Neopan 400 in XTOL - Kodak vs Fuji Data Sheets

[lmmccubbin]

I'm trying out this combination for the first time, so I went to Kodak and Fuji's respective data sheets (XTOL j109.pdf and Neopan 400 AF3-706E.pdf).

With XTOL Stock @ 68 degrees here are their recommended development times:
EI 400 Kodak: 8.25 Fuji: 6.25
EI 800 Kodak: 9.75 Fuji: 8.75
EI 1600 Kodak: 11.5 Fuji: 12.5

The time differences seem non-trivial. Are they attributable to the different recommended agitation methods alone?

Does anyone have a preference for which to go with as a starting point? I print with a condenser.

Thanks for your help.

Marie

 

[pentaxuser]

Interesting. It doesn't seem to folow a pattern with Fuji being quicker but with the difference narrowing until 1600 when it reverses. Actually one min at between 11.5 and 12.5 is fairly marginal but it is a worrying large difference at EI 400 which is the EI most people would develop a 400 film at for most of the time. I wonder what the explanation is?

pentaxuser

 

[brian steinberger]

Hi Marie. Recommended starting points are just that... recommended starting points. Before you shoot anything important I would recommend shooting some test rolls of scenes in which you normally shoot or will be shooting. Then pick one of the times and go for it. You'll be able to tell once you've developed if its over or underdeveloped, then you can adjust from there.

I found Neopan in Xtol to give excellent shadow detail, so I shoot at EI400 and would recommend that you do as well. I develop my Neopan 400 (120) in Xtol diluted 1:1 since I use it as a one-shot developer and also gives slightly better sharpness than stock Xtol. My time is 8 min. at 70 degrees. There are so many variables, everyone has their own agitation style, different thermometers.. etc. The only real way is for you to come up with a time that works for you. So get out and shoot!

 

[L Gebhardt]

I would go with Fuji's time for sure. Last time I followed the XTOL times Kodak publishes they were much too long. Almost a grade and a half over developed. If you have a condenser I would go even less than Fuji's time as a starting point.

It would be best to test it yourself.

 

[keithwms]

Hmm the Fuji times you quote seem short to me. Are these times for the same format film agitated the same way in the same dilution?

I have used the massive chart for this combo in the past and it's never led me astray...

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Neopan+400&Developer=Xtol&mdc=Search

 

[aldevo]

Interesting. It doesn't seem to folow a pattern with Fuji being quicker but with the difference narrowing until 1600 when it reverses. Actually one min at between 11.5 and 12.5 is fairly marginal but it is a worrying large difference at EI 400 which is the EI most people would develop a 400 film at for most of the time. I wonder what the explanation is?

pentaxuser

Perhaps for starters that Fuji and Kodak aren't necessarily interested in doing favors for one another's product lines?

I would probably start by trying to delve deeper into the data sheets to see if there are differences in the CI (or whatever Fuji happens to use) between the two recommendations.

But I would probably end up by splitting the difference between the two and hoping for the best.

I always figure I'll be coping w/ less than optimal results for the first roll or two I shoot with any new film/developer combination.

 

[brian steinberger]

Hmm the Fuji times you quote seem short to me. Are these times for the same format film agitated the same way in the same dilution?

I have used the massive chart for this combo in the past and it's never led me astray...

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Neopan+400&Developer=Xtol&mdc=Search

I see the Massive Development Chart uses Kodak's times for stock Xtol at EI400, 8.25 min. I can almost guarantee you that you will have overdeveloped negatives if you use this time. Like I said, I develop my negatives for 8 min. and I dilute 1:1. I would start with something closer to Fuji's recommended time.

 

[kozesluk]

I strongly recommend following XTOL table from Fotoimport as. (not only time but dilution also for obtaining ideal starting point)
http://www.fotoimport.no/pg02/PG02-1-6.htm

I always had great negatives using their published times.

 

[stradibarrius]

What agitation method do you use?

 

[clayne]

Neopan typically responds well to two main types of agitation: 5s per 30s and 5-10s per 60s. Depends on what the subject/scenes are on the film, developer, and type of contrast desired (which will be a noticeable amount higher than "normal" [Tri-X], in general).

 

[john_s]

Neopan typically responds well to two main types of agitation: 5s per 30s and 5-10s per 60s. Depends on what the subject/scenes are on the film, developer, and type of contrast desired (which will be a noticeable amount higher than "normal" [Tri-X], in general).

Neopan400 also responds very well to minimal agitation (2 inversions every 3 minutes or so). Contrast will be about right, not higher than Tri-X (as long as the developing time is not too long).

Neopan400 develops fast. As Barry Thornton said, "a bit more for good measure is a lot worse than not quite enough" (my paraphrasing).

 

[lmmccubbin]

Stradibarrius, I agitate (not too vigorously) for the first minute, followed by two inversions every 60 seconds. I am gradually reducing the development times (I started with Fuji's) as my negatives still have a bit too much contrast. I will probably end up somewhere around brian steinberger's 8' in 1:1.

John_S, do you increase the developing time to compensate for the decreased agitation, or does the minimal agitation just bring down the contrast a bit?

Thanks for the input.

 

[john_s]

...................

John_S, do you increase the developing time to compensate for the decreased agitation, or does the minimal agitation just bring down the contrast a bit?

Thanks for the input.

I've been developing film in tanks for 40 years. Although I don't actually do anything very different from when I started, my results have gradually become better. Part of that is better exposure (more) and more careful development (less). I'm sure that I get better overall results with gentle agitation and not much of it.

To answer your question, I suppose there's a bit of time adjustment inherent in what I do, but it's built into my dev time, refined by trial and error.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Neopan400 also responds very well to minimal agitation (2 inversions every 3 minutes or so). Contrast will be about right, not higher than Tri-X (as long as the developing time is not too long).

Neopan400 develops fast. As Barry Thornton said, "a bit more for good measure is a lot worse than not quite enough" (my paraphrasing).

Hmm, that depends on how much less development is given. Barry T was more normally talking about the impact on sharpness and resolution when he talked of over development.

I use a very soft head and under devloped negs are a lot harder for me to print well than one with a little too much. Slight over development is no big deal when it comes to printing if you are a decent printer. Sure it impacts on grain and resolution, but the impact is not as severe IMO as Barry T suggests in his books, particularly with larger formats. Now a really flat neg that needs more than G5 is a real problem in my experience, when it comes to getting rich tones!

 

[Tony Egan]

In my experience Neopan 400 is probably more like a 200 ISO film in XTol in comparison to TriX. I was initially not satisfied with the shadows at the recommended 400 ISO and highlights tended to blow at the longer recommended development times. I got results I liked better rating it closer to 200 and cutting back development about 25-30%. It's a personal thing but in the same conditions TriX is much closer to a true 400ISO film than neopan and more forgiving in the highlights in contrasty situations. Having got the combination that works for me it is a good film but the Neopan 1600 rated at 800ISO has given me some great images also. But, I inevitably head back to TriX!

 

[john_s]

Hmm, that depends on how much less development is given. Barry T was more normally talking about the impact on sharpness and resolution when he talked of over development.

I use a very soft head and under devloped negs are a lot harder for me to print well than one with a little too much. Slight over development is no big deal when it comes to printing if you are a decent printer. Sure it impacts on grain and resolution, but the impact is not as severe IMO as Barry T suggests in his books, particularly with larger formats. Now a really flat neg that needs more than G5 is a real problem in my experience, when it comes to getting rich tones!

I was thinking of 35mm and 120, not LF, where more development is of course more appropriate. I base my comments on my initial experience of using manufacturers' recommendations and getting negs that were difficult to print because they were too contrasty. I use a head that is neither very soft nor very hard, and I base my comments on that. Everyone needs to adjust exposure and development to suit them, but contrasty negatives are a challenge to most printers (depending on the desired effect &c, &c).

 

[HMFriedman]

XTol 1+2, 11:30 @ 68 degrees. Agitation = 1 gentle turn every 5 seconds for the first 30 seconds, 4 turns @ 1 minute and for each minute thereafter. Mostly shot in full sun with a Holga, so unknown ISO. I get beautiful (not overly contrasty) negatives that print easily on Ilford MGW with a Beseler Dichro 45S. I'd probably start with time somewhat reduced from there if you're using a lens that offers more contrast than Holga's.

As stated earlier, these are all just starting points. Your method should vary dependent on your enlarger light source, taking and enlarging lenses, water, thermometer, paper, and most of all, your desired end result. "Everything changes everything."