alexz
Well-known
Well, just scanned my first testing roll I developed this time (and my first time ever in something but HC110) in Microphen (stock).
16 deg.C, 1:0 (fresh stock), 5 minutes, Ilford-recommended agitation.
Did few frames at 1600 then half stop slower (arrpox. 1250 ?) for comparison.
The film looks contrasty indeed, yet probably acceptable for a high speed one, but noticeably grainy, much more then I used to with Tri-X at 400 (which is apparently also normal for high speed films).
Frankly, I probably expected magic from Microphen for that film - didn't came true, however yet probably somewhat better then in HC110.
It appears exposing Neopan 1600 at half stop slower (and processing in Microphen) produces a bit softer contrast then at its advertised 1600 which sometimes tends to get stretched to the extreme.
Attached are few examples..the difference in contrast ranges is quite noticeable, through both images in general exhibit much harsher contrast then I used to with Tri-X 400...
Do you, those who shoot Neopan 1600 and process in Microphen (or similar solutions) also likely to experience that kind of results ? Do you think it can be further improved by a fine tuning of dev. time/regime in Microphen ? Does that kind of grain look normal for that film/dev. combo ?
Will appreciate your feedback.
16 deg.C, 1:0 (fresh stock), 5 minutes, Ilford-recommended agitation.
Did few frames at 1600 then half stop slower (arrpox. 1250 ?) for comparison.
The film looks contrasty indeed, yet probably acceptable for a high speed one, but noticeably grainy, much more then I used to with Tri-X at 400 (which is apparently also normal for high speed films).
Frankly, I probably expected magic from Microphen for that film - didn't came true, however yet probably somewhat better then in HC110.
It appears exposing Neopan 1600 at half stop slower (and processing in Microphen) produces a bit softer contrast then at its advertised 1600 which sometimes tends to get stretched to the extreme.
Attached are few examples..the difference in contrast ranges is quite noticeable, through both images in general exhibit much harsher contrast then I used to with Tri-X 400...
Do you, those who shoot Neopan 1600 and process in Microphen (or similar solutions) also likely to experience that kind of results ? Do you think it can be further improved by a fine tuning of dev. time/regime in Microphen ? Does that kind of grain look normal for that film/dev. combo ?
Will appreciate your feedback.
Attachments
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Well, you're going to get about as much speed as one can in Microphen, and NP 1600 is really only about 800 even then. So if you want the hair on the young girl to have detail, for instance, you will likely need to drop to at least 1000 if not all the way to 800 in reality (1250 is 1/3 of a stop, btw).
My suggestion would be to start off with a speed increasing developer that can be diluted - XTOL would be a good option - and use decreased agitation. You might get a tad more than 800 out of it, but not much.
The film just isn't 1600, and it's not as low contrast as, say, Delta 3200 is, so contrast goes up really fast. For instance, at 1250, which is roughly Delta's speed in Microphen, it's quite flat. Which is why you can increase to 3200 and it still looks pretty good. But NP1600, in the 4 times I've used it, in Microphen, even at 800 looks just shy of normal contrast. So if you're starting at "normal" contrast at 800, and the film tends to block up quickly...you get the idea.
My suggestion would be to start off with a speed increasing developer that can be diluted - XTOL would be a good option - and use decreased agitation. You might get a tad more than 800 out of it, but not much.
The film just isn't 1600, and it's not as low contrast as, say, Delta 3200 is, so contrast goes up really fast. For instance, at 1250, which is roughly Delta's speed in Microphen, it's quite flat. Which is why you can increase to 3200 and it still looks pretty good. But NP1600, in the 4 times I've used it, in Microphen, even at 800 looks just shy of normal contrast. So if you're starting at "normal" contrast at 800, and the film tends to block up quickly...you get the idea.
kully
Happy Snapper
Hallo Alex, good to see you still going at it 
I can't say much more than Kaiyen, he know's about the nitty-gritty.
Writing as a novice, I've used about 100 rolls of this (5 bulk rolls) - all processed in DD-X, I have found that grain is less when traditionally enlarged vs. scanned and then printed - I've heard mention of 'grain aliasing' &c., but I noticed this when looking at scans from HP5+ pushed to 1600 in DD-X.
I normally meter +2/3 stop and develop for 1600 (5 minutes, 1:4, 20C).
Anyway, I have the last roll of it in my camera now and I think after this I will go back to HP5+, the short dev time is always a little nerving and I found my HP5+ scans better, has a lot less curl (no curl once dry and one day under a heavy book) and is fine for me. Have you got the chance to try HP5 as well?
I can't say much more than Kaiyen, he know's about the nitty-gritty.
Writing as a novice, I've used about 100 rolls of this (5 bulk rolls) - all processed in DD-X, I have found that grain is less when traditionally enlarged vs. scanned and then printed - I've heard mention of 'grain aliasing' &c., but I noticed this when looking at scans from HP5+ pushed to 1600 in DD-X.
I normally meter +2/3 stop and develop for 1600 (5 minutes, 1:4, 20C).
Anyway, I have the last roll of it in my camera now and I think after this I will go back to HP5+, the short dev time is always a little nerving and I found my HP5+ scans better, has a lot less curl (no curl once dry and one day under a heavy book) and is fine for me. Have you got the chance to try HP5 as well?
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Kully - so if you're metering at +2/3, you're really shooting it at roughly EI 1000 (I say roughly since there are no perfect RF metering patterns out there that make any EI all that accurate but you know what I mean).
So you can see right there that it needs the extra light to really give you a less than "wow, that is so much contrast" kind of look...
