Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/16

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Fuji Neopan 1600 vs Ilford Delta 3200 @ 1600
From: tom <thomas@bigdayphoto.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:09:02 -0400
References: <NBBBIDNIGLFOKNLJCPLHMELLGJAA.ddh@home.com> <01aa01c10df7$4f74c360$3a030a0a@phoenixdb.co.uk>
 
Simon Lamb wrote:
> 
> Does anyone have any opinion/real world experience of the merits of using
> Neopan at its rated speed versus Delta 3200 rated at 1600.  

For me, 1600 doesn't work well with D3200. Shadows seem to thin for my
liking. I shoot it at 1250 in 120.

Neopan looks pretty good, and I would prefer it over D3200 even though
the grain has been a bit bigger. It's sharp, and has a nice look.

I think Neopan is sharper then D3200.

Having said that, I've settled on TMAX 3200 in DD-X at 1600. The least
grain of the 3, sharp, good shadow detail, and still a little
underexposure leeway. (I hate thin negs.)

tv
Replies: Reply from "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com> (Re: [Leica] Fuji Neopan 1600 vs Ilford Delta 3200 @ 1600)
 In reply to: Message from "Dan Honemann" <ddh@home.com> (RE: [Leica] Should I buy a Noctilux?)
Message from "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com> ([Leica] Fuji Neopan 1600 vs Ilford Delta 3200 @ 1600)