View Full Version : Oh no, i'm out of Neopan 400!
cesare
8th May 2013, 05:57 PM
Having had a bit of a dig in the back of the freezer, I think i'm now out of Neopan 400. I bought a job lot of it when it was being discontinued in 120 format, and have been enjoying it for the last few years.
So, it's time to switch to something else. I've previously used HP5 and TriX, so these are obvious choices, but is there anything else I should consider?
Other relevant bits, I probably shoot ISO400 most of the time, but want to be able to push a couple of stops when necessary. I use xtol for dev, and don't mind visible grain, in fact, it's something I miss if anything.
I use acros for 100 speed, and i'm only talking about 120 format, i've got 35mm covered.
Cesare
kiteboy
8th May 2013, 09:09 PM
I suggest that you give Rollei Retro 400S a try. It is not expensive and has extended red sensitivity - almost infra-red - I have had some interesting results using a 720 filter.
AG stock it or you can buy direct from Maco Direct in Germany. Processes well in Xtol or Rodinal with an excellent clear film base.
Good luck
Paulographic
9th May 2013, 07:56 AM
I've a five roll pack you can have but it's out of date, 8/06, not been frozen just kept cool.
I haven't used it as I used 120 400 ISO in my folders which I don't use any longer as arthritis has prevented me from getting out as much with portable cameras the past few years.
I've sold two folders through here already.
peterlg
9th May 2013, 09:21 AM
interested in this thread. When Neopan disappeared I went for Delte400 but I never managed to get the contrast AND rich middletones with ID11 or Xtol:confused:
so HP5+ is now my choice, maybe because I don't know what else.
Let's hear about others' experience
peter
DavidH
9th May 2013, 02:42 PM
I keep telling myself that one day I'll do a controlled test, but it seems to me that Delta is better for sharpness (superb for buildings etc.) but HP5 has slightly better tones. I'd be interested in the opinions of others.
cesare
10th May 2013, 06:45 PM
I've not tried the delta 400, only the delta 100 a long time ago, and decided at the time that I preferred acros. You are right, delta 400 is another obvious one to consider, so there are basically the two kodak and ilford films, either traditional or T grain to consider.
Retro 400S is interesting - I hadn't considered that. I've got a box of Retro 100 in 35mm which i've been enjoying, and the almost IR is of interest as well!
kiteboy
10th May 2013, 07:15 PM
Rollei Retro 400s almost IR.
Shot on 6x7 in bright sunlight with a 720 filter. A neg scan just for illustration :D
http://i1147.photobucket.com/albums/o557/AndrewHarley/IRretro-1_zps2e01fc00.jpg
Mike O'Pray
10th May 2013, 08:43 PM
Thanks for the scan. That's quite an effect and might be all the IR effect I'd want so worth considering
Mike
skellum
10th May 2013, 09:41 PM
Years ago (sigh) when I only shot 35mm Tri-x in HC110 was my favourite. Somehow HP5 was a bit 'soft' alongside. However, these days I shoot more medium and large format than 35mm, and I have to say HP5 in PMK is beautiful. The tones are so smooth and creamy, the grain so unobtrusive it feels like a different film to the 35mm version.
Unfortunately, I rate it at 200, so maybe that's too slow for you?
I'll have to check out the Rollei though- in summer I like to shoot some SFX200, and as much as I love to support Ilford it's not exactly a bargain film.
photomi7ch
11th May 2013, 09:11 AM
I think Rollei retro is a great film. It produces some very fine tones in 35mm. I have been saying I should use it at 120 but just have not gotten round to it.
At one time Rollie produced R3 a variable speed film, when used at 400 iso was next to grainless with a great tonal range.
cesare
11th May 2013, 09:17 PM
Right, i'm sold on the Retro 400S - i'll grab a few rolls and see how I get on.
JamesK
12th May 2013, 12:22 AM
I'm very interested in Rollei retro and the almost IR effects.
As I've only shot d*gital IR with a 720 filter, has anyone any exposure guidelines for this film with a 720?
kiteboy
12th May 2013, 09:30 AM
The neg scan that I posted above was shot in bright sunlight.
I rated the Rollei Retro 400s at ISO 25 with the 720 filter in place and at ISO 400 without any filter.
Using a "normal" red filter I adjust exposure in line with the appropriate filter factor. If you use a red filter that requires a three stop adjustment you get images that are very close to the effect of the 720 but with more mid-tone detail.
Hope this helps.
Andrew
JamesK
12th May 2013, 02:39 PM
Many thanks for this, Andrew.
