jljohn
Well-known
Hi, I am new here, but I've enjoyed reading this forum for a while.
I just ordered a brick of Neopan 1600, and I'd like some help with how to expose and develop the film. I develop my own film (I am using only D-76 at the moment and I typically soup it at 1:1), and I scan the negs on a Nikon Super Coolscan. I know that NP1600 is contrasty, but I want to tame that contrast a bit to help the scanning process. I believe my Tri-X contrast levels, using the standard development times, are in the vicinity of .55 or .60, and I understand that Neopan's standard development times yield a CL around .80. What can I do to bring contrast down a bit. Do I shoot it at a lower ISO? Overexpose and under-develop? Reduce agitation?
I appreciate any help you all can offer. I am comfortable with the basic development process, but I have never really tried to tweak it to achieve a particular desired result.
Thanks!
I just ordered a brick of Neopan 1600, and I'd like some help with how to expose and develop the film. I develop my own film (I am using only D-76 at the moment and I typically soup it at 1:1), and I scan the negs on a Nikon Super Coolscan. I know that NP1600 is contrasty, but I want to tame that contrast a bit to help the scanning process. I believe my Tri-X contrast levels, using the standard development times, are in the vicinity of .55 or .60, and I understand that Neopan's standard development times yield a CL around .80. What can I do to bring contrast down a bit. Do I shoot it at a lower ISO? Overexpose and under-develop? Reduce agitation?
I appreciate any help you all can offer. I am comfortable with the basic development process, but I have never really tried to tweak it to achieve a particular desired result.
Thanks!
Tim Gray
Well-known
Neopan 1600 at 1600 is underexposed, so the times given for that EI are overdeveloping it. Which is why your shots are contrasty. I wouldn't reduce agitation - just reduce development time. Should give you similar results, and it's a lot easier to modify times consistently and incrementally than it is agitation.
Shooting it at a lower ISO/'overexposing' would be the same thing. I've read the actual speed is around 500-640. To be honest, the 640 looks a bit optimistic to me. I'd try 500 or even 400 if you don't want contrast and do want properly exposed shadows.
On the other hand, if you don't mind the lack of shadow details from the underexposure, and are just trying to deal with the density of the highlights for scanning purposes, expose as you are and reduce development. This might make the negs harder to print in the darkroom, depending on how much your reduce your times. Try the time for 800 or even for 400. Reading the Neopan 1600 spec sheet (last chart), it looks like in *undiluted* D-76 at 68 F, to get a CI of about .6, use a time of about 5 mins. That corresponds to EI 800 development times. So try that for D-76 1:1 - 7 mins.
FWIW, looking at the XTOL data sheet, they quote the EI 400 times as CI = .58.
Shooting it at a lower ISO/'overexposing' would be the same thing. I've read the actual speed is around 500-640. To be honest, the 640 looks a bit optimistic to me. I'd try 500 or even 400 if you don't want contrast and do want properly exposed shadows.
On the other hand, if you don't mind the lack of shadow details from the underexposure, and are just trying to deal with the density of the highlights for scanning purposes, expose as you are and reduce development. This might make the negs harder to print in the darkroom, depending on how much your reduce your times. Try the time for 800 or even for 400. Reading the Neopan 1600 spec sheet (last chart), it looks like in *undiluted* D-76 at 68 F, to get a CI of about .6, use a time of about 5 mins. That corresponds to EI 800 development times. So try that for D-76 1:1 - 7 mins.
FWIW, looking at the XTOL data sheet, they quote the EI 400 times as CI = .58.
Mackinaw
Think Different
As Tim has pointed out the true speed of Neopan 1600 is probably closer to E.I. 800 (maybe even lower). If you shoot at 1600, you can expect virtually no detail in the shadows. This may be great if you like really contrasty photos, but is not so good for general purpose pics. At 800, the mid-tones and shadows become OK and can make for some good photos. I've had good success developing at an E.I. of 800 in Xtol 1:1 for 7 minutes (20 C).
Jim B.
Jim B.
Turtle
Mentor
I agree with the above. I use this film in lieu of TriX most of the time as it provides no less detail IMO and similar grain but with more speed.
I rate it at 500 with contrasty leica/Zeiss lenses in contrasty light and as fast as 800 in flat light. My average with canon lenses is about 640 which is the most this film ever makes. 800 yields minor underexposure which is fine when your subject is lacking shadows.
I use Xtol 1+2 or DDX so your speed will be about 1/2 stop slower with D76 1+1.
A good rule of thumb is to rate Neo 1600 2/3 stops faster than you would TriX. For development, experiment with a roll. Cut it in half after exposure so you can get hone in some more after the first strip.
Its a super film... not at all contrasty when exposed right. It gives 2/3 stop more genuine speed than TriX/HP5 and has less grain than the latter.
If they had marketed this as a 800 fiml they would have done better IMO. to many people try it at 1600 and hate it. I did!
I rate it at 500 with contrasty leica/Zeiss lenses in contrasty light and as fast as 800 in flat light. My average with canon lenses is about 640 which is the most this film ever makes. 800 yields minor underexposure which is fine when your subject is lacking shadows.
I use Xtol 1+2 or DDX so your speed will be about 1/2 stop slower with D76 1+1.
A good rule of thumb is to rate Neo 1600 2/3 stops faster than you would TriX. For development, experiment with a roll. Cut it in half after exposure so you can get hone in some more after the first strip.
Its a super film... not at all contrasty when exposed right. It gives 2/3 stop more genuine speed than TriX/HP5 and has less grain than the latter.
If they had marketed this as a 800 fiml they would have done better IMO. to many people try it at 1600 and hate it. I did!
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I've experimented with getting my own estimate of the true speed of this film, using an informal method. I simply shot a roll under ordinary daylight conditions, using my customary metering method, the same as if I were shooting Tri-X or even Velvia. I found that I got "normal" negatives that printed easily, in my wet darkroom, with #2 contrast, when I exposed at EI 640 to 800. The developer was XTOL. I have not tried with D-76 1:1; but since XTOL gives a slight speed increase, I think the estimates of 500 to 640 that Tim mentioned sound like they are probably right.
jljohn
Well-known
Thank you. So, if I understand correctly, as a starting point, if I shoot this at either 640 or 800 and develop according to the chart for that speed (640 or 800), I will see less contrast and more shadow detail? If so, I'll give this a go as a starting point.
twopointeight
Well-known
i use Neopan 1600 at 800 asa, develop in DDX 1:4 for 5 minute and 15 seconds at 68 degrees. Always good negatives. Too much contrast, or a lack of it, relates to the scene photographed more than development, for me.
Mackinaw
Think Different
Since you bought a brick of the film, make your first roll a test roll. Shoot it at 640 - 800, process (as stated before, I like Xtol) and see what happens. You can adjust from there.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Neopan 1600 shot at EI-640 and developed for 7 minutes at 68 degrees in D-76 1+1
ferider
Mentor
I rate it at ASA 650 and develop in Rodinal 1:100, 20". Comes out beautifully.