Fuji Neopan - discussion

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

I recently picked up a roll of Fuji Neopan 400 and Neopan 1600. I love Fuji colour films, so I thought it would be a worthwhile investigation. I rarely see any reference to these films. unpopular? problematic? discontinued? or are they so close to the Kodak and Ilford films that little is gained by using them?

-- Daniel Taylor (aviator@agalis.net), September 26, 1999


I use have used Neopan off and on since I studied in Asia in the early 1970's. IMHO, Neopan-X is about the same as Plus-X or FP4+, Neopan 400 is about the same as Tri-X or HP5+. Neopan 1600 is an excellent film with less obtrusive grain than TMZ (I haven't got around to trying Delta-3200 in 35mm yet). I use it alot in my Tessina and Minox for low-light candids.

In short, Neopan films (except for the 1600) are OK, but nothing special. I buy them when they are easier to get than other B&W films (e.g. in much of Asia) and prefer them to Tmax, but would not go out of my way for them.

-- John Lehman (ffjal@uaf.edu), September 27, 1999.

I've used Neopan 400 in 120-format for 6x6 negs. The film is quite special combined with electronic flash for "glamour-pictures" and I really like the result (when printed on forte polygrade warmtone). I have also used it outdoors and it's slightly sharper than Tri-x pan, but I still like Tri-x pan better for outdoor pictures, for "the look". Still, as an allround film in 6x6 the Neopan 400 is excellent.

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), September 28, 1999.

I have used Neopan 400 120 and i found if you rate it at 200 asa and dev. it in d76 1.1 at 69 for the time stated at 68 you will get great images.

-- Eric Lawson (elawson9@excite.com), November 13, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