Neopan 1600 Xtol 1+1 what's wrong?

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by hassie, May 2, 2013.

  1. hassie

    hassie Member

    Messages:
    3
    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hello Everyone!
    I have developed my first Neopan 1600. Xtol 1+1, 7min, 10 sec initial agitation, one inversion every 30 sec.
    I got thin negative. What's wrong?
    reg,
    Chris
     
  2. Paul Green

    Paul Green Member

    Messages:
    156
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Hampshire UK
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    My guess would be under exposed in the camera?
     
  3. 250swb

    250swb Member

    Messages:
    396
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Location:
    Peak Distric
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Neopan 1600 is an 800 ISO film in the wrong box.

    Try rating it at 800 and a lot of the regular recipes start to work and give good negatives.

    Steve
     
  4. ath

    ath Member

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    35mm
    7 min sounds way too short for XTOL 1+1 at 20°C.
     
  5. timhenrion

    timhenrion Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Location:
    Boston, MA U
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    >
    > 7 min sounds way too short for XTOL 1+1 at 20°C.
    >

    +1
     
  6. hassie

    hassie Member

    Messages:
    3
    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Forgot to mention that I have exposed neopan 1600 as 800. Digitaltruth data is 6,75 min for Neopan 1600/800. My development time was even longer: 7 min.
    The negative is corectly exposed. Problem of thin negative was caused by development
     
  7. ath

    ath Member

    Messages:
    889
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Then you need more development
    - higher temperature (was it controlled?)
    - more agitation
    - longer time
    lead to more development and higher negative contrast.
    OTOH was XTOL fresh?
     
  8. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    15,240
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The numbers at Digitaltruth must not to be considered to be some kind of rule for how long films should be developed. They should be considered starting points.

    If your negatives have good shadow detail, but are thin in the highlights = low contrast, you have not developed the film long enough (or your developer is exhausted, or your developer temperature is too low; they all result in roughly the same thing).

    If your negatives have poor shadow detail, you have not given enough exposure for those shadow details to register (extra developing time will not bring these back).

    If your negatives lack shadow detail and don't have good highlight densities, you have both exposed too little and developed for too little time.
     
  9. hassie

    hassie Member

    Messages:
    3
    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Before developing I have made research in the web and have found cca 7min as recommended time for Neopan 1600/800. Temperature was 20degrees when I started developing and 20,2 when I finished. Xtol was cca 2months old, keeped in jobo bottle, with almost no air. Working solution 1+1 was made just before developing. I think I should have increased agitation.
    Does anybody have it's own receipt for Xtol and neopan 1600/800 combo? I mean dillution/time/temp/agitation. I would be gretefull
     
  10. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    15,240
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Did you even read what I just wrote?

    How are your negatives thin? Is there enough shadow detail or not?

    It is up to YOU to fine tune your negatives. There will not be a predetermined recipe for that. The internet is full of opinions and methods that work well for others. It does not mean that a developing time that work well for me will work well for you.

    Too little contrast? Develop longer.
    Too little shadow detail? Expose more.
    Repeat until you have results that work for you.
     
  11. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,233
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    What Thomas Bertilson has said really. I have used the Kodak Xtol times for Neopan 1600 at EI 1600 and didn't find my negs thin. Try a print from your negs. Let us know how it goes. Do you get a sparkling print at say grade 3/3.5?

    Unless you have used this combo of Xtol and Neopan 1600 before and are experienced with it then try printing and see what you get.

    If I had to make any comment about what you did, I'd say that you should maybe try 8-10 initial agitations which will take more than 10 secs and then at least 3 agitations every 30 seconds. One inversion every 30 secs might not be enough BUT until you do Thomas' tests and then try printing you won't know what changes to make.

    pentaxuser
     
  12. sepiareverb

    sepiareverb Subscriber

    Messages:
    654
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    VT
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Not to be the broken record here, but:

    All my times are a bit over the MDC times, they are (like all published times) to get one in the ballpark.

    I've used a lot of Neopan 1600, I found it at 800 to be its best, 1250 was the upper limit I could get acceptable prints out of it. And it gets contrasty fast, so careful testing is needed.
     
  13. padraigm

    padraigm Member

    Messages:
    98
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I recently shot Neopan 1600@800 with Xtol 1:1 for 6.5 minutes with Jobo continuous rotation. i was happy with the results. Iso 640 perhaps might have been better.
     
  14. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,233
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    It seems the OP is judging his negs by look and not by performance at producing the print but having said that, then if 6.5 mins is OK with continuous rotation at the same EI as the OP uses then it suggests that his 7 mins with 10 secs agitation at the start and only one inversion every 30 secs by comparison may not be enough as I said.

    Of course he has to act on what we have said.


    pentaxuser