 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / June 2004Fortepan 400 in D76 1+1
I know this subject has been covered a couple of times and I'm sorry to bother you with one more question but...I've been trying to find the best development time/temperature combination for this film in D76 1+1 with maybe just a little sucess. I tried both EI200 and 400, in daylight and flash illumination, and developed for between 9 and 12 minutes @ 20 or 24C (68 to 75F) both still got poor contrast and large grain. Does any one have a better clue to processing this film or should I just give up and return to TriX and Tmax?... Thanks for any input. Fred > I know this subject has been covered a couple of times and I'm sorry > to bother you with one more question but...I've been trying to find [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks for any input. > Fred Is the film out of date or close to the expiration? The film seems to perform better when its fresher.  Signature"ANFAWFOS" Check out my website @ http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > I know this subject has been covered a couple of times and I'm sorry > to bother you with one more question but...I've been trying to find [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks for any input. > Fred You will always get grain with this film. It´s a low contrast film with longer than average develpment times. Stick to EI 400 and D76 1+1. It's nice old film with wide tonal scale. I was never impressed by Kodak films- except for the discontinued Verichrome pan; they (Kodak) are good at marketing and sales but not emulsion making. Jytzel > I know this subject has been covered a couple of times and I'm sorry > to bother you with one more question but...I've been trying to find [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks for any input. > Fred I doubt whether this mfr has state-of-the art films. Are you working in 35mm? Maybe for sheet film it would be OK. Try 35mm Delta 400 @EI 250-320 in Acutol 1+9 for 9 minutes @ 68 degrees. Agitation: two inversions in immediate succesion once per minute. > I doubt whether this mfr has state-of-the art films. Are you working > in 35mm? Maybe for sheet film it would be OK. Try 35mm Delta 400 @EI > 250-320 in Acutol 1+9 for 9 minutes @ 68 degrees. Agitation: two > inversions in immediate succesion once per minute. I don't know how can you jump to this conclusion since obviously you havn't tried it. Fortepan 200 and 400 are great films. It's nothing like any of the films you tried before. MF is a must though, and sheet is great. Also their papers are one of he best. > > I doubt whether this mfr has state-of-the art films > I don't know how can you jump to this conclusion since obviously you > havn't tried it. Fortepan 200 and 400 are great films. Tri-X and Plus-X aren't exactly state of the art either. :) Jim > Tri-X and Plus-X aren't exactly state of the art either. :) > Jim In my experience lower in base fog though. Signature"ANFAWFOS" Check out my website @ http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > > I doubt whether this mfr has state-of-the art films. Are you working > > in 35mm? Maybe for sheet film it would be OK. Try 35mm Delta 400 @EI [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > like any of the films you tried before. MF is a must though, and sheet > is great. Also their papers are one of he best. He's using 35mm. Kodak and Ilford films are the stste of the art, and the quality of this film is therefore questionable. > > > I doubt whether this mfr has state-of-the art films. Are you working > > > in 35mm? Maybe for sheet film it would be OK. Try 35mm Delta 400 @EI [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > He's using 35mm. Kodak and Ilford films are the stste of the art Ilford yes, kodak are mediocres IMO. , and > the quality of this film is therefore questionable. based on what? > > > > I doubt whether this mfr has state-of-the art films. Are you working > > > > in 35mm? Maybe for sheet film it would be OK. Try 35mm Delta 400 @EI [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > based on what? That they're not Kodak or Ilford, who have spent millions on emulsion technology, that's what. Not a good reason. You have to judge it yourself. > > > > > I doubt whether this mfr has state-of-the art films. Are you working > > > > > in 35mm? Maybe for sheet film it would be OK. Try 35mm Delta 400 @EI [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That they're not Kodak or Ilford, who have spent millions on emulsion > technology, that's what. > Not a good reason. You have to judge it yourself. the film is not the equal of Kodak or Ilford. > > Not a good reason. You have to judge it yourself. > > the film is not the equal of Kodak or Ilford. But you never tried it?!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > Not a good reason. You have to judge it yourself. > > > > the film is not the equal of Kodak or Ilford. > > But you never tried it?!