Page 1 of 1

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

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:20 pm
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.

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:49 pm
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.

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

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:57 am
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.

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:13 pm
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.

neopan 400

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:29 pm
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

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:36 pm
by Keith Tapscott.
If it is cheaper than the others and you like it, then make it your regular ISO 400 film. 8)

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:29 pm
by kcf
Thank you for the responses, Jim, Keith, Ornello and Pirate.

Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:46 am
by foolscape
It's a good film for night photography because it's reciprocity curve is almost nil.

--Gary

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:21 pm
by kcf
Thank you, Foolscape.

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:49 am
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: