Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Steve LeHuray wrote: > > Mark, > I use Delta 400 and 100 almost exclusively and have never tried the 3200, > but, I am interested in the Neopan 1600. Can you tell me about it? > Steve > Annapolis > I went through a period in the late 80's I think where I shot a lot of Neopan 1600 and thought it was great and it was/is. I think it was the first year it came out. I looked to me like Tri x did when I first started using it in the mid 60's. So that was OK with me at a now true ISO of 1600 with this new film. And cheaper than the then T Max 3200 by quite a bit and from what I could tell the same true ISO. But no ultragrain "effect" with Rodinol but that was ok with me I could get more "standard" results with it and still use Rodinol. But then I shot a roll of the Neopan 400 and I was so much "sharper" than the 1600 in any Developer that I got waylaid on the whole thing. And that was before Xtol kicked in. Xtol raises the anti on everything as I see it!! In Xtol the worst films look great. Neopan so far certainly looks better than I remember it looking. But as I said I did need to test the two films against each other. Mark Rabiner