Help...Developing times Neopan [email protected]??

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Steve via PhotoKB.com, Mar 2, 2005.

  1. Hi,

    I have a bunch of films Fuji Neopan 1600 which I rated @3200, I was told at
    college today by one of my tutors to use neat developer and develop for 15
    mins, the normal time @1600 being 8mins. I have developed one of these
    films using this method intending to get a 'grainy' finish, although it has
    given me a more grainy picture the negs and prints are very dark. I no
    that I have to overexpose and that is why but could I possibly reduce the
    dev time by say 1 or 2 mins, or try a dilution of water with the developer??
    Sorry I don't know what dev it is, it is just a standard solution that
    evryone uses at college.

    Thank You, Steve
     
    Steve via PhotoKB.com, Mar 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    UC Guest

    The speed of this film is about 650, NOT 1600. It develops VERY FAST.
    Try about 8 mins to start with, in D-76 1:1. NO MORE!

    This film is NOWHERE near 3200 speed! Who told you it was?
     
    UC, Mar 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I realise the film is less than 1600 but I rated my camera to an iso of
    3200 to intetionally underexpose it, I now need to compensate with 'push'
    processing it so developing for a longer time. The time it says in the
    Fuji data sheet is an extra 7 mins from the original 8 mins, but I feel
    that this could be less, I have tried one today at 13mins max dev and I
    will see how that comes out. I am just trying to see if there is anyone
    else who has push processed this film??

    Thanks for yopur reply, Steve
     
    Steve L via PhotoKB.com, Mar 2, 2005
    #3
  4. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    UC Guest

    But that doesn't work. It's a waste of time. You CAN'T compensate for
    underesposure.

    I use it all the time. It's great stuff, but you're not going to get
    anything worthwhile doing this.

    I know!
     
    UC, Mar 2, 2005
    #4
  5. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    Rod Smith Guest

    Steve,

    Be aware that "uraniumcommittee" seems to be of the opinion that push
    processing is somewhere between a mythical procedure and a useless
    procedure. He's definitely not in the majority on this. I'd suggest you
    ignore his posts on this subject. Unfortunately, that doesn't give you a
    lot of other replies to read at this point. I'm afraid I can't offer you
    any guidance on your specific situation, other than to check the massive
    development chart (http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html) and to
    experiment until you get something you like.
     
    Rod Smith, Mar 2, 2005
    #5
  6. Never thought it would come to this, but I have to agree with old
    glow-in-the-dark: developing normally and scanning the negs or
    using higher contrast paper does, for me, give better results.

    It isn't how long you develop, it is how many photons strike the
    silver grain. If not enough photons hit the grain to activate it
    then all the development in the world will not produce an image.

    Compounding the problem, low light is almost always high
    contrast. Overdeveloping just blows already blown highlights.
    Underdevelopment may be a better solution to low light situations.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Mar 2, 2005
    #6
  7. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    UC Guest


    Thanks, Nick!

    Considering that in my foolish youth I pushed hundreds of rolls of
    film, I know what I'm talking about. This film, in particular, does not
    gain anything by extended development. It's a complete waste of time.
     
    UC, Mar 2, 2005
    #7
  8. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    UC Guest

    That's true!
    So what? The majority is wrong!
     
    UC, Mar 2, 2005
    #8
  9. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    darkroommike Guest

    IF you're willing to take the time and experiment and you find the results
    at EI 1600 acceptable as a base time and exposure start with 1.5 times the
    development that you would use for 1600. Whether you will get acceptable
    results at EI 3200 depends on your metering technique, meter pattern for
    your camera, final purpose of the images and your own brain (and your
    instructor's criteria if you plan to submit the images for a grade). You'll
    probably also need a higher contrast paper to print these images to expand
    the short scale rendered on your negatives. You can also try intensifying
    the negatives in selenium toner if they still won't print well. Stay away
    from mercury toners (nasty) and toners (Chromium, etc) that are "temporary".

    I've always thought it better to say a "Hail Mary" (or Buddha, etc,) and
    take the shot, then try to make something of it in the darkroom rather than
    mutter something like (in Rainman-type tones) "Fuji 1600, really only 650,
    yeh 650, not enuf, gotta go home, gotta get a different film, yeh, film too
    slow, gotta go, yeh, only 650, 650, not enuf, gotta go, yeh...shoulda had
    Delta, yeh, Delta, 3200, still too slow, but gotta shoot Delta, yeh, gotta
    go,..."

    There have been a lot of great images taken on Tri-X rated at ridiculous,
    inflated EI's and then pushed like crap back in the lab; the most famous
    that comes to mind in the shot of RFK lying in a pool of his own blood
    moments after he was shot. Guess the Pulitzer committee didn't know Tri-X
    can't be pushed.

