Thanks Ed. I want to try one more roll at 1600 and see.Sounds like 3200 is to much for it .
Dave ---- Begin Original Message ---- From: "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:27:19 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slightly OT: Fuji 1600 Unscientific review Another unscientific review - I have good results with Neopan 1600 shot at EI1250 and developed in D-76 at the time recommended for EI1600. Regards, Ed Matthew >From: "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Slightly OT: Fuji 1600 Unscientific review >Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:10:38 -0800 > >Neopan 1600 tends to turn to crap when shot at 3200, the shadow detail is >about nil. At 1600 its great! > >My first few roles of Neopan 1600 were muddy i just had to play around with >times and it works very very well in Xtol and not so great in ID11/D76. > >Regards, >Paul >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 7:37 AM >Subject: Slightly OT: Fuji 1600 Unscientific review > > > > Hi all. > > Had a chance to print of a frame from the Fuji Neopan > > 1600(pushed to 3200)last nigh.I also printed 2 Delta > > 3200(pushed to 6400)to compare. > > > > CAVEAT: > > This review is based on my limited knowledge of > > darkroom techniques(21 hours)and some comments > > by instructor and students. > > > > Equipment: > > K1000: SMC 135 f 3.5 and SMC A 70-210 F4 > > Location:indoor arena with diffused light on a cloudy day. > > Subject: Horse(you knew that :))Fuji > > : Band members with delta > > Film: Fuji Neopan 1600 pushed to 3200 > > Delta 3200 pushed to 6400 > > Developed using times on http://www.digitaltruth.com > > Developer: Tmax 1:4 > > Paper developer: Dektol 1:2 > > > > Enlarger: School owned Bessner 35(not in the best of shape) > > with # 3 Ilford filter > > Proccedure: > > Test strip at 3 second interval f 8 > > best time 12 sec at f 8 with a tad of burn to darken > > a fence on 1 print. > > Paper:ilford multi grade 44 d pearl. > > > > Conclusion. > > Printed out 3 8x10's and 2 5x7's.of both test subjects.Both > > the instructor and I mentioned the Ilford looked better as far > > as contrast and sharpness.The grain was about the same to my eye. > > The Delta seemes to show blacks better than the Fuji,which looks flat > > or muddy,not realy sure how to descrobe it. > > Both films used in available light with moving subjects. > > I would like to try another roll at 1600 in a different venue > > and do the test again,but as far as it goes now, > > I'll stick with Delta 3200 until then. > > As i stated i have 21 hours in a darkroom,of which 6 was spent > > developing and we have to share and wait sometimes so > > actual time 'under the lens' might be 10-11 hours,so i may be > > using the wrong paper,filter developer etc. > > But heh, people were looking for a review<G> > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pentax User > > Stouffville Ontario Canada > > http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ > > http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses > > Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail > > _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ---- End Original Message ---- Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