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, and I've never tried eating road kill, either. Have you? Kodak and Ilford make generally the best B&W films. These are inferior. Period. > No, and I've never tried eating road kill, either. Have you? Kodak and > Ilford make generally the best B&W films. These are inferior. Period. No offense Michael - you make a lot of positive contributions to the newsgroup - but I think it's oversimple to state that non-Ilford and Kodak films are simply inferior. The prior poster's point about you not having tried them isn't at all invalid. A better analogy might be you stating Coke was the best soft drink while being unwilling to try a foreign drink that you didn't know. Obviously Coke is the market leader, but that doesn't mean it is the best drink for all purposes. I've shot a lot of different films (Ilford Pan F and Pan F Plus, FP4 and FP4 Plus, HP5 and HP5 Plus, XP1, XP2, Delta 100, both versions of Delta 400, Delta 3200; Kodak Panatomix-X, Plus-X, Verichrome Pan, Tri-X, T-Max 100, 400 and P3200; Agfapan 25; Fuji Acros 100 and Neopan 400; Fomapan T200 and 400; Efke 25; Classic Pan 200 and 400). I haven't tried all the films out there, but I've tried most. Yes, there are a few that I like better than others, but I have something good to say about most of them. Sometimes it's tonality; sometimes it's the ability of the emulsion to work with a staining developer like PMK; sometimes it's just that je ne sais quoi but you like the film anyway. I do use about 80% Ilford and Kodak products, but I'm not at all against experimenting and letting some of the smaller guys have a piece of the rest. Jim > > No, and I've never tried eating road kill, either. Have you? Kodak and > > Ilford make generally the best B&W films. These are inferior. Period. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Jim Exactly, each film has its own picularies and idiosyncrasies. Kodak and Ilford may offer the best balance/compromise, but they, as any other film, don't offer everything. Each film has something to offer- a fact that any sensible, and "experienced" photographer would not fail to recognise. What about APX? Maco? or Acros? another 'crap'? > > > No, and I've never tried eating road kill, either. Have you? Kodak and > > > Ilford make generally the best B&W films. These are inferior. Period. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > a fact that any sensible, and "experienced" photographer would not > fail to recognise. What about APX? Maco? or Acros? another 'crap'? I made no reference to them, now did I? I have used Fuji and Agfa B/W films, and they're quite good. The question is about Forte film. > I made no reference to them, now did I? I have used Fuji and Agfa B/W > films, and they're quite good. The question is about Forte film. Had you not used Agfa black and white film, you wouldn't have dismissed it. Obviously, you tried it. Good stuff - grainier than Kodak and Ilford, but with its own character. I haven't tried Fortepan, but I'm willing to guess the same is true of it. Perhaps there are better alternatives for it for all applications, but until I try it, I won't know. Fomapan is surprisingly good in its tonal range, even though it is noticeably grainier than the standard alternatives. I wouldn't be at all surprised if I bought it again. Jim > > I made no reference to them, now did I? I have used Fuji and Agfa B/W >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jim Fortepan is the same. Tones are beautiful esp. 200 and 400. In terms of tonal scale I find Kodak films the worst imo. :> I made no reference to them, now did I? I have used Fuji and Agfa B/W :> films, and they're quite good. The question is about Forte film. : Had you not used Agfa black and white film, you wouldn't have dismissed it. : Obviously, you tried it. Good stuff - grainier than Kodak and Ilford, but : with its own character. : I haven't tried Fortepan, but I'm willing to guess the same is true of it. : Perhaps there are better alternatives for it for all applications, but until : I try it, I won't know. : Fomapan is surprisingly good in its tonal range, even though it is : noticeably grainier than the standard alternatives. I wouldn't be at all : surprised if I bought it again. Actually scarpitti has made it clear that only Kodak and Ilford are worth using. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > > I made no reference to them, now did I? I have used Fuji and Agfa B/W > > films, and they're quite good. The question is about Forte film. > > Had you not used Agfa black and white film, you wouldn't have dismissed it. Don't you mean "Had you not used Agfa black and white film, you would have dismissed it."? Anyway, the point is that film is not that expensive to begin with, and with the offerings of two or three major film companies being so good, it hardly makes sense to use inferior film. Given the description of the OP's problems, I'm 99% certain the quality of the film is considerably below that of Ilford, Kodak, or Agfa. Over the last 35 years, I've tried just about ever B&W film out there, including Adox (KB14 was excellent, KB17 was passable, and KB21 was very grainy), Agfa, Ilford (I used FP3 and HP4, the latter of which despite my best efforts was unable to match Tri-X). I've also tried just about every developer available during that period. My conclusion is that it's damned hard to beat FP4 in Acutol, or Tri-X in D-76 1:1. Both work very well in UFG as well, and can be developed together in that developer, as both take the same developing times (at least they did back in the 70's). That really good films buy other makers is going to be rare is a given. I'm not sure I understand yiou. Is it possible you mean precisely the opposite? > Obviously, you tried it. Good stuff - grainier than Kodak and Ilford, but > with its own character. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jim > > > I made no reference to them, now did I? I have used Fuji and Agfa B/W > > > films, and they're quite good. The question is about Forte film. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that developer, as both take the same developing times (at least they > did back in the 70's). But you admitted not using Fortepan and the discussion is about Fortepan, so all this alleged experience of yours is meaningless and pointless. You also disregarded any film other than Kodak and Ilford based on the notion that these two manufacturers had spent millions on film technology- nothing here about first hand experience. Why don't you just shut up then! > > > > I made no reference to them, now did I? I have used Fuji and Agfa B/W > > > > films, and they're quite good. The question is about Forte film. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > technology- nothing here about first hand experience. > Why don't you just shut up then! Why don't you eat some road kill then? > > > > I made no reference to them, now did I? I have used Fuji and Agfa B/W > > > > films, and they're quite good. The question is about Forte film. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > technology- nothing here about first hand experience. > Why don't you just shut up then! In the 70's, I used Ilford HP4 a few times. It was decidely inferior to Tri-X, and I doubt that the Forte product is even that good. :> I made no reference to them, now did I? I have used Fuji and Agfa B/W :> films, and they're quite good. The question is about Forte film. : Had you not used Agfa black and white film, you wouldn't have dismissed it. : Obviously, you tried it. Good stuff - grainier than Kodak and Ilford, but : with its own character. : I haven't tried Fortepan, but I'm willing to guess the same is true of it. : Perhaps there are better alternatives for it for all applications, but until : I try it, I won't know. : Fomapan is surprisingly good in its tonal range, even though it is : noticeably grainier than the standard alternatives. I wouldn't be at all : surprised if I bought it again. ctually if you read scarpitti's post he makes it clear that the only film worth using is Kodak and Ilford. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > :> I made no reference to them, now did I? I have used Fuji and Agfa B/W > :> films, and they're quite good. The question is about Forte film. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ctually if you read scarpitti's post he makes it clear that the only > film worth using is Kodak and Ilford. ...and Fuji Neopan. Thanks everyone for your replies. As Gregory pointed, I'm not sure of its expiration date since a friend of mine bought a bulk roll; maybe you're right, becuse he paid around US$20 for it, here in Brazil! Last night I tried developing at D76 straight (20C) for 10.5 min and it was a real improvement over my last attempts. But again, I followed some recommendations found in a french website and rated it EI200 for daylight...I took similar photos at EI200 and 400 of the same subjects, light, etc., and they really look better as 200; it could be the expiration date, though. I usually shoot Ilford HP5 Plus (35mm) but never tried Delta - I will soon. Thanks again, Fred It reminds me of East German ORWO NP27. V grainy and lower contrast. Look at the time for Tri X and increase by 30% (1 stop). These old tech films had completely non-standard dev times compared to Kodak or Ilford. Try a anti-fog additive too before you give up on the stuff. Oh yeh, use a hardening fix as well or dry the film very carefully. > I know this subject has been covered a couple of times and I'm sorry > to bother you with one more question but...I've been trying to find [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks for any input. > Fred Try some better film and forget this crap... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.