past date neopan 1600 in hc-110 ?

[peter16]

I shot one of my four rolls acquired in a trade and was very bummed at how the film turned out. I used .75 oz of Hc-110 stock solution to 8 oz of 68 degree water and added 1.5 mL of Moersch restrainer from freestyle. Developed in the can for 10 minutes. I rated the film at iso 640 in the camera. The negs look really thin, basically unusable. They look both underexposed and underdeveloped. I know the restrainer may be the culprit, but I guess I'm wondering if others would advise lowering my iso even more? and crank up my developing time? I have 3 rolls left, almost seems like i should just toss em and shoot tri-x if I got to expose at iso 400. I know the restrainer was probably a variable I shouldn't have introduced, but as the film was from at least 2010 and I had done tests with the restrainer using outdated Tri-x and sheet film that seemed to really help with the base fog at this dilution. I've developed many dozens of rolls of fresh acros 100 using the above solution minus the restrainer and those all looked great. Any words of wisdom?

 

[pentaxuser]

What is this a scan of? One of the "faulty" negatives, scan of a print of one of the faulty negatives, a good negative/print from the N1600 or a good negative/print from another film? Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[eatfrog]

Skip the restrainer, 2010 is not that old really.

 

[mnemosyne]

These ultra fast films fog really quickly, if you have ever developed a fresh roll and compared that to one only 12 months older, close to the "process before" date, you really don't need a densitometer to see the difference in base fog! If the film expired in 2010 or earlier it is almost pre-historic by now. I wouldn't bother using it.

 

[peter16]

What is this a scan of? One of the "faulty" negatives, scan of a print of one of the faulty negatives, a good negative/print from the N1600 or a good negative/print from another film? Thanks

pentaxuser

it's a scan of a negative of one the few frames on the roll that I thought might be salvageable. probably exposed it 1/2 of full stop more than what the meter was saying by accident. epson v700, which is what I use to make quick proofs. Thanks everyone for the input

 

[ericdan]

I have a few rolls of Neopan 1600 aka Super Presto from 2012 I think. Super heavy base fog compared to TMax P3200. Also, I barely get 400-500 ISO out of this film. That is in Fuji’s Super Prodol developer 1:1. The TMax was developed in xtol.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Neopan 1600 was never a fast film. From what I recall it was in the 640-800 range. If I also recall correctly, they made the emulsion as thin as possible to gain speed.

You'll probably have to shoot it around 200. If you can get it to work it is one of the most beautiful films ever made. It was incredibly sharp and the grain structure was extraordinary. Shot a ton of it back in the day. Developed it in Rodinal. I still have some but probably won't ever use it.

 

[Helinophoto]

Pff......
I shoot my 2012 NP1600 just fine at 1000 and develop in HC-110B and super-prodol.

From my recollection, the base is not clear by design, but I don't have the negatives in-front of me.

Examples of 2012 final July batch and super prodol (everything was frozen from 2012 when I bought it).
Keeps just fine.

Vigelands park statues, Oslo Norway by Ole-Henrik Helin, on Flickr

Vigelands park statues, Oslo Norway by Ole-Henrik Helin, on Flickr

Vigelands park statues, Oslo Norway by Ole-Henrik Helin, on Flickr

 

[ericdan]

Hmm interesting. Maybe I should try to develop it in Xtol instead then and see what speed I can get out of it. I only have another 6 rolls.
TMax P3200 is extremely sharp in xtol and I can comfortably shoot it at EI 2000.
At least in Super Prodol the Neopan 1600 isn’t nearly as sharp.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I ran through about 10 x 30m bulk rolls of that film from 2006 (ish) through to about 2013, all bought at the same time. I have about 5 rolls left, out of the 180 roll initial purchase.

Shot it almost exclusively in winter on rainy, cloudy, not so bright days. It has great contrast and certainly snaps a picture up.

I always developed it alongside NP400. I just went to my darkroom and looked up some details. In 2006 I developed two rolls of NP1600 alongside two rolls of NP400 in D76 1:1 for 9"30" at 20ºC. My notes mention beautiful negatives from both films.

In 2008 I developed three rolls of NP1600 along with one roll of NP400 D76 1:1 21ºC for 9"45". Notes mention the NP1600 was brilliant, NP400 not too good.

In all cases I exposed the NP400 at 320 ASA and the NP1600 at 800 ASA.

NP1600 was designed to be developed alongside NP400; something I was not completely convinced about. One test roll later and I was a convert. Wonderful film, but it is a very contrasty film and really is suited to low contrast shooting conditions where a snap is often welcome. Unreal grain structure as well, makes brilliant winter condition prints look fabulous.

Essentially, exposing it at 800 ASA then developing normally for it's 1600 ASA supposed box speed, worked brilliantly for me.

Mick.