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 15:43:09 +0100
References: <NBBBIDNIGLFOKNLJCPLHMELLGJAA.ddh@home.com> <01aa01c10df7$4f74c360$3a030a0a@phoenixdb.co.uk> <3B52F57E.EE8BCE00@bigdayphoto.com>

Thanks.  I forgot to ask about TMAX 3200.  I seem to recall that Tina Manley
said she used TMAX, so it can't be all bad ;-)

Simon

Tom wrote:
>
> For me, 1600 doesn't work well with D3200. Shadows seem to thin for my
> liking. I shoot it at 1250 in 120.
>
> Neopan looks pretty good, and I would prefer it over D3200 even though
> the grain has been a bit bigger. It's sharp, and has a nice look.
>
> I think Neopan is sharper then D3200.
>
> Having said that, I've settled on TMAX 3200 in DD-X at 1600. The least
> grain of the 3, sharp, good shadow detail, and still a little
> underexposure leeway. (I hate thin negs.)
>
> Simon Lamb wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have any opinion/real world experience of the merits of
using
> > Neopan at its rated speed versus Delta 3200 rated at 1600.

In reply to: Message from "Dan Honemann" <ddh@home.com> (RE: [Leica] Should I buy a Noctilux?)
Message from "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com> ([Leica] Fuji Neopan 1600 vs Ilford Delta 3200 @ 1600)
Message from tom <thomas@bigdayphoto.com> (Re: [Leica] Fuji Neopan 1600 vs Ilford Delta 3200 @ 1600)