Warning, technical babbling:
Quite few month ago I have wrote article about
Neopan 1600 developed in Paterson Aculux 2.
After I scanned two last roll of the same film, now exposed at 1600 and
again developed in Aculux 2, I need to change some of my views. It seems
much better than those days, something is different. Yes I am using
different camera, Olympus OM2n that time, Nikon F100 now. And yes there is
a difference how those cameras exposed under the same light conditions. But
seems like difference is also in something else.
Quite a few times I have read that you can use Paterson developers in
higher dilutions and shorter times, I must say that from my experience it
is not true, the times Paterson is publishing seems to be quite right for
my way. It all depends, at least with Aculux 2, very much of how light is
contrast. The less it is the longer time you need to develop film.
I scanned those Fuji Neopan 1600 at 5400dpi today. What I was expecting,
was huge grain. But I a shocked, really I am the grain is not bigger than
MacoPhot up100p in the same developer! I am really impressed. I will
published two shots from this film tomorrow. Some low light shots I quite
like.
