[PICS] Buzz meets Neopan 1600

This was Buzz's first real time out on water; he did pretty well, I wish I
could say the same for Neopan 1600...

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Puppy/BuzzOnNeopan.htm

Jim

On Mar 20, 10:13*pm, "jimkramer"
wrote:
This was Buzz's first real time out on water; he did pretty well, I wish I
could say the same for Neopan 1600...

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Puppy/BuzzOnNeopan.htm

Jim

I also like #4. Those puppy eyes are heartbreakers. Were you duck
hunting Jim? Or did Buzz nab a duck on his own?
Helen

"Helen" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 10:13 pm, "jimkramer"
wrote:
This was Buzz's first real time out on water; he did pretty well, I wish I
could say the same for Neopan 1600...

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Puppy/BuzzOnNeopan.htm

Jim

I also like #4. Those puppy eyes are heartbreakers. Were you duck
hunting Jim? Or did Buzz nab a duck on his own?
Helen

We were at a retriever practice day. It's a real duck. but frozen mostly
solid. I like to shoot things with a camera and targets with a bow or a 22,
but I never saw the sport in hunting, and I never haven't had enough money
to buy what I needed to eat.
Jim

On Mar 21, 7:25*am, "jimkramer"
wrote:
"Helen" wrote in message

...
On Mar 20, 10:13 pm, "jimkramer"
wrote:

This was Buzz's first real time out on water; he did pretty well, I wish I
could say the same for Neopan 1600...

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Puppy/BuzzOnNeopan.htm

Jim

I also like #4. *Those puppy eyes are heartbreakers. *Were you duck
hunting Jim? *Or did Buzz nab a duck on his own?
Helen

We were at a retriever practice day. *It's a real duck. but frozen mostly
solid. *I like to shoot things with a camera and targets with a bow or a 22,
but I never saw the sport in hunting, and I never haven't had enough money
to buy what I needed to eat.
Jim

Good for you Jim! You are a good man!
I know I'll raise some issues with others but I could never see the
sport in hunting. I shoot things with a camera.
Helen

jimkramer wrote:
This was Buzz's first real time out on water; he did pretty well, I wish I
could say the same for Neopan 1600...

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Puppy/BuzzOnNeopan.htm

Jim


Nice. Not sure why you say "I wish I could say the same for
the Neopan 1600". Hard to tell based on internet sized
crops, but it looks to me that it has still maintained
plenty of detail, and done a pretty good job of holding
shadow and highlight detail. Can't say that I'd be confident
of getting a result this good from any other similar speed
B&W film, or by pushing a lower speed film.
Out of curiosity - what developer and time? I assume these
are scans of the negs (frontier?) - the grain looks
different to what you get when you scan a print.

"Doug Jewell" wrote in message
...
jimkramer wrote:
This was Buzz's first real time out on water; he did pretty well, I wish
I could say the same for Neopan 1600...

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Puppy/BuzzOnNeopan.htm

Jim
Nice. Not sure why you say "I wish I could say the same for the Neopan
1600". Hard to tell based on internet sized crops, but it looks to me that
it has still maintained plenty of detail, and done a pretty good job of
holding shadow and highlight detail. Can't say that I'd be confident of
getting a result this good from any other similar speed B&W film, or by
pushing a lower speed film.
Out of curiosity - what developer and time? I assume these are scans of
the negs (frontier?) - the grain looks different to what you get when you
scan a print.

The original scans were done with a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED @ 4000DPI
in 16 bit grayscale.

In order, the crops you see were downsized sized
3.1:1
3.5:1
3.3:1
2.5:1
3.3:1

Both Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200, shot at 1600, in my opinion, would have
resolved better detail and maintained a wider latitude, These were
comparable to HP5+ 400 pushed 2 stops. My personal experience is that the
HP5+ would have not held the blacks as well, but there would be more detail
in the highlights.

Developed in D-76 at the recommended time.

I admit this was my first roll of Neopan 1600 and that I have 3 more rolls
to shoot before they "expire" in August. I intentionally shot this as a
test roll and shot in as varied conditions as I could, but across the board
I was somewhat disappointed with the results. But I now understand why Fuji
doesn't make a 3200 speed film. :-)

There is a full sized scan under the Eno River post I did not too long ago
if you want to see a full sized scan. There is an index page under
"contact" in link above.

Jim

jimkramer wrote:
This was Buzz's first real time out on water; he did pretty well, I
wish I could say the same for Neopan 1600...

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Puppy/BuzzOnNeopan.htm

Jim

Nice job. I like #2 best, also.

jimkramer wrote:
"Doug Jewell" wrote in message
...
jimkramer wrote:
This was Buzz's first real time out on water; he did pretty well, I wish
I could say the same for Neopan 1600...

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Puppy/BuzzOnNeopan.htm

Jim
Nice. Not sure why you say "I wish I could say the same for the Neopan
1600". Hard to tell based on internet sized crops, but it looks to me that
it has still maintained plenty of detail, and done a pretty good job of
holding shadow and highlight detail. Can't say that I'd be confident of
getting a result this good from any other similar speed B&W film, or by
pushing a lower speed film.
Out of curiosity - what developer and time? I assume these are scans of
the negs (frontier?) - the grain looks different to what you get when you
scan a print.

The original scans were done with a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED @ 4000DPI
in 16 bit grayscale.

In order, the crops you see were downsized sized
3.1:1
3.5:1
3.3:1
2.5:1
3.3:1

Both Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200, shot at 1600, in my opinion, would have
resolved better detail and maintained a wider latitude, These were
comparable to HP5+ 400 pushed 2 stops. My personal experience is that the
HP5+ would have not held the blacks as well, but there would be more detail
in the highlights.

Developed in D-76 at the recommended time.

Hmmm... I wonder if development is the issue here. I
normally use Ilford LC29. I agree that HP5 pushed would give
more highlight but not hold the blacks as well. IME pushed
HP5 is grainier than Neopan1600 too. IME TMZ3200 has very
soft contrast, and doesn't hold fine detail in the golf-ball
sized grain (which is one thing I love about TMZ - but you
have to pick the right subject). Haven't given Delta a go,
so not sure what it is like.
I'll see if I can dig out some of my Neopan 1600 shots and
post a link to compare with.


I admit this was my first roll of Neopan 1600 and that I have 3 more rolls
to shoot before they "expire" in August. I intentionally shot this as a
test roll and shot in as varied conditions as I could, but across the board
I was somewhat disappointed with the results. But I now understand why Fuji
doesn't make a 3200 speed film. :-)
I've mainly used Neopan 1600 indoors at night. For that sort
of thing I was very impressed with it's candid portrait
ability - definitely better than pushed HP5. I like TMZ for
high-key classical portraits because of the look the grain
gives. Printed on low-contrast paper I've got some gorgeous
results from TMZ. But then I guess it's all in your
personal preference.

There is a full sized scan under the Eno River post I did not too long ago
if you want to see a full sized scan. There is an index page under
"contact" in link above.

Jim

"jimkramer" wrote in message
...
This was Buzz's first real time out on water; he did pretty well, I wish I
could say the same for Neopan 1600...

http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Puppy/BuzzOnNeopan.htm

Jim


Nice work. I like #4 the best.