Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
After 5 years of using Delta 3200 and Noctilux as my "reach in
and pull the last speck of darkness out" combination, I decided
to see what ya'll (available darkness snappers) found so
appealing about Neopan 1600.
Just got out of the darkroom, having processed:
2 rolls of 120 Delta 400 (new), rated at 400, developed in
DDX (recommended time / 1.4). As expected - gorgeous full tonal
range, great shadow detail, nice highlight separation.
1 roll of 35 Delta 100, rated at 100, developed in DDX
(recommended time). As expected - gorgeous as above.
and my first roll of 35 Neopan, rated at 1600, developed in
DDX (recommended time) - And quite unexpected - No shadow detail
- - I mean none - clear film - really clear film - seems like
almost no base fog what so ever (I like that). The highlights and
mid tones look ok. But the shadows are gone.
I generally look at the shadows for "real" film speed in
film/developer combinations, and adjust development for the
highlights. But this film, in DDX, looks like it would have a
shadow speed of 400 (maybe). For now, I must say that Delta 3200
rated at 1600, in DDX has it all over the Neopan. The Delta has
as much shadow detail at 1600 as you'd possibly want to print.
All this is looking at wet film. Still interested in seeing how
it prints (grain, etc.). One thing for sure, I'll get some dense
blacks out of it (empty but rich).
I really love the DDX developer with all the Ilford Delta, HP5
films. And really don't want to start inventorying multiple
developers.
But, a question, for those who get a "real" shadow speed of 1600
out of this Neopan film (and I mean full printable detailed
shadows), what developers do ya'll use?
George