So you can see right there that it needs the extra light to really give you a less than "wow, that is so much contrast" kind of look...
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'll agree Neopan 1600 works at 1250 tops, and Microphen @ 1:1 with minimal agitation is my choice there. The upside to this films contrast is that it prints very well at grade 1, so I don't mind that the films look so harsh.
My current favorite for Neopan 1600 is Microdol-X at 1:1
My current favorite for Neopan 1600 is Microdol-X at 1:1
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Wow - grade 1 to get it to print well? .
Someone from Ilford back on PN said that Microphen actually decreases film quality and tonality when diluted at all. It should always be used at full strength. I'm just repeating what he said - I have never tried it 1+1 and if you like it then stick with it.
. Someone from Ilford back on PN said that Microphen actually decreases film quality and tonality when diluted at all. It should always be used at full strength. I'm just repeating what he said - I have never tried it 1+1 and if you like it then stick with it.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Sepiareverb- your example looked fairly washed-out, with no real black anywhere. I assume this was a scan/electronic transmission issue(?) Whatever the case, I'm glad if you like the results you get, but I'll back up Kaiyen's point about Microphen being best undiluted. I've had decent results from Neopan 1600 exposed at EI 800 and run in Microphen full strength. But shoot HP5 or Tri-X at 1600 and run in Microphen (again, full strength) and it's even better- to the extent that buying Neopan 1600 isn't worth it, IMO.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Yes, my scanner has trouble getting a decent black from some fiber prints- there is detail down there. I've found Microphen a bit harsh when used straight. Ilford literature even calls for it at 1:3 for some film/ISO combos, and 1:1 for many. The Ilford time for Neopan 1600 @ 1600 is 3 1/2 minutes- 1:1 dilution lengthens this to an easier to handle 5 1/2 or 6.
As a rule with fast films in Microphen or anything, I keep my agitation to a minimum.
As a rule with fast films in Microphen or anything, I keep my agitation to a minimum.
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
David Carper. I think that was the Ilford guy's name.
I believe, personally, that the 1+1 and other dilutions are there out of suggestions for more economical use (in case you don't reuse the stock). Me like Phenidone...
I believe, personally, that the 1+1 and other dilutions are there out of suggestions for more economical use (in case you don't reuse the stock). Me like Phenidone...
alexz
Well-known
Thank you guys, appreciate your opinions.
Well, that stint with Microphen indeed appears to be a compelling reason to believe Neopan 1600 is most certainly more ISO 800 film rather then 1600, so that expecting a normal span of contrast as one used to with regular ISO 400 films would probably not be adequate at its advertised speed.
Frankly, I considered Neopan 1600 as high speed only film - i.e. for those applications where ISO 800 isn't enough, however, now it puts the approach of pushing Tri-X to 800 and probably higher in somewhat more attractive light..
So at that point I tend to agree with Drew as to allow Tri-X to get pushed to 800 or probably even 1600 and be able to squeeze out of these perhaps even better results then from Neopan at similar speeds....
My next attempt will apparently be Tri-X at 800, 1600 (and in-between) in Microphen...
Well, that stint with Microphen indeed appears to be a compelling reason to believe Neopan 1600 is most certainly more ISO 800 film rather then 1600, so that expecting a normal span of contrast as one used to with regular ISO 400 films would probably not be adequate at its advertised speed.
Frankly, I considered Neopan 1600 as high speed only film - i.e. for those applications where ISO 800 isn't enough, however, now it puts the approach of pushing Tri-X to 800 and probably higher in somewhat more attractive light..
So at that point I tend to agree with Drew as to allow Tri-X to get pushed to 800 or probably even 1600 and be able to squeeze out of these perhaps even better results then from Neopan at similar speeds....
My next attempt will apparently be Tri-X at 800, 1600 (and in-between) in Microphen...
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'm currently shooting it @ 200 for contrast control...
Matt(1pt4)
Established
It would take some digging in my archives to find any examples, but in the past I've had good luck with Neopan 1600 in Diafine. Shoot it at 1250 for decent shadow detail, 2400 if you don't mind increased contrast or if you are shooting in particularly flat light.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
TXT @ 1600 in Microphen is easy. For me, 16 minutes, 10 inversions every 3 minutes works great. Not like it looks at 400, but that's not the point. Grain is really, really crisp.
Depends on what you're looking for. Lower contrast? Then Microphen at 1600 is very nice. Lots of room to work with. But grain is big. More contrast with tighter grain? Then TXT.
Depends on what you're looking for. Lower contrast? Then Microphen at 1600 is very nice. Lots of room to work with. But grain is big. More contrast with tighter grain? Then TXT.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
For Tri-X @1600, I get 14 minutes in fresh full strength Microphen, with first 30 seconds of agitation, then 2 inversions per minute- very similar to Kaiyen's method. (EDIT: I forgot to add- I do this at 70 degrees F, not 68. Slight difference, but it does have an effect.) I like the results- it's not too dissimilar to Tri-X @ 400 in D76, actually- the curve is a little compressed, but not much- contrast isn't extreme at all.
As I said earlier, I find that Tri-X and HP5+ both push so well, especially in a developer like Microphen, that I just don't bother buying faster films. Neopan 1600, Tmax 3200, Delta 3200 are all decent films; but oddly they just don't give as good results pushed above 1200 as Tri-X or HP5+.
As I said earlier, I find that Tri-X and HP5+ both push so well, especially in a developer like Microphen, that I just don't bother buying faster films. Neopan 1600, Tmax 3200, Delta 3200 are all decent films; but oddly they just don't give as good results pushed above 1200 as Tri-X or HP5+.
Last edited: