Push processing neopan 400 to 1600

Rojo

Hey all you film heads! I rated neopan 400 at 1600 over the weekend and I'm gonna process them today. What dev time and at what temp should I use? I'm a little confused from looking it up on the net. I shall be using Agfa Rodinal Special in a small tank.

magicbastarder

all i know is that i don't like neopan developed in rodinal, it's too contrasty.

DaireQuinlan

Rojo wrote: »

Hey all you film heads! I rated neopan 400 at 1600 over the weekend and I'm gonna process them today. What dev time and at what temp should I use? I'm a little confused from looking it up on the net. I shall be using Agfa Rodinal Special in a small tank.

The massive dev chart is your friend ...

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

However, it doesn't have anything for rodinal at that EI , I suspect because Rodinal is probably the worst choice for push-processing that you could pick :-) I'd recommend Ilford DD-x, purely because I've used it before to reasonable effect (affect ?!?!?), the chart then recommends 13 minutes at 20c and 1+4 working solution.

Rojo

Damn, I'm gonna have to buy another developer now!!! Argh. Ok, I'll try Ilford DD-x (not today tho) Thanks. :-)

DaireQuinlan

Rojo wrote: »

Damn, I'm gonna have to buy another developer now!!! Argh. Ok, I'll try Ilford DD-x (not today tho) Thanks. :-)

Even at that, Neopan 400 pushed to 1600 might not give you the nicest looking result. I'd say you'll get a lot of ugly foggy grain in your highlights. I'd use Neopan 1600 next time round if you get the chance. Be sure to throw up a few when you get them dev'd, I'm curious to see what they look like. The last big push I did was expired delta 400 to 3200 and it looked pretty dreadful :eek:

Rojo

I've pushed neopan 400 to 1600 before and they weren't too bad!


Also pushed expired ilford pan f 50 to either 400 or 800.. Think it was 800, because I remember John Gunn was saying it had no hope and the results were fairly decent, I gotta say!

pete4130

I've pushed neopan to 1600 and 3200 lots of times before. Rodinol special, 20 degrees for 7mins 45 seconds minutes or thereabout. basically for every EXTRA stop you push it you cumulatively add on 1/3 of the developing time.
so Rodinol Special (which is better for neopan 400) at 20 degrees is 4 minutes (if my mermory is correct!?), so add on 1/3 of that to compensate for pusing it 1 stop to 800 bring it to 5 mins 12 second, then add on another 1/3 to 5 mins 12 secs for pushing it another stop to 1600 which brings it to 7 mins 45 secs.
Because you are processing for nearly doble the amount of time, you have to be careful of your chemical temperatures, so its important to have a tank of water at 20 degress for you to put your processing tank into after you agitate it every 30 seconds to try to keep the temperature constant.

I'd recommend Kodak T-Max film if you plan on pushing again in the future. It is rated to be pushed to 3200. I've pushed it to 6400 ISO before when shooting gigis and not needed to use flash. I also prefer the tonal qualities and the grain of the T-Max to the neopan, I find it alot more forgiving and not as harshly contrasty. I think its Kodak Tx developer youneed to use with the T-Max film though, its about €17 a bottle last time I used it.
Also I'd recommend Ilford Delta 3200, I've pushed that to 12,800 before with good results. Alotof over processing and almost transparant negs if shooting gigs but can produce some stunning results!
Hope this info was some help?

Rojo

pete4130 wrote: »

I've pushed neopan to 1600 and 3200 lots of times before. Rodinol special, 20 degrees for 7mins 45 seconds minutes or thereabout. basically for every EXTRA stop you push it you cumulatively add on 1/3 of the developing time.
so Rodinol Special (which is better for neopan 400) at 20 degrees is 4 minutes (if my mermory is correct!?), so add on 1/3 of that to compensate for pusing it 1 stop to 800 bring it to 5 mins 12 second, then add on another 1/3 to 5 mins 12 secs for pushing it another stop to 1600 which brings it to 7 mins 45 secs.
Because you are processing for nearly doble the amount of time, you have to be careful of your chemical temperatures, so its important to have a tank of water at 20 degress for you to put your processing tank into after you agitate it every 30 seconds to try to keep the temperature constant.

