Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,299   Posts: 1,535,784   Online: 730
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: Neopan 400

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    714
    Neopan 400 is very much helped by smoother, lighter agitation to control the highlights. Its far from the ole' "Plus-X in D-76, shake Hard" style of processing.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    714
    (I happen to like the "Plus-X in D76, shake hard" by the way,its just Neo 400 handles differently)

  3. #13
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,331
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    Any film will need tweaking to make it work for you. I suggest you stick with the film. Neopan 400 is my favorite film by far. I develop it in Xtol 1:1 and get beautiful tonality. But that's what I like and that is what works for me. If you find your shadows are too dark, back your EI off to EI250 or so. If you're worried about your highlights being to hot, then decrease your development time by 10-15%. I used to do all the boring testing and get serous about it. But in the end I found out that the only way I learned is to shoot lots of film, take lots of notes, and experiment. You'll find your magic bullet. Good luck!

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    505
    Images
    35
    I second all the recommendations to control agitation. I love Neopan 400, and have used ATM49 with it in the past. I settled on mostly using Adox ADX [their two part liquid developer] with it, but have also had good results with Ilford DD-X and I'm experimenting with HC-110 with it now.

    As with others, I think Neopan 400 [and Acros] are probably by favourite films.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    361
    I shall risk asking the obvious: have you tried printing on lower contrast paper?

    It may well be the case that you have, but didn't like midtone separation.

  6. #16
    Harry Lime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    467
    I primarily shoot Kodak Tri-X and recently made the switch from Ilford DD-X to Thornton's 2-Bath developer for all the reasons you describe.

    The 2-bath is giving me the best negatives I've made, with great shadow and highlight detail. Because of the nature of a 2-bath developer it is very difficult or impossible to blow the highlights. First you place the film in bath A to absorb the developer, and then into bath B that triggers the actual development. The developer is first exhausted in the highlights and then the shadows. The results are really remarkable and the process is nearly fool proof. You don't agitate bath B and the process works reliably over a wide range of temperatures. I'm rating Tri-X at 400asa.

    I may move to Divided D76 to gain an extra 1/2-1 stop speed, but frankly the Thornton formula is delivering excellent results already.

    I still use DD-X for push processing and Delta3200, but am looking for a high speed 2-bath developer.

    The Barry Thornton 2-Bath

    Bath A
    Metol 6.25g
    Sodium Sulphite 85g
    1 liter water

    Bath B
    Sodium Metaborate 12g
    1 liter water

    Try about 4 minutes in each bath.
    Invert bath A gently once every minute.

    Give bath B a gentle tap to dislodge air bubbles.
    Less agitation is more, with bath B

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    69
    I love ATM49 with HP5/Tri-X but not so much with Neopan as I found the grain structure a bit weird (mushy). Totally agree with the comments about agitation -- blown highlights are a potential problem with Neopan so going gently on the agitation is essential.

  8. #18
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,043
    Images
    38
    I tried neopan 400 once, several years ago, and my guestimation for development blew the highlights out so far that the nightmare of printing it has kept me from ever trying it again. Though with so many fans of it here, and since I have become a fan of Acros, I might give it another go but I am curious as there is no mention of the grain relative to other 400 speed films. How grainy is the Neopan compared to Tri-x, or HP5 or Tmax 400? Developed in Rodinal will it become total grit? I am concerned with the 120 and 4x5.
    Dennis

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by dpurdy View Post
    I tried neopan 400 once, several years ago, and my guestimation for development blew the highlights out so far that the nightmare of printing it has kept me from ever trying it again. Though with so many fans of it here, and since I have become a fan of Acros, I might give it another go but I am curious as there is no mention of the grain relative to other 400 speed films. How grainy is the Neopan compared to Tri-x, or HP5 or Tmax 400? Developed in Rodinal will it become total grit? I am concerned with the 120 and 4x5.
    Dennis
    I think Neuopan 400 is very similiar to old TriX or HP5, new TriX or Tmax 400 has finer gain, TMax 400 has a differnt curve, tones are differnt from Neuopan TriX or HP5. Last year I started to shoot Neopan 400 in 6X9 and 6X6 developed in Edwal 12 or Clayon F 76, I am not sure if Rodinal would be my first choice, may be Edwal FG7 or HC110.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SF Bay area, California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    92
    Images
    19
    I've had good results with Neopan 400/Xtol 1:1- exposed at box speed normally but going down to 250 if there is shadow detail I want. Agitation once every 2 minutes, not every minute. Film base also seems clearer than Kodak or Ilford which will affect printing or scanning.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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