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: Guy Bennett <2bennett@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:32:24 +0100
References: <NBBBIDNIGLFOKNLJCPLHMELLGJAA.ddh@home.com>

>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.
>Simon


I've used both rated at 1600 and have had more success with the Delta film:
better tone, with detail in both the highlights (which didn't blow out) and
in the shadows (which were not reduced to black). I should add that this
was when I was using a lab to process my film, and they souped everything
in TMax, which definitely didn't handle the Fuji film as I would have liked.

Since then, I've started processing my own film, and have almost figured
out how best to process Fuji 1600 for me (following the advice of a few
Luggers + that of Anchell and Troop in the "Developping Cookbook"). I've
not yet processed any Delta 3200 myself but will do so when I return home
this fall, just to see how that works.

It seems to me that it is easier to get good results from Delta 3200 than
from Fuji 1600, which is a finicky film, IME.

Guy

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