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: "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:21:56 +0100
References: <200107161603.f6GG3Gx04663@hermes.toad.net>

Steve

I forgot about those!  Great shots and interesting that the contrast range
is very wide, whereas my experience with pushing Scala a couple of stops is
that I get very bright highlights and very dark shadows with a real loss of
shadow detail.  It is hard to tell from a jpeg, but what is the shadow
detail like.  Do you think it would record any better on a true ASA1600
film?  Also, how did you develop the Delta 400?

Thanks.

Simon

Steve LeHuray wrote:
> Simon,
>
> Have never used Neopan or Delta 3200, but here are two shots with delta
400
> rated at 1600:
>
> http://www.streetphoto.net/photo_of_the_week/wk26.jpg
>
> http://www.streetphoto.net/photo_of_the_week/wk26a.jpg
>
> Summilux 50/1.4 shot at 60th and f1.4
>
> > Does anyone have any opinion/real world experience of the merits of
using
> > Neopan at its rated speed versus Delta 3200 rated at 1600.  Usual things
> > such as contrast, sharpness, degree of grain etc.  I will be working in
some
> > very low light next week and I have visited the venue and can get some
away
> > with 1/30sec to 1/60sec with my Noctilux using 1600ASA film.
>

In reply to: Message from "Steve LeHuray" <icommag@toad.net> (Re: [Leica] Fuji Neopan 1600 vs Ilford Delta 3200 @ 1600)