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: brad daly <bwdaly@hiwaay.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:27:31 -0500
References: <NBBBIDNIGLFOKNLJCPLHMELLGJAA.ddh@home.com>

simon:

>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 my limited experience, i've been more pleased with my results from delta
3200.  i rated both at 1600, then had them processed at a local lab (they
used ilford DD) rated at 3200.  (they tend to cook stuff a little thin at
normal EI's, imo.)  delta 3200 had significantly finer grain and better
shadow detail.

something to keep in mind is that, for some reason, delta 3200 negs *look*
thin.  i dont' know exactly why, but i always think "oh, those are kind of
thin," but then they print really well.

you might also want to try kodak t400CN pushed 2 stops.  it's quite nice.

- --brad


- --
brad daly	                  bwdaly@hiwaay.net
photographs: http://home.hiwaay.net/~bwdaly
"I can't imagine anything good about being blind and lame at the same time."
	--Alvin Straight
"War, what is it good for?  It's good for business."
	--Billy Bragg

In reply to: Message from "Dan Honemann" <ddh@home.com> (RE: [Leica] Should I buy a Noctilux?)