Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree with Henning good to (as I put it) after you've used the film with the speed on the box try a few rolls a half stop less and see if you still get nice detail in the shadows. If you do got with that. Or try another half stop. Adjust developing time for contrast. Its not a speed thing you develop for contrast. To get the right contrast paper or filter you like to use. Or so that it scans with a histogram which looks nice and well balanced and don't ask me. You do this because as I wrote yesterday the worst thing you can do to film is to over expose it. Which means to expose it any more than necessary. You don't want to place detail which need to separate too close to the bump on top of the curve as then wont separate. Highlights. Where your eye goes to first when ever you look at just about any image. Mark William Rabiner > From: Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:15:51 -0800 > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Neopan Advice (now asking about Neopan 1600) > >> Mark, >> >> How about comparing to Neopan 400? >> >> Is the result of Neopan 1600 different from shooting Neopan 400 at EI1600? >> >> Fuji Datasheet suggests that both 400, and 1600 are very versatile and >> I can shoot them at EI400, EI800, EI1600, or even EI3200. >> >> Any experience with both films? For me, the Neopan 400 shot at EI800 >> seems to scan better than when shooting at EI400. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Pasvorn > > This is from Notmark, but... > > Neopan 400 shot at 800 will scan better because it's thinner, but you > will still lose a stop of shadow information. > > Optimal negs for printing in a darkroom are not the optimal negs for > scanning. For scanning slight underdevelopment is usually better, as > denser negs are hard to scan. Exposure still has to be correct, but > pull the development slightly. > > As far as exposing the films, try it and see how much shadow info you > can live without. Neopan 400 shot at 3200 will have lost 3 stops, > which you cannot get back in any way. It might still produce images > you like, but the shadow info is gone. > > Neopan 1600 is not quite a 1600 film, but I like it shot at 1600 so > that works for me. N 400 shot at 1600 hardly ever makes me happy. > > -- > > * Henning J. Wulff > /|\ Wulff Photography & Design > /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com > |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information