Summary: The first time I used this film I was blown away by the sharpness, the grain, and the contras. This film in 35mm zsize is much better that Ilford 3200 in 120 size. It has better grain structures, it is grainy but much more pleaseing than the Ilford 3200 120. I have no idea why fuji stoped making this film. But for my money I will use it over the ilford 3200 or kodak 3200 as long as I can get it.
Pros: verry sharp, very contrasty, very nice grain. This film is great.
Cons: It is no longer being made, It has no weakness for a 1600 35mm black and white flim.
Summary: This film is amazing. I've never seen a 1600 ISO film like this! I bought it originally thinking it was going to have a lot of grain but upon printing I discovered that it had amazingly low grain for its speed, even comparible to the 400 Neopan! It looks great when printed at 8x10 and even at 11x14! Of course, it also has the wonderful look of Fujifilm Neopan film.
Pros: Low Grain for ISO 1600, Makes good prints at even 11x14, has that wonderful Neopan look
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.
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.
Pros: True 1000 ASA with low grain and excellent sharpness. Well scannable, if properly exposed.
Cons: High contrast in general; low sensitivity in the far red. Susceptible to overdevelopment (as may be done at a commercial lab).
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.
Pros: I have not tested pulling Neopan 1600 to 800, or pushing it to 3200. So far.