Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,578   Posts: 1,545,735   Online: 924
      
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Tokyo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    344

    Neopan 400 dev time strangeness

    I haven't read through too many posts here so forgive me if this topic has been discussed.
    I am puzzled by the developing times for Neopan 400 (and 100). When using Fuji's SPD it is very fast, only requiring 4.25 minutes at 20 degrees.
    And yet with D-76 this film requires about 6.5 minutes. Neopan 100 requires over 7 minutes. The strange thing is that with most other emulsions SPD and D-76 times are almost identical.
    I'm not just quoting "book" times but have verified the above numerous times in my own experience.

    Is SPD specially formulated to work on Neopan film faster than others. Is that even possible?
    Last edited by revdocjim; 12-05-2012 at 11:42 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Pentax 67ii, Fuji GF670, Mamiya 6, Pentax 645N
    Chemical Cameras
    My Galleries

  2. #2
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    Does the answer really matter? As long as you get good negatives, I mean.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Tokyo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    344
    Nope! Just curious to know more about how these things work.
    Pentax 67ii, Fuji GF670, Mamiya 6, Pentax 645N
    Chemical Cameras
    My Galleries

  4. #4

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,973
    It's a fair question and one that must have an answer. I wonder what it is?

    pentaxuser

  5. #5
    Helinophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    563
    Images
    20
    I would believe that a Fuji developer is kinda designed for Fuji films -some how-
    -
    "Nice picture, you must have an amazing camera."
    Visit my photography blog at: http://helino-photo.blogspot.com

  6. #6
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    I would say it depends on how they test films, and to what contrast they develop them.

    If you remember old Agfa APX spec sheets, they would publish curves and development times for three different gamma curves.

    It could be that Fuji's testing methods are simply different from other chemistry manufacturers. Either way, to make a fair comparison, whatever developers you are comparing, they must be developed to identical contrast to bear validity. This requires fairly standardized procedures, a precise lab environment, and all 'other things' equal.

    The layman's version is to make negatives that print well on the same paper at the same contrast grade and magnification.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Tokyo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    344
    Thomas,
    Thanks for the info.
    I wasn't aware of the variations in testing standards. I guess that makes sense, although my very unscientific experience with both Neopan 400 and 100 is that after 4.25 minutes in SPD the results do not look low on contrast at all. If anything this is a slightly punchy film with very distinct contrast. And yet when I process it for over 6 minutes in D-76 I get what appears to be similar contrast levels...

    But I do need to do a few more rolls in D-76 to really get a better idea of the results.
    Pentax 67ii, Fuji GF670, Mamiya 6, Pentax 645N
    Chemical Cameras
    My Galleries

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I would say it depends on how they test films, and to what contrast they develop them.

    If you remember old Agfa APX spec sheets, they would publish curves and development times for three different gamma curves.

    It could be that Fuji's testing methods are simply different from other chemistry manufacturers. Either way, to make a fair comparison, whatever developers you are comparing, they must be developed to identical contrast to bear validity. This requires fairly standardized procedures, a precise lab environment, and all 'other things' equal.

    The layman's version is to make negatives that print well on the same paper at the same contrast grade and magnification.
    I seem to remember that Fujifilm's recommendations using Ilford and Kodak developers were different to those two manufacturers' recommendations for the Neopan400. My recollection is that the Fujifilm recommendations suited me better.

    Example: Fujifilm's recommendation for Neopan400, 35mm, 400 speed, Xtol 20degC, small tank, intermittent agitation: 6.25min

    From Kodak's pdf for Xtol: same conditions: 8.25min

    Perhaps Kodak wanted people to say the Neopan400 isn't any good because highlights blow out or something like that.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Tokyo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    344
    Ah hah! Evidence of an anti-Fuji conspiracy...
    Pentax 67ii, Fuji GF670, Mamiya 6, Pentax 645N
    Chemical Cameras
    My Galleries

  10. #10
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by john_s View Post
    Example: Fujifilm's recommendation for Neopan400, 35mm, 400 speed, Xtol 20degC, small tank, intermittent agitation: 6.25min

    From Kodak's pdf for Xtol: same conditions: 8.25min

    Perhaps Kodak wanted people to say the Neopan400 isn't any good because highlights blow out or something like that.
    Or, they think more mid-tone and highlight contrast is a technically better negative. I often find that I get more interesting tonality with a negative that's developed a bit longer.
    How you develop your negative also depends on how you print them. You can measure differences in film curves all you want, but if it doesn't suit the paper you print on, or the paper developer you use, then none of that is worth anything. Same idea, but a different target.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin