Best developer for fuji neopan 1600 ?

Donald Qualls wrote in message news:KXoFc.16873$7t3.13509@attbi_s51...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:


It would be difficult to find a developer less suited for Neopan 1600
than Rodinal. Worst possible choice.

Your opinion, of course -- and while it might even be correct (though I
admit, with some subject matter grain doesn't bother me), that wasn't
the question asked. Maybe the original poster wanted to find out if he
*liked* the look? Or see it, to know what kind of subject matter it
might suit? Or perhaps he has some time critical images, and *only* has
Rodinal available in the time frame he's working in, and something with
ugly grain is better than undeveloped film?

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.



The original question was 'Which developers would the wise folks on
this newsgroup recommend for neopan 1600? The aim is to minimise grain
(at least somewhat).'

Given that stated desire, Rodinal is the worst choice.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Donald Qualls wrote in message news:KXoFc.16873$7t3.13509@attbi_s51...

Michael Scarpitti wrote:


It would be difficult to find a developer less suited for Neopan 1600
than Rodinal. Worst possible choice.

Your opinion, of course -- and while it might even be correct (though I
admit, with some subject matter grain doesn't bother me), that wasn't
the question asked. Maybe the original poster wanted to find out if he
*liked* the look? Or see it, to know what kind of subject matter it
might suit? Or perhaps he has some time critical images, and *only* has
Rodinal available in the time frame he's working in, and something with
ugly grain is better than undeveloped film?


The original question was 'Which developers would the wise folks on
this newsgroup recommend for neopan 1600? The aim is to minimise grain
(at least somewhat).'

Given that stated desire, Rodinal is the worst choice.

Even then, I doubt Rodinal is any worse than Dektol (which most
assuredly has been used as a film developer, though perhaps before your
time), and probably no worse than Caffenol (which last would also have
the advantage of giving a true speed of about 1250 instead of 1000, with
out pushing at all).

But while Rodinal is a poor choice (with any film) for minimizing grain,
your statement above was sufficiently general as to sound like Rodinal
was completely unsuitable for Neopan 1600 in any application -- which is
manifestly not the case; Rodinal will do a fine job at EI 800, if you
don't mind grain.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Donald Qualls wrote in message news:jmLFc.4794$JR4.3885@attbi_s54...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Donald Qualls wrote in message news:KXoFc.16873$7t3.13509@attbi_s51...

Michael Scarpitti wrote:


It would be difficult to find a developer less suited for Neopan 1600
than Rodinal. Worst possible choice.

Your opinion, of course -- and while it might even be correct (though I
admit, with some subject matter grain doesn't bother me), that wasn't
the question asked. Maybe the original poster wanted to find out if he
*liked* the look? Or see it, to know what kind of subject matter it
might suit? Or perhaps he has some time critical images, and *only* has
Rodinal available in the time frame he's working in, and something with
ugly grain is better than undeveloped film?


The original question was 'Which developers would the wise folks on
this newsgroup recommend for neopan 1600? The aim is to minimise grain
(at least somewhat).'

Given that stated desire, Rodinal is the worst choice.

Even then, I doubt Rodinal is any worse than Dektol (which most
assuredly has been used as a film developer, though perhaps before your
time), and probably no worse than Caffenol (which last would also have
the advantage of giving a true speed of about 1250 instead of 1000, with
out pushing at all).

But while Rodinal is a poor choice (with any film) for minimizing grain,
your statement above was sufficiently general as to sound like Rodinal
was completely unsuitable for Neopan 1600 in any application -- which is
manifestly not the case; Rodinal will do a fine job at EI 800, if you
don't mind grain.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.


Rodinal is a poor choice for Neopan 1600 for the following reasons:

1. Rodinal does not achieve full emulsion speed. Presumably the Neopan
1600 is being used because of the need for a very fast films. Using
Rodinal would run counter to that because of its lack of
speed-enhancing properties.

2. The poster explicitly wants to keep graininess to a minimum.

On both counts, Acutol does an outstanding job. Acutol enhances speed
and does not exaggerate graininess. Rodinal loses speed and
exaggerates graininess.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 04:05:35 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

But while Rodinal is a poor choice (with any film) for minimizing grain,
your statement above was sufficiently general as to sound like Rodinal
was completely unsuitable for Neopan 1600 in any application -- which is
manifestly not the case; Rodinal will do a fine job at EI 800, if you
don't mind grain.

It's all about taste. Some like texture some don't. I have a
shot around where I should some Kodak Gold 1600 about 12 years ago. I
used a Soligor (!!) 70~210 f/3.5 zoom and 2 of the cheapest doublers
you've ever seen. It worked quite well to make "atmospheric" shots. A
lot like the P3200 used in

http://www.darkroompro.com/images/photos/3_despair.jpg

Shot with a Minolta X700 at 1/60th and f/5.6 in a dark alley.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On 7/2/04 12:20 PM, in article , "wkg"
typed:


U¿ytkownik "Hywel Davies" napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci ...
Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for
neopan
1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat). I've tried T-max,
at
24C but this was more grainy than expected. I realise it's going to be
fairly grainy anyway.

Thanks

Ros


Hallo !

In my opinion the best is XTOL 1+3 for Neopan 1600@800 ... I use it for
Neopan 1600@1600 also. Times from www.digitaltruth.com


Regards
wkg
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=56107


Neopan 1600 is my most used favorite film and I do the same.
In XTOL 1+3 it looks like normally developed medium speed film. Way better
than tri x in D76 1:1. Sharper and less grain. I hate to overstate it but
it's a dream come true for someone who's been doing this since 1965.

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:13:21 +0100, Hywel Davies wrote:

Which developers would the wise folks on this newsgroup recommend for neopan
1600? The aim is to minimise grain (at least somewhat). I've tried T-max, at
24C but this was more grainy than expected. I realise it's going to be
fairly grainy anyway.

Thanks

Ros


clayton f76 works really well actually.
the neopan 1600 works best if you expose it perfectly.
a little under or a little over and you'll see a lot of grain.