    I rarely photograph gray scales. And pushing film really doesn't work (if
    you are a sensitometrist), it adds zero extra density to shadow detail,
    where by definition true film speed is measured, but in the midtones and
    highlights it will add some density and yield a more printable image, your
    viewers' brains are more that willing to fill in the missing detail, just
    like they do when letters are left out of words or words in a sentence are
    scrambled.
     
    darkroommike, Mar 2, 2005
    #9
  10. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : > > But that doesn't work. It's a waste of time. You CAN'T compensate for
    : > > underesposure.
    : > Be aware that "uraniumcommittee" seems to be of the opinion that push
    : > processing is somewhere between a mythical procedure and a useless
    : > procedure. He's definitely not in the majority on this.

    : Never thought it would come to this, but I have to agree with old
    : glow-in-the-dark: developing normally and scanning the negs or
    : using higher contrast paper does, for me, give better results.

    : It isn't how long you develop, it is how many photons strike the
    : silver grain. If not enough photons hit the grain to activate it
    : then all the development in the world will not produce an image.

    : Compounding the problem, low light is almost always high
    : contrast. Overdeveloping just blows already blown highlights.
    : Underdevelopment may be a better solution to low light situations.

    Over developing will help a little in the midtones. Remember that over
    developing increases the density most of the curve. The highlights are
    effected the most while the midtones are effected a little with little
    to no effect in the shadows.

    I also agree that for all effective and practical purposes overdeveloping
    does not increase the speed of the film.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Mar 5, 2005
    #10
  11. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : : > > But that doesn't work. It's a waste of time. You CAN'T compensate for
    : : > > underesposure.
    : : > Be aware that "uraniumcommittee" seems to be of the opinion that push
    : : > processing is somewhere between a mythical procedure and a useless
    : : > procedure. He's definitely not in the majority on this.

    : : Never thought it would come to this, but I have to agree with old
    : : glow-in-the-dark: developing normally and scanning the negs or
    : : using higher contrast paper does, for me, give better results.

    : : It isn't how long you develop, it is how many photons strike the
    : : silver grain. If not enough photons hit the grain to activate it
    : : then all the development in the world will not produce an image.

    : : Compounding the problem, low light is almost always high
    : : contrast. Overdeveloping just blows already blown highlights.
    : : Underdevelopment may be a better solution to low light situations.

    : Over developing will help a little in the midtones. Remember that over
    : developing increases the density most of the curve. The highlights are
    : effected the most while the midtones are effected a little with little
    : to no effect in the shadows.

    : I also agree that for all effective and practical purposes overdeveloping
    : does not increase the speed of the film.

    After I posted this I remember a couple of exceptions to the rule about increasing
    development time not effecting film speed. That exception is Tmax-3200 from Kodak
    and Ilford's Delta version. While the increased development time has more effect on
    the highlights then shadows there is an increase in effective speed.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Mar 5, 2005
    #11
  12. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    ericm1600 Guest

    I'll agree that push processing is less than useful if you care about shadow
    details. Intentionally underexposing film means that you're going to lose
    shadow details. Doesn't matter what you want to call it, but you'll lose
    them. Maybe that's fine if you're shooting a low contrast scene and you
    want to bump up the contrast. But that's not really push processing.

    That said, if you don't care about shadows and only want to get something
    usable in a newspaper, Neopan 1600 tolerates underexposure about as well as
    others. In my setup (Xtol 1:3), I rate Neopan at 1600. I got "usable"
    prints at 3 stops underexposed. That is, 12,800. In practice, I prefer it
    at 1600. Even one stop underexposure results in lots of grain. Too much
    for my tastes.

    In many developers, Neopan 1600 is more like an 800-1200 speed film. So
    you're probably looking at a two stop underexposure.
     
    ericm1600, Mar 6, 2005
    #12
  13. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    Jan T Guest

    Rod,

    we forgot to define what speed really is, I mean: how do you measure it?
    On the middle grays?
    Or on the lowest blacks? (like AA suggested)

    In the latter case, I'm afraid the committee is wright.

    As far as my experience with Neopan 1600 concerns: in Ilfotec DD-X I get
    some 800 out of it, measured with densitometer the AA way.
    I use the film @ 1600 anyhow (with 20% extra time for dev. above the ones
    suggested by Ilford). See for some resulsts on www.jantieghem.tk and follow
    the link "thema's" -> " In the Mood" (sorry, not in English) You'll notice
    lack of real shadow detail, but in this case this was no big issue for me.

    Jan


    | Be aware that "uraniumcommittee" seems to be of the opinion that push
    | processing is somewhere between a mythical procedure and a useless
    | procedure. He's definitely not in the majority on this. I'd suggest you
    | ignore his posts on this subject. Unfortunately, that doesn't give you a
    | lot of other replies to read at this point. I'm afraid I can't offer you
    | any guidance on your specific situation, other than to check the massive
    | development chart (http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html) and to
    | experiment until you get something you like.
    |
    | --
    | Rod Smith,
    | http://www.rodsbooks.com
    | Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
     
    Jan T, Mar 12, 2005
    #13
  14. Whatever you may think of "uraniumcommittee" in general, I would agree
    that push processing is a nearly useless procedure. If film is
    underexposed, the stuff in the shadows is just not there. Push-processing,
    as usually practiced, is simply developing the film to higher contrast,
    and it will not make unexposed film developable.

    The most it can do is make it easier to get more contrast from a bad
    negative. Sometimes this may make a print acceptable to less critical
    viewers as it will use more of the tones of which the paper is capable,
    but it by no means will reveal what is not there in the first place.

    The only procedure I have found to "increase" film speed is to process it
    in a two-solution developer such as D-23 for the first bath (say for about
    7 minutes in the case of 4164 Tri-X) and then for 3 or more minutes in a
    2% Sodium Metaborate + 2% Sodium Sulphite for bath 2. If you test film
    speed for this, it may give you a stop or so speed increase, but chances
    are you will not like it because, while it increases the film speed in the
    shadows, it leaves the higher levels alone, so the shadow contrast is
    poor. Pre-exposure or high lens flare can get you a similar effect, and
    most people do not like it.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Mar 12, 2005
    #14
  15. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    Agit Prop Guest

    Try some Diafine if you get the chance.

    If you have no other choice when you have very low light, go ahead and
    shoot Neopan at 3200. Realize your shadow detail will be non-existent.
    But, many times in that situation you wouldn't have any anyway. I often
    use this film at that speed in dance/theater photography.

    Oh yeah--don't waste your time reading UC's posts. You will eventually
    learn that pathetic, gaseous windbags like him are creeping about on
    USENET. The term 'troll' has his picture by it.

    Experiment, and don't let angry, lonesome old losers like UC detract
    from your learning.
     
    Agit Prop, Mar 13, 2005
    #15
  16. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    UC Guest

    Funny, I never tell people to ignore anyone else's posts. The sad fact
    is that PUSHING DOES NOT WORK, and whether you believe it or not is
    irrelevant.
     
    UC, Mar 13, 2005
    #16
  17. Hah! You just did what you say you don't do. You've finally proved
    everyone else is right and you are wrong. I don't have to call you
    names or reference outdated authorities, all I have to do is let you
    speak for yourself.
    Robert Vervoordt, MFA
     
    Robert Vervoordt, Mar 13, 2005
    #17
  18. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    UC Guest


    Are you illiterate too? I said, facts are facts whether YOU believe
    them or not. Whether YOU believe it or not, silver bromide DOES NOT
    react to darkness. You have to expose the film to light, and if you
    don't expose it enough, you get what's known as underexposure, and NO
    amount of extended development will compensate for underexposure.

    Thus, pushing does not work.

    Underexposure is fatal.

    ALWAYS.
     
    UC, Mar 13, 2005
    #18
  19. Steve via PhotoKB.com

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : On 12 Mar 2005 17:56:13 -0800, "UC" <>
    : wrote:

    : >
    : >Agit Prop wrote:
    : >> Try some Diafine if you get the chance.
    : >>
    : >> If you have no other choice when you have very low light, go ahead
    : >and
    : >> shoot Neopan at 3200. Realize your shadow detail will be
    : >non-existent.
    : >> But, many times in that situation you wouldn't have any anyway. I
    : >often
    : >> use this film at that speed in dance/theater photography.
    : >>
    : >> Oh yeah--don't waste your time reading UC's posts. You will
    : >eventually
    : >> learn that pathetic, gaseous windbags like him are creeping about on
    : >> USENET. The term 'troll' has his picture by it.
    : >>
    : >> Experiment, and don't let angry, lonesome old losers like UC detract
    : >> from your learning.
    : >
    : >Funny, I never tell people to ignore anyone else's posts. The sad fact
    : >is that PUSHING DOES NOT WORK, and whether you believe it or not is
    : >irrelevant.

    : Hah! You just did what you say you don't do. You've finally proved
    : everyone else is right and you are wrong. I don't have to call you
    : names or reference outdated authorities, all I have to do is let you
    : speak for yourself.
    : Robert Vervoordt, MFA

    Ignore him and he'll go away.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Mar 14, 2005
    #19
  20. I second that.
     
    Gregory Blank, Mar 14, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.