Searching for a new Neopan 400 – Part one: how I got here

[Moorlander]

There is of course no new Neopan 400. Neopan 400 isn't sold anymore so it's anyone's guess that they don't make it anymore. And my stockpile is running low. So I have two options either I do without this type of film or I find a replacement. These texts are about how I set about finding an adequate replacement for me.

But first how I got where I am now. I spent a year from Summer 1979 to Summer 1980 in the US. And in this year I rediscovered black and white photography. It was caused by Ansel Adams and the 4x5 inch format. I bought a Japanese wood camera with gold plated fittings, a red leather bellows and a 150mm Fujinon lens out of a small camera store in Hollywood, CA. Back in Germany I installed a darkroom even with an enlarger. The 4x5 camera was followed by an old Kodak bellows 6x6 camera, a Yashica Mat 6x6 and then a mit later a Mamiya 645. That was it basically concerning black and white. I was never much of a person trying out different films and different developers. I went for Kodak films and film developer mainly because they were well documented. Tri-X for 320ASA and Plus-X for for 125ASA. I used HC-110 dilution B as a one shot developer. The films allowed for good enlargement provided you gave the shadows enough light. Grain was not that much of an issue for the sort of enlaregments I made from the 6x6, 6x4.5 or 4x5inch negatives. 35mm I used primarily for colour slide or negative film which I sent away to be processed and printed.

At some time I tried out T-Max but the negatives I got were not easily printed and as the films I did use gave me satisfactory results I saw no reason to put in the effort to make the films work for me.

Over time I photographed and used the darkroom less. Until beginning of 2004 I decided to invest more time in photography. I had changed to XTOL by then without having to change much. By the end of 2004 I decided to continue with film photography – especially as I had a fair set of cameras and lenses. I did buy myself a Zeiss 50mm Planar lens for my 35mm SLR and tried out the Fujifilm Across I had heard so much about. My process worked well from the start and the results were better than I had imagined possible from 35 mm. Neopan Across and Neopan 400 replaced Plus-X and Tri-X for 35mm: MF and larger I stayed with Plus-X and Tri-X and only when Kodak discontinued Plus-X did Across replace it. I must say I miss the Plus-X. When Neopan 400 was discontinued as well, I stocked up on it, but my reserves are coming to an end.

What are my options? Forget about a fine grain 400ASA film for 35mm? Tri-X, Ilford HP5? I do not see any major advantage of the HP-5 over the TRI-X. So I have decided to give the T-MAX 400 another try. What I intend to do and how will be subject of the next installment.

PS: I posted a German version of this text in a German forum. Someone suggested I should give the Rollei RPX400 a try, so I have added that to my project.

 

[Paul Howell]

I would still give HP5,(it has a somewhat different characteristic curve than TriX.) along with Delta 400, Tmax 400 and Foma 400 a spin. I shoot Foma 200 in all formats, I have some Foma 400 in a bulk roll that I shoot on occasion, for speed I shoot Tmax 400, last year I did shoot Delta 3200 pushed for 3200 this rare for me. I have no experience with Rollie RPX400 but I think Foma 400 or HP5 may suite your needs, Foma has a little more grain, to me look more like older versions of Tri X. Last thought is Kentmyer 400, I have a roll that I have not shot, from I understand another older emulsion.

 

[mnemosyne]

If grain size is your most important criterion, nothing will beat TMY in the ISO400 class. But then ... have you really recently tried Tri-X? The film underwent a major revamp about ten years ago or so. It is quite fine grained now, definitely finer grained than than HP5+, probably midway between HP5+ and Tmax400. You can see a direct comparison here in Xtol which illustrates this quite nicely (click the tabs with the appropriate films for a side by side comparison!).
This also reflects my personal findings. I am not sure about RPX400. It seems the recipe for that film has changed at least once or twice with severe impact on its properties, so when people discuss it, one can never be quite sure, which "RPX400" they actually are talking about. At least this is my impression. Haven't used RPX400, but I use Kentmere 400 and APX400 new from time to time, which are said to be very close to (current? or was it the last iteration?) RPX400, and they are definitely a bit less fine grained than even HP5+ IMO. I wouldn't agonize too much about this problem in theory. Just order a couple of films your interested in and shoot them side by side. It seems you are not a newbie to film, so i assume you would know what you are doing ...

