Neopan 1600, well that's that then.

[xtolsniffer]

Last night I developed my last roll of Neopan 1600 in 35mm. The film fridge is now empty, my usual suppliers list it as out of stock so I guess it's time to move on. I almost made a mess of the last roll as when I was tipping out the developer, the lid of the tank fell off. Luckily, very fast reflexes stuck it back on and in with the stop bath just in time. Phew!
Anyway, what to use now? I mostly used Neopan 1600 for ambient light interiors, usually where tripods were not allowed. I don't really want to change developers as I've gotten to know Xtol, and for the amount I shoot per year, the long shelf life is a boon. I've tried pushing HP5+ to 1600, it works ok in Xtol, and good in Rodinal (long shelf life!) if you want the grain, which sometimes I do. I've tried Kodak TMax P3200 in Xtol, again it's fine, rather grainy but not like Neopan for me. I've yet to try Ilford Delta 3200. I know I can develop it in Xtol but Ilford recommend DDX, which, again for the amount I shoot of a few rolls a month, may not be worth it.

So, the long and the short of it, I could stick with pushing HP5+, it works, and I've usually got a lot of it around. I could persist with P3200 and get to know it better, or give Delta 3200 a whirl in xtol, or team it with a new developer. Any experience out there that might guide me in my indecision?

 

[Roger Cole]

I develop Delta 3200 in T-Max developer with great results. No experience with it in Xtol, sorry. If a bit less speed is ok I get about 1250 out of Tri-X in Diafine, maybe 1000 - it used to be a reliable 1600, but now I find that I get less speed under tungsten light, something I noticed long ago with TMY. It makes no sense from the spectral curves, but I've never the less found it to be true (or perhaps my older meters were too sensitive to IR - whatever, I used to be able to expose at higher EIs than I can now.) In low but basically daylight, 1600 works well for Tri-X in Diafine.

Still doesn't help you stay with Xtol, though Diafine lasts almost forever.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Thanks Roger, I was going to give Delta 3200 a try anyway. It's always fun to try new films, but takes a while to get to know them well I find, ditto with developers.

 

[jayvo86]

I develop Delta 3200 in T-Max developer with great results. No experience with it in Xtol, sorry. If a bit less speed is ok I get about 1250 out of Tri-X in Diafine, maybe 1000 - it used to be a reliable 1600, but now I find that I get less speed under tungsten light, something I noticed long ago with TMY. It makes no sense from the spectral curves, but I've never the less found it to be true (or perhaps my older meters were too sensitive to IR - whatever, I used to be able to expose at higher EIs than I can now.) In low but basically daylight, 1600 works well for Tri-X in Diafine.

Still doesn't help you stay with Xtol, though Diafine lasts almost forever.

I pushed HP5+ in the Tmax dev to 3200. The negatives came out gorgeous...granted the deep shadows were pretty much empty. (I also think I was a little under-exposed.)

But the Tmax dev delivered a pretty much grain free image to my eyes on my 6x7 neg. I'm looking forward to enlarging it!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The Neopan 1600 was downright fine grained compared to Delta 3200 and TMax 3200. But honestly I think the best replacement for Neopan 1600 is probably going to be TMax 400 shot at 800 and processed in something like DD-X, TMax, or Xtol. You can push to 1600 too with great results, but Neopan 1600 was, as far as I could tell, best used at around EI 640-800.
Attached file is Neo 1600 in Ilfotec DD-X, shot at 800, and TMax 400 @ 800 in Xtol (guitar).
Both are prints, and the guitar picture is a little underexposed, but you should be able to make a fair judgment on what the two films look like printed.

Hope that helps.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Interesting comparison, thanks for that.

 

[xtolsniffer]

From my last roll, Lancaster bomber from the 'Battle of Britain memorial flight'. Neopan 1600, seven and a half minutes in Xtol 1:1. Orange filter. Nikon F3 and 200mm F4 Nikkor, monopod.

 

[Roger Cole]

Delta 3200 is grainier than TMZ. This doesn't bother me because, for subjects I am apt to use it for I'm not allergic to grain and, so far at least since TMZ continues to be available, I'm only shooing Delta 3200 in 120. But if TMZ is too grainy, Delta 3200 is unlikely to suit.

I get the best results when using the processing for one stop faster. I typically expose both at 3200 and develop per the times for 6400, in T-Max developer.

 

[clayne]

TMZ can actually be fairly alright, "grain" wise if processed with XTOL. Neopan 1600 was an in-between film spanning Tri-X/400PR and TMZ/Delta 3200. Tri-X or TMY @ 1600 will suffice but I'm afraid this particular EI is kind of gapped out now.

 

[BetterSense]

I agree that it was a good in-between. I would say the replacement is more likely TMY than TMZ, at least for what I used it for.

The sad part is that Neopan 1600 was fine-enough grained that I could actually use it as an everyday film. If I have a body loaded with TMZ, though, I'm not just going to shoot the rest of that roll up on everyday subjects--it's too specialized.

 

[steven_e007]

Years ago there were advocates of Neopan 400 who criticised 1600 when it came out, complaining that it was just a tweaked version of Neopan 400 which was optimised for pushing and not actually any faster. Some of them claimed they could actually get better results from the 400 ISO film pushed to 1600 than from Neopan 1600. I read this many times in Ag+ magazine. Just what i've read, never put it to the test myself, but.,.. have you tried pushing Neopan 400?

 

[Roger Cole]

I wouldn't be so sure about TMZ either. If I have a roll in my camera, I'm not going to use it for everyday subjects either - because it was probably loaded when I needed speed and I've already exposed some of it at 3200. But I've heard good things and seen impressive results (or at least scans of impressive results) of TMZ shot at 1000-1250, where it looks much like very old vintage Tri-X, albeit much sharper.

But that might not be fine enough. I like Tri-X in Diafine and don't feel a big need for something between 1250 and 3200. It's not that big of a gap, for me anyway.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I think I'll give Delta 3200 a got at box speed and see where I end up. For me it's actually more of an issue with developer than the film. I get through relatively few rolls of the fast stuff that a dedicated (and expensive) developer like DDX is going to go off long before I use it all. I liked Neopan 1600 as it was just about the right speed for what I wanted, grain wasn't too mad and I could happily soup it in Xtol. The extra stop of either 3200 film may come in handy but I may not get the best out of it in my usual developer. It is a fairly hefty gap between 400 and 3200.