I've got a red filter as well as the 720, so I'll try this too when I get the film.
cesare
14th May 2013, 09:25 AM
Oh, i've just found out that the Rollei 400S is available in 70mm as well as 120, so i've picked up some of that as well...
AlanJones
14th May 2013, 10:27 AM
A couple of months ago when I wanted to play around with night photography using moonlight I was advised to use Neopan 400 because of the excellent tonal range. 120 size was reasonably difficult to find and when it came I put it in my freezer without looking at it too much. I did notice 'CN' on the box and have now looked further and see that it is C41 process, but has excellent tonal range and grain.
I would like to know more, has anyone used it? Is the only 'real' difference being the colour developing process as from various write ups and literature it seems to be an ideal fast film.
Mike O'Pray
14th May 2013, 11:35 AM
It is said that Fuji CN is made for it by Ilford but I cannot state this to be the case. I have no irrefutable evidence
If you home develop then C41 will require different chemicals and higher temps and might be considered more difficult.
On the other hand if you use a mini-lab/high street lab then CN is what they are geared up for whereas most mini-labs cannot do trad BW developing.
Mike
Bill
14th May 2013, 12:13 PM
Alan, if the worst comes to the worst and a mini lab cannot handle it you can just process it as a normal monochrome film. I was given some recently (outdated) and have been processing it in Ilford Ilfotec HC at 1+49 for 8 minutes at 20 degrees C. The film looks milky when it comes out of the fixer but that clears as it dries. I have been using ISO 200 for exposure.
Not actually printed from the negatives yet but they look fine.
Bill
Mike O'Pray
14th May 2013, 02:36 PM
Bill, your post has stirred old memories and I now recall from somewhere others mentioning "normal" development in B&W developer
You'd imagine that the trad B&W developer for a C41 film would lose you something in terms of quality so I'd be very interested in the print quality.
As long as a B&W developer does the job well then it has major advantages for anyone solely geared up for B&W films
Thanks
Mike
vincent
14th May 2013, 05:25 PM
I used Delta 400 35 mm film all the time. I develope it in stock ID11 for 9.5 minutes as recommended by Ilford and am very happy with the results. Much better to my eyes than HP5.
cesare
31st May 2013, 07:24 AM
Right, first results of a Rollei 400S 120 format through my Fuji 645. The negs have little shadow detail, and look to be quite contrasty. I've a feeling i've underexposed this film, and my fuji meter is a bit rough and ready, and does have a habit of underexposing. Saying that, I shoot acros in the camera and get lovely results.
Shooting into the sun, the clouds are very dramatic, much more than in reality. I'm guessing this is the IR response of the film, as the effect is very much like having added a red filter. Shame the shadow detail is missing, all a bit blocked...
So, an interesting start, and doesn't appear to be a general purpose 'just shoot it and all will be well' film, looks to need a bit of coaxing to get the best out of it. I've got another 9 120s to try, and 30m of 70mm so plenty of time to try out different things ;-)
Mike O'Pray
31st May 2013, 07:48 PM
Shooting into the sun, the clouds are very dramatic, much more than in reality. I'm guessing this is the IR response of the film, as the effect is very much like having added a red filter.
Interesting quality. I think you are saying that dramatic clouds are possible without any filter at all? If so I hadn't realised this was the case
Mike
cesare
1st June 2013, 08:59 PM
Ok, a couple of prints made and scanned.
First one seemed ok
http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/picture.php?albumid=454&pictureid=3529
Second one shot into the sun, the lack of shadow detail when underexposed, and the dramatic sky. There is nothing in the foreground, it's a blank bit of negative.
http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/picture.php?albumid=454&pictureid=3530
There is certainly something fun to be had out of this film, better metering would help. I'm inclined to try some wide shots with plenty of sky and see how they come out.
MartyNL
2nd June 2013, 09:05 AM
In most case's, you can easily (focus and) meter with the sun outside of the frame.
I don't think I ever meter with the sun in shot.
I presume in this case it was?
cesare
2nd June 2013, 11:30 AM
In most case's, you can easily (focus and) meter with the sun outside of the frame.
I don't think I ever meter with the sun in shot.
I presume in this case it was?
Yes, the Fuji is one of those cameras with a rough and ready meter on the front, no TTL, so really it's a bit pot luck what you get, and I do tend to rely on the latitude of B&W film to give sensible enough shots with it to print. My slap-dash technique requires more latitude I think ;-)
I'm going out today with another roll in a TTL mamiya camera, and i'll do a bit of bracketing...
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.