Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 08:31 PM 11/27/2006, G Hopkinson wrote: >Marc I haven't seen such an opinion on the Neopan 400 before. From my >own recent and limited b&w renaissance, I've had better >results from the Neopan vs HP5. Hoppy Perhaps I spoke in haste and, certainly, whatever works for you, works for you. I go back a LONG way with Ilford, back to H.P. 3 in 1965, which I used to pump up to 1200 ASA for astrophotography in my High School days. This is an emulsion I really like and understand after four decades of use. I generally develop it in home-brewed D-76 but I also use one of several Crawley mixes or ID-11 and even XTOL, when I can find it. For that matter, I've had some really good results with HP-5 and Rodinal. I had a miserable time with Neopan in its early days and I've not tried it since then. It was an unworkable emulsion with a huge learning curve. I had climbed that one already to tame T-Max but simply lacked the time and energy to learn how to use Neopan when I was so damned happy with HP-5. (I eventually DID learn the trick to using T-Max and came to love it for its virtues, though I never warmed to its higher-speed brethren.) So, if you find Neopan friendly to your needs, I apologize. I simply find it an unworkable film with little apparent benefit and much difficulty. Perhaps I ought to try it again. Marc msmall@aya.yale.edu Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!