where to buy Neopan 1600

[BetterSense]

I looked at Freestyle, B&H, Adorama, and Calumet and nobody seems to carry Neopan 1600 in 120. Is it available in 120 at all?

I've been wanting to try a faster film because with my Isolette, f/4.5 at 1/25s is still not quite enough for many indoor shots, and with guess focus, I end up fighting the dual enemies of camera shake and shallow DOF in a lot of even medium-light shots.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

35mm only, just like Kodak's Tmax 3200. The only high speed BW film in 120 is Ilford's Delta 3200. Its good stuff, try it instead.

 

[BetterSense]

Super lame. You'd think there would be more market for fast 120 films, considering medium format cameras are slower than 35mm cameras. If I shot weddings I would probably shoot a lot of delta 3200 in medium format.

I have a roll of Delta 3200 in the fridge but I've been "saving" it being that it costs twice as much as my staple films. And, in sunlight I'm forced to expose at 800 because that's where my apertures and shutter speeds run out. I figured Neopan 1600 might be better at 800 than Delta 3200.

Any suggestions on exposing and developing delta 3200 for a "normal (not pushed) look"? I'm not going out in low-light, my carry-around camera is used in a variety of circumstances. I basically just want a couple more stops of speed that my camera won't give me in terms of aperture.

 

[MikeSeb]

At EI 1000-1600, processed in straight Xtol, Delta 3200 looks great. It doesn't look "pushed" at all. The grain is quite nice, and contrast is under control.

 

[BetterSense]

Interesting; thanks. I'll be forced to 800 in daylight (unless I bust out some sort of filter) but 1600 (my brain must work in full stops with this camera) would be a very welcome upgrade. $4.50 a roll isn't all that bad afterall for 12 fresh "sensors". Still cheaper than cigarettes!

 

[Michael W]

Unfortunately Fuji never produced Neopan 1600 in medium format size. Someone posted on this forum a few years ago that they had produced some test rolls (he had some) but eventually decided the projected sales were not enough to go ahead. I think the only truly fast option is Delta 3200 which looks great in medium format. I follow the general advice & rate it at 1600 and process in DD-X. If you really need 800 you might try giving Tri-X a slight push. Or, to avoid the increased contrast of pushing you could test Tri-X at 800 in Diafine where you should get more shadow detail & lower contrast. Another one to try would be HP5 at 800 in Xtol.

 

[BetterSense]

I like TriX at 800-1600 in 35mm with Diafine; it's really worked out well for me in the past so maybe I'll try that. The forgiveness of Diafine should help with the no-meter factor too. I don't know why I didn't think of that.

Too bad there's no Arista Premium 120.

 

[clayne]

You can always push 400PR to 1600, or as others have mentioned, use Delta.

Too bad there's no Arista Premium 120.

I take it you mean the price factor as obviously Tri-X is available in 120.

 

[jasparks]

I always wanted to use Neopan 1600 in 120. I really like it in 35mm. The best 800 speed film I found was TMY developed in Tmax or Tmax-RS, both of which seem to give more real speed than DD-X or other "speed enhancing" developers I've tried. I also prefer Delta 3200 in Tmax or Tmax-RS to anything else I tried. I found the Delta 3200 highlights really flat in most developers, but Tmax developer straightens out the curve a bit for more sparkle in the highlights.

John

 

[c.w.]

I've been looking for a 120 equivalent to Neopan 1600 in 120. I have to say, I've only done a couple of rolls, but Neopan 400 pushed to 1600 looks an awful lot like the normal 1600 stuff.

(using hc110 for both)

 

[clayne]

I've been looking for a 120 equivalent to Neopan 1600 in 120. I have to say, I've only done a couple of rolls, but Neopan 400 pushed to 1600 looks an awful lot like the normal 1600 stuff.

(using hc110 for both)

Perhaps in 120. But in 135 they're definitely different - although not a huge amount. 400PR goes super contrast @3200, whereas 1600PR, while contrasty, is not as extreme.

Grain is of course perceptibly different between the two as well. I see your point though - in 120, pushing to 1600 (the horror!) gets the job done .

 

[BetterSense]

How much longer do you develop 400pr for 1600? About 20% more?

I usually shoot Neopan 400 at 200 but I'm starting to think that might be a slightly generous overexposure. I've definitely had good luck in the past using it at 400.

 

[c.w.]

Perhaps in 120. But in 135 they're definitely different - although not a huge amount. 400PR goes super contrast @3200, whereas 1600PR, while contrasty, is not as extreme.

Grain is of course perceptibly different between the two as well. I see your point though - in 120, pushing to 1600 (the horror!) gets the job done .

It's not that they're exactly the same in every detail, but compared to say, Foma 400@1600 (which i was trying before mainly because it's inexpensive) there's a lot more similarity. I haven't tried it at 3200 yet. Ever since I got into medium format (admittedly not super long ago) I've been looking for a good high speed option, since I shoot a lot of hand held indoors night stuff, and Delta 3200 prints were literally the grainiest I've ever seen.

How much longer do you develop 400pr for 1600? About 20% more?

I usually shoot Neopan 400 at 200 but I'm starting to think that might be a slightly generous overexposure. I've definitely had good luck in the past using it at 400.

I'm just using the data sheet's time of 12 min. but with lower than normal agitation to tame the contrast a bit. Haven't developed anything at 400 yet (I still have a batch of Foma I need to go through in brighter conditions) but the data sheet says 5 minutes for ISO 400.