"Doug Jewell" <ask@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:47e4c9ce$0$6827$5a62ac22@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> jimkramer wrote:
>> This was Buzz's first real time out on water; he did pretty well, I
wish
>> I could say the same for Neopan 1600...
>>
>> http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Puppy/BuzzOnNeopan.htm
>>
>> Jim
> Nice. Not sure why you say "I wish I could say the same for the Neopan
> 1600". Hard to tell based on internet sized crops, but it looks to me
that
> it has still maintained plenty of detail, and done a pretty good job of
> holding shadow and highlight detail. Can't say that I'd be confident of
> getting a result this good from any other similar speed B&W film, or by
> pu****ng a lower speed film.
> Out of curiosity - what developer and time? I assume these are scans of
> the negs (frontier?) - the grain looks different to what you get when
you
> scan a print.
The original scans were done with a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
4000DPI
in 16 bit grayscale.
In order, the crops you see were downsized sized
3.1:1
3.5:1
3.3:1
2.5:1
3.3:1
Both Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200, shot at 1600, in my opinion, would have
resolved better detail and maintained a wider latitude, These were
comparable to HP5+ 400 pushed 2 stops. My personal experience is that the
HP5+ would have not held the blacks as well, but there would be more
detail
in the highlights.
Developed in D-76 at the recommended time.
I admit this was my first roll of Neopan 1600 and that I have 3 more rolls
to shoot before they "expire" in August. I intentionally shot this as a
test roll and shot in as varied conditions as I could, but across the
board
I was somewhat disappointed with the results. But I now understand why
Fuji
doesn't make a 3200 speed film. :-)
There is a full sized scan under the Eno River post I did not too long ago
if you want to see a full sized scan. There is an index page under
"contact" in link above.
Jim
|
