Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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