they develop Delta 3200 for the next higher film speed. I get perfect results at the normal times, but I scan my film. I haven't wet-printed Delta 3200; I began using it after my health issues forced me to stop darkroom printing, but my negs look, density and contrast-wise, the same as other BW films I wet-printed in years past. I think longer dev times would just increase grain and make the contrast too high.

 

[Roger Cole]

I can make do with negatives developed at the recommended times, but I prefer the longer times, wet printing only. The shorter times will produce less grain but also thinner negatives, slightly weaker shadow detail and considerably less midtone detail and contrast. I have played with scanning negatives just enough to know I can correct a thin one more easily than I can wet print it, so that might be the difference.

All my Delta 3200 so far has been medium format (still working through my frozen TMZ in 35mm) so that's another reason I don't mind some extra grain. It still is quite nice in 6x4.5 and 6x6 at reasonable print sizes.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I've done D3200 in stock times for ei, and 1 stop above what I shot, and haven't really compared the results closely enough to see a difference, but there's nothing glaring.
My problem is mostly that I shoot stupidly high contrast scenes, coloured spotlights on stage of people wearing black with black behind the stage, and can only use a TTL meter from the back of the room, so any differences in thinness or whatever are more likely metering than developing.
That said, the roll I did last night was great. fresh microphen, packet says ei3200/9 mins/20C (ei6400 is 12 mins), I gave it 10 mins at 21C, so maybe a half stop push.

Meanwhile, sliding slightly back to the OP, I think I read somewhere that Neopan 1600 is a 'regular' film with a 'regular' ei rating, unlike D3200 and TMZ3200, which just have stupidly low enough contrast to push all the way up to wherever without looking crap. Just can't find where I read it, maybe I read that about another ei1600 film, but I don't know what else there is/was?

 

[Xmas]

Just while we're sort-of on the topic, which developer gives the best speed increase?
I used to shoot TMY/TX@1600 in Xtol, but I'm getting waaay better results with D3200/ei3200/10mins/21C in Microphen. I'm sticking with the D3200, but would I get any better doing it in xtol/d76/ddx/etc or just stick with the Microphen?

Microphen (or ID-68) is cheap and easy but difficult to better for shadow speed without sacrifices in contrast or grain, it was Ilfords best shot at improving D-76 by substituting phenodine for metol.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I mostly did my Neopan 1600 in Xtol either 1:1 or (later) replenished, rating either 1000 or 1250 depending on the light. I recently did a roll of Tri-X at 1250 in Xtol 1:1 that I was quite impressed with the results,; just enough push to give it a bit of extra grain and just enough squeezing of contrast to give it the pushed look, but the grain was smooth and tonal range looked quite pleasing. I will be trying this combination again.

 

[Tony Egan]

I shot a few gigs over the years with Neopan 1600 nominally rated about 800 ISO and developed in Xtol 1+1. I always liked the results!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I shot a few gigs over the years with Neopan 1600 nominally rated about 800 ISO and developed in Xtol 1+1. I always liked the results!
View attachment 88347

Very nice Tony!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I still have some bulk rolls of Neopan 1600 in the freezer (well Neopan Super Presto, same stuff...), and though expired it's held it speed well, much better than expired Delta 3200 ever did, at least for me. I shoot it at 1000-1250 and develop in D-76 mostly:

 

[TheToadMen]

Interesting thread. I still have 10 rolls of Fuji Neopan 166 Professional (35 mm) so I'll sit still in the corner overhere and listen to you folks discussing this ...

 

[StoneNYC]

I shot a few gigs over the years with Neopan 1600 nominally rated about 800 ISO and developed in Xtol 1+1. I always liked the results!
View attachment 88347

Why use 1600 in studio? If you had the light why not use something with better grain and less speed and just utilize your lighting? I'm just learning not judging.

 

[giannisg2004]

Is it a studio shot?

I thought he's on the stage, shot with a slight tele.

 

[StoneNYC]

Is it a studio shot?

I thought he's on the stage, shot with a slight tele.

Oh maybe...

 

[TheToadMen]

Why use 1600 in studio? If you had the light why not use something with better grain and less speed and just utilize your lighting? I'm just learning not judging.

"I shot a few gigs over the years" he said, so not in a studio??

 

[Tony Egan]

Why use 1600 in studio? If you had the light why not use something with better grain and less speed and just utilize your lighting? I'm just learning not judging.

This was at a gig in a "non-licenced" rehearsal space with nothing much more than a large desk lamp lighting the stage area. I don't do performance set-ups in a studio. There was real high quality jazz playing, man!

Stone, is it true that you get most of your exercise by jumping to conclusions?

 

[StoneNYC]

This was at a gig in a "non-licenced" rehearsal space with nothing much more than a large desk lamp lighting the stage area. I don't do performance set-ups in a studio. There was real high quality jazz playing, man!

Stone, is it true that you get most of your exercise by jumping to conclusions?

Hah!

My bad daddio, be cool...

It's a compliment in disguise you know... You exposed and developed so well I thought was studio lit...