agp

Overall Rating
 5 of 5

Value Rating
 5 of 5

Used product for
3 Months to 1 year

Price Paid:  $0.00

Summary:
This is the first film review I have written. I have just developed my third roll of this film, always using XTOL neat for 5.75 minutes. I remember first using films of ISO 400 in the 1960s. This is at least equivalent quality - probably better. No-one expects a film of this speed to be perfect, and such an expectation woul;d be unrealistic. The negs out of the developed almost make me gasp (how sad is that?), and they scan really well.

Strengths:
Great sharpness. Obviously the speed.

Weaknesses:
None

Similar Products Used:
None of this speed. Used to uprate Tri-X. No competition!

Customer Service:
N/A

Heinz Anderle

Overall Rating
 5 of 5

Value Rating
 5 of 5

Used product for
More than 1 year

Visitors rate this review
4.00 of 5,
1 votes

Price Paid:  $5.00 from (price in Euros)

Summary:
Although not perfect due to high contrast, the only real choice for b/w available light photography without push processing since true sensitivity is ~ 1000 ASA. For daylight outdoor photography, Neopan 400 or Delta 400 give smoother tonality. Superior to T-Max 400 for indoor photography because of the higher sensitivity at same graininess.

Strengths:
True 1000 ASA with low grain and excellent sharpness. Well scannable, if properly exposed.

Weaknesses:
High contrast in general; low sensitivity in the far red. Susceptible to overdevelopment (as may be done at a commercial lab).

Similar Products Used:
Neopan 400, T-Max 400 (old), Delta 400, Superia 1600

Overall Rating
 5 of 5

Value Rating
 5 of 5

Used product for
Less than 1 month

Visitors rate this review
2.00 of 5,
1 votes

Price Paid:  $0.00 from Jerusalem

Summary:
I did a nice test for the ISO 1600 territory that may interest the reader. I printed 4 prints by the size of 24 x 30 cm from 4 different films rated by me as 1600: Tri-X, Tmax400, Tmax3200 (i.e. "pulling), and Neopan 1600. All films where processed accurately (my own times) with Tmax developer. Then I glued all 4 prints on a white board for straightforward comparison. Most of the photographers that have seen my test, me including, agree that the Neopan print is the best. The following best is controversial: Tri-X for its rich tones and contrast, or Tmax 400 film (pushed to 1600) for its finer grain. No controversy that Tmax3200 pushed to 1600 is the worst far and large.

Strengths:
I have not tested pulling Neopan 1600 to 800, or pushing it to 3200. So far.

Overall Rating
 4 of 5

Value Rating
 4 of 5

Used product for
Less than 1 month

Price Paid:  $0.00

Summary:
This review is intended for those accustomed to colour print films. Black and White print paper has higher resolution than colour. So real BW film will look sharper and have no colour cast compared to a chromogenic lab print at 6x4. Fuji Neopan 1600 when exposed properly does not have bad grain considering its speed, but you should not expect the sharpeness of slow films from it. Prints are attractively crisp, but I see the tonal range as curtailed in all the pictures. If this review doesn't sound all that favourable I beg your pardon- I am keen to use it again.

Strengths:
Tolerable grain. Crisp appearance compared to colour 1600.

Weaknesses:
Tonal range not quite right.

Overall Rating
 5 of 5

Value Rating
 4 of 5

Used product for
More than 1 year

Price Paid:  $0.00

Summary:
I’ve used this film to photograph dimly lit concerts several times and was amazed at the result. Even with a slow lens it was capable of producing good contrast images, in the most difficult circumstances. I’ve also used T-max 3200 film under the same conditions but I absolutely prefer this one.

Strengths:
-good speed -fine grain

Weaknesses:
none, as far as I could find

Similar Products Used:
T-max 3200