Developing Neopan 400

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

eabock@earthlink.net - 28 Jan 2006 17:03 GMT

I havn't developed my own black and white films for years.

Would appreciate advice on best current developers for 35mm
Neopan 400 . Been shooting sunny snow scenes with shadows.

Ed Bcck

Reply to this Message

UC - 28 Jan 2006 17:45 GMT

It is very similar to Tri-X. For instance, I develop Neopan 400 in
Acutol 1+14 for 8 minutes (20C/68F) for use with a condenser enlarger.
and grade 3 paper. For Tri-X, 8 1/2 in Acutol 1+14 minutes is about
right.

Start with your old Tri-X time and adjust from there.

> I havn't developed my own black and white films for years.
>
> Would appreciate advice on best current developers for 35mm
> Neopan 400 . Been shooting sunny snow scenes with shadows.
>
> Ed Bcck

Reply to this Message

Jan Tieghem - 28 Jan 2006 23:09 GMT

Say Mike,
I know you swear with condensors, but my VC-head is so versatile I wouldn't
invest extra money in a condensor head. Did I ever ask your advice on dev.
times for Neopan400 for diffusors?
Jan

| It is very similar to Tri-X. For instance, I develop Neopan 400 in
| Acutol 1+14 for 8 minutes (20C/68F) for use with a condenser enlarger.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
| >
| > Ed Bcck

Reply to this Message

UC - 29 Jan 2006 21:21 GMT

Just start with D-76 and the published times and go from there. There's
no other way, really.

> Say Mike,
> I know you swear with condensors, but my VC-head is so versatile I wouldn't
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> | >
> | > Ed Bcck

Reply to this Message

Matt McGrattan - 30 Jan 2006 12:48 GMT

> I havn't developed my own black and white films for years.
>
> Would appreciate advice on best current developers for 35mm
> Neopan 400 . Been shooting sunny snow scenes with shadows.
>
> Ed Bcck

I've had wonderful results with Calbe A-49 on Neopan 400. Lovely
tonality and almost no grain.

It's a great film - shots back from my local mini-lab have been
consistently good too.

Matt

Reply to this Message

Andrew Price - 30 Jan 2006 20:21 GMT

>I've had wonderful results with Calbe A-49 on Neopan 400. Lovely
>tonality and almost no grain.

I don't understand the logic behind it, but A-49 always seems to
produce extremely good results, even on really crap film like Classic
(=Forte) 200, which is truly abysmal when developed in an otherwise
totally reliable developer like D-76.

Reply to this Message

Jan Tieghem - 31 Jan 2006 22:18 GMT

UC,

in another post you branded the Paterson times as useless. I have to admit
you're right.

I developped Neopan 400 in FX-39 according to their instructions and it came
out much too dense and hard, although the film speed looks OK (frame with 5
stops underexposure has visible density).
As I'm using a diffusor enlarger, I'd rather not copy your suggestions - as
you tested for condensor printing - but try to fiigure out what I need in my
particular case.

Now I'd like to change one of the following parameters: dilution or time.
But wich to chose? We know that higher dillutions and shorter time will both
decrease contrast. We know that the side-effect of changing development time
results in a slight change in acutal film speed. But what about the
relationship between dillution and film speed?

In other words: suppose I want to decrease contrast in the same degree. What
would be the difference in film speed between both methods - shorter time vs
higher dillution?

TIA!

Jan

| I havn't developed my own black and white films for years.
|
| Would appreciate advice on best current developers for 35mm
| Neopan 400 . Been shooting sunny snow scenes with shadows.
|
| Ed Bcck

Reply to this Message

UC - 31 Jan 2006 22:33 GMT

> UC,
>
> in another post you branded the Paterson times as useless. I have to admit
> you're right.

Of course I'm right. I wriote to them repeatedly, asking for
justification for these times, and they simply pleaded that they could
not possibly be mistaken.

Typical British arrogance.

> I developped Neopan 400 in FX-39 according to their instructions and it came
> out much too dense and hard, although the film speed looks OK (frame with 5
> stops underexposure has visible density).

WHY did you do that? WHY did I take all the trouble I did, to do the
reaearch on these films, and get them published on the digital truth
site?

> As I'm using a diffusor enlarger, I'd rather not copy your suggestions - as
> you tested for condensor printing - but try to fiigure out what I need in my
> particular case.

Simply take what I say and add about 15% to start with. DO NOT change
the dilutions I recommend, only the times. It's much simpler that way,
and any errors in time will be less influential. That is, a 10-second
error at 10 minutes is less influential than a 10-second error at 5
minutes.

Use these dilutions, and add 15% to the times, to start with:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/chart/scarpitti-paterson.html

Follow the recommended dilutions EXACTLY! If it says 1+16.5, do it! If
it says 1+14, do it! I spent lots of money and time working these out.
You learned the hard way that Paterson's times were wrong (so did I),
now, TRUST ME!

> Now I'd like to change one of the following parameters: dilution or time.

TIME!

> But wich to chose?

TIME!

> We know that higher dillutions and shorter time will both
> decrease contrast. We know that the side-effect of changing development time
> results in a slight change in acutal film speed. But what about the
> relationship between dillution and film speed?

TIME!

> In other words: suppose I want to decrease contrast in the same degree. What
> would be the difference in film speed between both methods - shorter time vs
> higher dillution?

Don't worry about it. The development time scarcely affects the real
speed. The effect is less than 1/2 stop.

> TIA!
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> |
> | Ed Bcck

Reply to this Message