Fuji Neopan 400: In the same league as Tri-X or HP5?

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

Post Reply
kcf
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:48 pm
Contact:

Fuji Neopan 400: In the same league as Tri-X or HP5?

Post by kcf »

It's a buck a roll cheaper than Tri-X or HP5 at $2.69 at B&H. I know film quality can vary, so I wonder if anyone's got any experience with this film.

Jim Appleyard
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:33 pm

Post by Jim Appleyard »

Yes, it's good stuff. I shoot quite a bit of it and I've never had a QC problem with it, but neither have I had a problem with Kodak or Ilford.

When you buy one of these three films it's like buying chocolate ice cream. You've got Breyers, you've got Ben & Jerry's. Both are great, both might be a little different, but both are chocolate ice cream.

Ornello
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Fuji Neopan 400: In the same league as Tri-X or HP5?

Post by Ornello »

kcf wrote:It's a buck a roll cheaper than Tri-X or HP5 at $2.69 at B&H. I know film quality can vary, so I wonder if anyone's got any experience with this film.
I like it better than either Tri-X or HP5 Plus. Better tonal quality, slightly finer grain too.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Post by Keith Tapscott. »

All of those films will produce good results, but whether you like one more than the others will come down to your own personal preference. There are two types of Tri-X in 120 size rolls just to add confusion, the regular 400TX and another which is 320TXP, although I have not tried the latter. The new T-MAX 400 (TMY-2) is second to none in this speed group for fine-grain, sharpness and resolution, although the one with the highest resolution isn`t necessarily the one which you will find the most aesthetically pleasing.
Personally, I like HP5 Plus for general use and TMY-2 for studio portraits but wouldn`t argue one way or the other as to which of any of these films is the absolute best, as only you can decide that.
Last edited by Keith Tapscott. on Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

neopan 400

Post by pirateoversixty »

I also have used Neopan 400 for several years, both 120 and 35mm. I don't find it a particularly "exciting" film to use, but as you say, it is a buck or so cheaper. I also find it to be a fine grain film in most developers, not overly responsive to more than a one-stop push.

All in all, just there, and less expensive.
Jim

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Post by Keith Tapscott. »

If it is cheaper than the others and you like it, then make it your regular ISO 400 film. 8)

kcf
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:48 pm
Contact:

Post by kcf »

Thank you for the responses, Jim, Keith, Ornello and Pirate.

foolscape
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:01 am
Location: Fairview, Oregon
Contact:

Post by foolscape »

It's a good film for night photography because it's reciprocity curve is almost nil.

--Gary

kcf
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:48 pm
Contact:

Post by kcf »

Thank you, Foolscape.

George W. Push
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:43 am

Post by George W. Push »

Some people prefer it over HP5 and Tri-X, others don't. It's the same league.

Think of it as a "Pepsi or Coke" decision... no, I don't say which is Pepsi and which is Coke :lol:

Post Reply