 

[mnemosyne]

I would still give HP5,(it has a somewhat different characteristic curve than TriX.) along with Delta 400, Tmax 400 and Foma 400 a spin. I shoot Foma 200 in all formats, I have some Foma 400 in a bulk roll that I shoot on occasion, for speed I shoot Tmax 400, last year I did shoot Delta 3200 pushed for 3200 this rare for me. I have no experience with Rollie RPX400 but I think Foma 400 or HP5 may suite your needs, Foma has a little more grain, to me look more like older versions of Tri X. Last thought is Kentmyer 400, I have a roll that I have not shot, from I understand another older emulsion.

I disagree that Fomapan 400 would suit his needs. The OP is apparently looking for a fine grained ISO400 film for 35mm. Fomapan 400 is neither fine grained nor is it an ISO400 film. In all developers it is a 1/2 to a full stop slower than the other films mentioned here and the grain is huge in relative terms. I am not saying it is a bad film (I use it quite a lot at the moment), but given all the other choices it is definitely a film the OP can safely ignore when looking for a fine grained 400 emulsion.

 

[Paul Howell]

Has anyone tired the new Bergger Pancro 400?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Delta 400 & Tri-X in Xtol would probably be the first films to try, then HP5 - to my eye, Neopan 400 had a quite a lot of Tri-X character with aspects of HP5.

TMY-II has quite different spectral sensitisation from Neopan & a different characteristic curve.

 

[Peter Schrager]

TMY 400 hands down...neopan wasn't fine grained..just had a very cool look...to tame highlights use 1+2 develop at 68 and use semi stand..12 to 13 minutes. ..works every time
Enjoy your journey. .personallyI use tmy400 but just bought some hp5 for a special project
Have a great day!

 

[NJH]

Whilst I liked Neopan a lot honestly I prefer Tri-X now. I think the trick is just to learn or adapt to get what you want from one of the other 400 speed films. Delta 400 as said above probably the closest in some regards but for me the way the highlights nicely trailed off with Neopan is classic Tri-X territory. Really depends on which characteristics of neopan one is looking to reproduce elsewhere.

 

[Helinophoto]

For medium format, I find tri-x to be the closest to neopan, very slightly more pronounced grain, but very similar look.

35mm is more problematic (but I still have neopan 400 in 35mm available). After that, it's tri-x and hp5, in that order.
Tmax 400 is a very good film in the smaller format, if you like the look and feel, I think it's the cleanest b&w film out there, the second cleanest is ilford delta 400, though I've never really warmed to the delta series. (It may be possible to tailor the process though),

 

[kreeger]

Has anyone tired the new Bergger Pancro 400?

Yes, (there was a url link here which no longer exists). It is only in 4x5 size now but Bergger reports 120 and 35mm are coming soon.
I don't have enough work with it yet to say I will keep using it, still on the first box. Looks promising however.

 

[Moorlander]

Thanks for the replies. I have tried out HP-5 and I did not see any great benefit over the Tri-X. Tri-X is still one of my favourites especially in MF and sheet, and I use it in 35mm as well. My "street photography" Pentax MX is ready loaded with Tri-X. But I would like something with finer grain.

One reason I included the Rollei RPX is that it is reasonably priced here in Germany. But I am aware of the past lack of consistency. I hope they have achieved some sort of stability by now.

What always drew me to Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford was their consistency. With the others (for instance ORWO was at one time quite cheap to get in Germany) I was never quite sure.

 

[Paul Howell]

Tmax or Delta 400, out side the box Tmax 100 pushed to 200 or even 400, at 200 you will not seen any loss of shadow detail but at 400 some loss. Tmax 100 resolves at 200 lines mm and has finest grain, finer than Pan F. I don't usually shot Tmax 100, but someone gave me a roll that was just past expired, shot it at 100, developed in Rodinal shot with Minolta 9 50mm 1.8 printed to 11X14 without much grain at all. I still prefer Foma 200, but may I buy a few rolls of Tmax 100.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Yeah I've shot miles of Neopan 400 (weddings) and TMY (newspaper) and my conclusion is that Delta 400 in Xtol looked close.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Last thought is Kentmyer 400, I have a roll that I have not shot, from I understand another older emulsion.

I think you are going to find out it is KENTMERE.
It was born in 2009. That makes it 7 years old.
Is that an "older emulsion" for you?
How about saying "it is a traditional cubic grain emulsion"?

To the OP:
Your Rollei RPX is made in the UK. I think that this is a give away about consistency.
Unless you are going to look at a film with a microscope, it will be very hard to find much difference between the above film and their cousins Agfaphoto APX and Kentmere range.
I'll suggest you use Delta 400 if you want a CCG film or HP5+ if you wish a cubic grain film.
Or just use RPX 400 or Fomapan 400 if you like grain.

 

[Moorlander]

Just a small addendum:

I searched my archives and found the pictures which convivced me the BW film photography did have a future with me on 23mm film. pictures taken with Pentax MX, Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4

 

[Paul Howell]

I think you are going to find out it is KENTMERE.
It was born in 2009. That makes it 7 years old.
Is that an "older emulsion" for you?
How about saying "it is a traditional cubic grain emulsion"?

To the OP:
Your Rollei RPX is made in the UK. I think that this is a give away about consistency.
Unless you are going to look at a film with a microscope, it will be very hard to find much difference between the above film and their cousins Agfaphoto APX and Kentmere range.
I'll suggest you use Delta 400 if you want a CCG film or HP5+ if you wish a cubic grain film.
Or just use RPX 400 or Fomapan 400 if you like grain.

I was under the impression it was an older Ilford emulsion re released in 2007 under the Kentmere brand.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I was under the impression it was an older Ilford emulsion re released in 2007 under the Kentmere brand.

That isn't correct and here you can read what Harman had to say at the time: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[RattyMouse]

I was under the impression it was an older Ilford emulsion re released in 2007 under the Kentmere brand.

Ilford has NEVER once stated that so it's really hard to understand how you arrived at such a false impression.

Ilford has gone out of their way to expressly state that Kentmere film is NOT an Ilford developed emulsion.

 

[Paul Howell]

That isn't correct and here you can read what Harman had to say at the time: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Your right, once I re read the post I recalled reading it in 2009 just forgotten. Too bad it is not made in 120.

 

[Paul Howell]

Richardo is right, when I reread the post from 2009 I remembered reading then, but forgot. With so many legacy emulsions just surprised that Harmont developed 2 new emulsions.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Ilford has gone out of their way to expressly state that Kentmere film is NOT an Ilford developed emulsion.

Well, it actually is, i.e. it is made in the same factory by the same people. Now, it is branded "Kentmere" and not "Ilford" for marketing and market segment purposes.
I remember Simon said something to that effect. It was to answer a similar question as to why there are products labelled "Harman", others as "Ilford" and others as "Kentmere".

 

[MattKing]

The Kentmere factory was shut down by Harman after they purchased Kentmere.

Harman Technology Ltd. has a business where they do contract coatings to customer's specifications. If you want a material or product coated to particular specifications, they will work with you to manufacture that product, assuming it is compatible with their very flexible equipment.

While many of the products they coat are photographic, many are not. They have stated in the past that they will not re-brand those products that they sell under either the Ilford or the Kentmere brands.

Only a portion of what they make is marketed under brand names they control.

Their main (not Ilford) website is very informative: http://www.harmantechnology.com/DotNetNuke/Technology/Photographic/tabid/142/Default.aspx

 

[flavio81]

What are my options? Forget about a fine grain 400ASA film for 35mm? Tri-X, Ilford HP5? I do not see any major advantage of the HP-5 over the TRI-X. So I have decided to give the T-MAX 400 another try. What I intend to do and how will be subject of the next installment.

If fine grain ISO 400 you're after, then excellent choices are Tmax 400 and Delta 400. TMAX 400 is a fantastic film!! Fine grained and sharp as a tack. Delta 400 is also an excellent all-around film.

 

[thefizz]

Has anyone tired the new Bergger Pancro 400?

I have not tried it but I look forward to doing so when it comes out in 120. I have been informed it will be somewhat similar to Neopan 400.