Fuji Neopan in ID-11

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

Has anyone else had problems developing Neopan (specifically 1600 ASA) in ID-11 ? I've now done 6 films in a 1+1 solution, and every one has come out thin, with a slight sepia tone. I wondered if the dev times in the Ilford literature were crossed between 400 & 1600, as the 400 specifies a longer time (14 min) than 1600 (10 min), the opposite of what I would expect. I've also done a couple of 400's, and they looked a bit overdone, which tended to confirm my thoughts, but I've just done another 1600 for 14 min, with no improvement, and one in stock solution, again no better. Anybody any ideas ?, or can someone suggest an alternative dev. I'm going to try Microphen on a pushed film, but there's no time shown for this with a straight 1600.

Thanks in anticipation,

Simon Foster, UK

-- Simon Foster (sfoster@netcomuk.co.uk), June 06, 1998

Answers

I processed a Fujipan 400 exposed at 800 in Xtol diluted 1+1 the other night, and I have just made enlargements 24x30 cm. I used the times recommended by Kodak (including adjustment for low volume of developer stock per film) and I can highly recommend the film - and the combination. There was a film test in the German 'fotomagazine' 9-97 and they indicated in the resulting tables that the times given for fujipan and some developers (Rodinal and Perceptal, but not ID11) obviously were wrong. Try the times from Kodak's web page - btw the times there are longer for the 400 than for the 1600, so that is probably not the reason for your problem

-- chris almqvist (chris@propellerheads.org), June 19, 1998.

i have now tried the neopan 1600 in xtol 1+1 and i have got the same result as you: very thin negatives. have you found the solution to the problem?

-- chris almqvist (chris@propellerheads.org), June 22, 1998.

Thanks Chris,

As yet I haven't got a definite answer, I tried 1600 at the time for 400 (14 min), with little or no improvement. I have also been in touch with Ilford UK who suggested that the web info was controlled by the US division and was therefore geared to that market (not sure what difference that should make tho, can you or anyone else enlighten me?). They did send me their latest processing guide, which has different times again for some combinations (e.g. Neo 400 in ID-11 1+1 for 9:30 as against 14 min in the Ilford .pdf I downloaded - no wonder it looked cooked !)

The 1600 time is unchanged at 10 min, but it does give a time for 'straight' 1600 in Microphen so I'll give that a go. Incidentally, some of these times are different again to those in the Fuji docs, I don't know who to believe !

I've never used Xtol, but if I can get hold of some I'll try it, I've just got the info of the Kodak site. The films in question are concert shots, where the lighting is less than ideal, but I used to use TMAX dev for Neopan and that worked OK, just looked a little grainy (and was expensive) so I wanted to try a more 'generic' dev. I've just done another gig with HP5, rated at 1600, dev in Microphen and they're OK so perhaps I'll switch films. I'm also going to do a daylight test shoot with Neo 1600 & dev in ID-11 at various times to see what happens, I'll let you know.

Thanks for your time & trouble.

Simon Foster, UK

-- Simon Foster (sfoster@netcomuk.co.uk), June 22, 1998.


If I recall correctly, ID-11 is the same as D-76. Last night I developed two rolls of Neopan-1600 in D-76. I followed Fuji's recommendations (15 minutes at 68 deg; 10 minutes at 75 deg for exposure at EI 3200; no dilution); they came out perfectly.

-- John Lehman (ffjal@aurora.alaska.edu), September 24, 1998.

ID-11 used to be the same as D76, but has since been "improved".

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), September 24, 1998.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