I'd recommend Kodak T-Max film if you plan on pushing again in the future. It is rated to be pushed to 3200. I've pushed it to 6400 ISO before when shooting gigis and not needed to use flash. I also prefer the tonal qualities and the grain of the T-Max to the neopan, I find it alot more forgiving and not as harshly contrasty. I think its Kodak Tx developer youneed to use with the T-Max film though, its about €17 a bottle last time I used it.
Also I'd recommend Ilford Delta 3200, I've pushed that to 12,800 before with good results. Alotof over processing and almost transparant negs if shooting gigs but can produce some stunning results!
Hope this info was some help?

That was helpful, but a little conflicting with the other advice given! Ha! Think I might go with the Rodinal... :S looked up flickr and found this excellent shot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49583338@N00/284506512/

which was neopan 400 pushed to 1600 with Rodinal used as the dev!!

pete4130

Rodinol is meant to produce better results with fuji 100 film, where rodinol special is better for neopan 400 as it gives a finer grain with it. The info I gave is from my own experince and what worked for me in the past. Regular rodinol has longer processing times too than rodinol special so making sure you keep your chemicals at the correct temp is more important.

DaireQuinlan

I've never used Rodinal for pushing, only DD-x (and one film pushed with Ilfosol which was completely dense in the highlights and completely transparent in the shadows :-)), I've only heard that it was unsuitable. If Pete4130 has used it with success then I'd say go for it. Experience is better than hearsay any day

deaddonkey

i'm just scanning a roll i shot of neopan 400 at 1600 now, in id-11

i'll post some up

i developed at 20 degrees for 13.5 minutes

they're not looking great so far, but this is only the 4th roll of film i've ever shot developed, so we'll see

also bought 10 litres of id-11 for a tenner yesterday, score.

deaddonkey

it was indoors at night, and looked a bit short on light, they're a bit under exposed. the grain looks fine though, not overwhelming at all, so i'm gonna find a film that does well at 3200 and use that as my stock film for shooting friends at parties.
for street i'm using neopan 400 at 400 and 800 and i quite like it.

deaddonkey

i don't know why it's so soft, maybe it's the lens being quite wide open because of the low light? i'm pretty new at all this.
anyway, that's neopan 400 at 1600ISO and stock id-11, for 13.5 minutes.

pete4130

I've never found ID-11 to be great with Neopan. Not very contrasty for my tastes, but it is cheap and your results look quite well balanced tone wise too. If your looking fo a good film at 3200 then your best options are probably Kodak T-max 400 ISO (It's rated to be pushed to 3200 but best processed with Kodak developer (TX or TK developer I think? I cant remember he name exactly) or go straight for Ilford Delta 3200. I personally love the Delta 3200. It can be hard to get sometimes (as Ilford did go bust at one stage but someone else is making it under the Ilford name now I think?) and the fact that not too many people sell it due to it being so fast. Guns in Wexford Street were always the cheapest but if they happen to be out of stock, ISS (Image SUpply Services) down the laneway where the back entrance to the Village Venue is usually has some in stock, but at a few extra €'s. As a last option Kodak do a 3200 ISO speed film and while it is useable, I'd compare its grain to that of beach sand in texture. Some images can look like mosaics more than photos but it is acceptable.

minikin

Never had a problem with ID-11 or D-76 (have shot hundreds of rolls of neopan) but my absolute favourite was HC-110, great balance between grain, overall contrast and acutance.... having said that I don't know if you can still get it in Dublin. Can check old records for dev times, temp etc if you want.

deaddonkey

pete4130 wrote: »

I've never found ID-11 to be great with Neopan. Not very contrasty for my tastes, but it is cheap and your results look quite well balanced tone wise too. If your looking fo a good film at 3200 then your best options are probably Kodak T-max 400 ISO (It's rated to be pushed to 3200 but best processed with Kodak developer (TX or TK developer I think? I cant remember he name exactly) or go straight for Ilford Delta 3200. I personally love the Delta 3200. It can be hard to get sometimes (as Ilford did go bust at one stage but someone else is making it under the Ilford name now I think?) and the fact that not too many people sell it due to it being so fast. Guns in Wexford Street were always the cheapest but if they happen to be out of stock, ISS (Image SUpply Services) down the laneway where the back entrance to the Village Venue is usually has some in stock, but at a few extra €'s. As a last option Kodak do a 3200 ISO speed film and while it is useable, I'd compare its grain to that of beach sand in texture. Some images can look like mosaics more than photos but it is acceptable.

thanks

i went to gunns last night and bought some neopan 1600. i'll try the ilford 3200 another time, and try pushing one roll of the 1600 to 3200

also developed pulled some neopan 400 to 200 last night, with results i'm very pleased with







(sorry for hijacking the thread op!)
is the sharpness of a picture dependent only on the lens and its settings, or is a film pushed hard going to look a bit softer? will i get better results with a filom rated at 1600 than a 400 pushed to 1600? i'm perfectly happy with the amount of grain at neopan 400 @ 1600

Rojo

don't apologise for hyjacking! i'm interested in all of this! :-)

pete4130

The more pushed the film is, the grainier it will look....like having larger pixels on a digital camera I guess, so it won't have the resolution as a finer grain/lower speed film I guess. Sharpness would be more to do with the camera and lens. In low light you will be using the widest apertures (therefore with the shortest depths of field) and possibly slower shutter speeds meaning that any movement in the frame will look softer than it should. I'm afraid I can't see the pics you posted in work due to the web filter they have, so I can't actually comment on them right now.

magicbastarder

deaddonkey wrote: »

i'll try the ilford 3200 another time

i love this stuff; it's great for portraits; flattering on skin, and easy to use inside without worrying too much about light levels.
gunns were selling rolls of it, out of date, for about €1.50 a pop about a year ago. i'm sorry i didn't buy more - i've run out.

deaddonkey

pete4130 wrote: »

The more pushed the film is, the grainier it will look....like having larger pixels on a digital camera I guess, so it won't have the resolution as a finer grain/lower speed film I guess. Sharpness would be more to do with the camera and lens. In low light you will be using the widest apertures (therefore with the shortest depths of field) and possibly slower shutter speeds meaning that any movement in the frame will look softer than it should. I'm afraid I can't see the pics you posted in work due to the web filter they have, so I can't actually comment on them right now.

yeah that's what i figured, i'm gonna try some of the 1600 at 3200, and shoot at f/8 at a party next week.
it's a rangefinder camera with a 40mm lens, so hand holding to 1/15th of even 1/8th (if people stand still, heh) isn't a problem cos there's no mirror whacking up and down. the meter only goes to 800 on it though, so i'll just need to add 2 stops to everything.

pete4130

I've still got one of those rolls from Gunns floating about my camera bag for when i want to throw it into the F100! I'm glad someone else thinks its a lovely film and I'm not just crazy!

thefizz

Tmax developer is a very good choice for push processing if you want to keep grain from getting too big.

Peter

magicbastarder

pete4130 wrote: »

I've still got one of those rolls from Gunns floating about my camera bag for when i want to throw it into the F100! I'm glad someone else thinks its a lovely film and I'm not just crazy!

unfortuately, i can't show any of the photos i took with it; i have a rule about not posting portraits (which are invariably of friends or family) as i assume they do not presume i would post them to a public website when i took them.

pete4130

you could post tight crops so nobody would know who they were and give us a better look at the tones and grain :cool: