Bad B&W Film? Is there such a thing?

[thefizz]

With so many threads about different films and the reasons why we have our favorites, I wondered if any of you have tried a film which you thought was pretty crap.

Any candidates?

Peter

 

[Foto Ludens]

Well, I thought that T-max 400 was crap when I tried it, but that was the 1st film I developed and shot, and lots of people successfully use it, so I admit the fault was all mine.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Photo Engineer]

People have reported soft films that scratch and reticulate, films in which the emulsion actually floats off the support, and cases where the curl is so bad that the film is difficult to print.

These are posts on PN, here and personal accounts heard in my 'travels'. None of these problems have been reported with main stream films AFAIK.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There are some films that seem to do better than others for different formats.

I've never cared for TMY in small and medium format, but I've seen some pretty good work with TMY in large format. Bergger 200 usually looks kind of grainy/mushy to me in medium format, but is another one that seems to become more interesting in large format. Foma T200 (Creativ 200) has a very particular look that is great for some things (Alvin Langdon Coburn style cityscapes, or low key portraits and figure studies), that would just be too muddy for other subjects--kind of the way that certain kinds of images look great in photogravure or gum bichromate, but not others.

 

[Konical]

Good Morning, Peter,

I could never get the results I wanted from Plus-X and haven't used it for a couple of decades. T-Max 100 arrived and was, for me, a quantum leap forward.

Konical

 

[Paul Howell]

For it is just the opposite, Plus-x and Tri x, but I could not get the look I want from T max. No bad film, just poor applications.

 

[BradS]

I've a very high aversion to risk and so tend not to venture too far from the mainstream. In B&W, I shoot Kodak and Ilford and, in my opinion, these guys just don't have a looser in the line-up.

 

[Paul Sorensen]

There are films I don't like, but I would venture to say that there isn't a bad film, at least from major and medium sized manufacturers. The closest I would say is that some of the Chinese film has a pretty bad reputation for quality control and there are coating issues, but even those have a certain look and there are plenty of folks who enjoy it. I guess it is like lenses, one person's lousy lens that lacks sharpness is another person's soft lens that creates wonderful dreamy images. If it was all about good vs. bad, there would be no Holga, Diana, or soft focus portrait lenses and folks would not want to shoot with very many antique lenses.

 

[thefizz]

So I guess its really down to personal choice as to what is a good or bad film.

 

[titrisol]

not sure, but the new APX 400 is one I'll never buy again

 

[Eric Rose]

are you referring to defective film ( of which I have had some) or just crappy film in general. I've had film that didn't suit my subject so the images turned out rather dull, but that was my fault for picking the wrong film for the job.

 

[noblebeast]

I, for one, will never purchase EFKE in medium format again - holes all through the emulsion! Regardless of how carefully I process it. I don't have the problem with their 35mm, or the sheet film. Just the 120. Other medium format films, through the same cameras and chemistry, come out fine - or at least without all the holes. Just for the heck of it a couple of nights ago I opened up my last roll of EFKE 50 in 120 size and unrolled it to inspect it under bright light - dust and lint all over the emulsion. That undoubtedly accounts for the holes in the emulsion when the film is processed. Maybe I just got film from a bad run, but at those prices I'm not going to try it again. Added to that, the EFKE 50 - for a slow emulsion - displays much more grain than FP+, and even more than HP+ in certain circumstances so it's really the only B&W film on my "avoid" list.

Joe

 

[clogz]

Classicpan 400. Muddy looking and the film base curls like a pig's tail. Effective speed 100 if you're lucky. Perhaps I had some from a wrong batch.

 

[dphphoto]

What is classicpan 400? I had bad luck with a batch of JandC 100 in 4X5. The first couple of packs (25 sheets per) were fine at e.i. 64 in HC 110 dil. H. The next two packs went nuts on me. I could get no shadow detail. Don't know what happened: I didn't change anything, metering or dev. or anything. Switched to JandC Classic 400 which is very nice; it looks like a 100 speed film. I'm shooting it at e.i. 200 and developing in HC110, 1/2 of dil. E. The 100 is Chinese and the 400 is Czech (I think).

 

[Photo Engineer]

What you are describing are the reasons why the large manufacturers get better results. Film is best made in large batches at high speed in a clean room environment. When the size of a run falls below a certain level, variations in speed and curve shape begin to creep in and gradually there is a loss in quality.

I have heard similar complaints about products from the smaller manufacturers due to the type of support they use, the level of 'clean room' technology and etc.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

ClassicPan 400 went through a major change at a certain point, a couple of years ago now, if I'm not mistaken. The old version had a relatively low density range. The new version is excellent, somewhat like the old TXT, but with more modulated highlights. I've used it in 120 and sheet sizes. The 120 base is thin and prone to curling, but be sure to let it dry completely with a weight at the bottom of the roll, and then sleeve it and store it flat, and it will stay flat.

 

[Daniel Lawton]

If I had to give the label "bad" to any film I'd have to give it to Tmax 100 and I'm not refering to the unforgiving nature regarding exposure and development. Even when I am able to tame the contrast issues it just seems to have a murky and overly gray look that lacks a sort of "sparkle" for lack of a better term. I'm not saying this film can't excell in certain areas. I just haven't come across any in my experience with it. If I had to use a new technology film (I don't often) I prefer Ilford's Delta line.

 

[derevaun]

There's plenty of good and bad about every film, but Lucky seems to get the biggest share of bad comments. Hmm, I gotta try me some of that film!

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

There's plenty of good and bad about every film, but Lucky seems to get the biggest share of bad comments. Hmm, I gotta try me some of that film!

It does seem to, doesn't it? I bought a roll of Lucky a couple of weeks ago in Vienna (I've never seen it here in Oz) to see for myself how truly bad it may be.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The worst films I've ever used (soft, scratch- and blister-prone emulsion, super-curly) still made pretty decent images once I got past the handling problems. In fact, the cheapest films I can buy today are abou like the best Kodak offered when I was in high school, so I'm pretty happy with the B&W film situation right now.

Paper isn't bad these days, either...

 

[fschifano]

Really, truly bad films? Can't say that I've come across any that couldn't be used well if you know its characteristics and have developed some facility for coping with them or using them to your advantage. If you're asking what are my least favorite films, then I'd have to say that the Chinese Lucky films in both ISO 100 and 400 speeds are at the top of my list. They curl a lot and in 35mm loads, I've had a few rolls with scratches on the support that might have been (and probably were) my fault. The medium format loads I've gottenhave terrible sticky bands for keeping the film on the spool when used. I keep a small roll of tape in my bag for that now. The most disappointing characteristic of this film though was the tendency for highlights to "bloom." Apparently, the anti-halation backing is not so good with these films.

Next down on the list is TMY in 35mm format. Mind you, it is not a bad film at all. I just don't like the look of it for general use. You can get a two stop push in XTOL with this stuff and still make a decent print though and that's why I use it.

 

[gnashings]

not sure, but the new APX 400 is one I'll never buy again

I have to agree - once the rolls I have are gone (most likely through a Holga)... its good-bye APX400 for me. But even so - its acceptible in MF and even in 35mm I can't say its "bad" per se. Just not as good as other choices, and much, much uglier than the film I used to know and really like a lot.

Other than that, its more of what others are saying - I hate the look of Tmax, even when I get it "properly" processed. But I would not argue with the results of some who swear by it! So again... I think we are pretty lucky - there is some "peculiar" films (kind of the Holga/Lomo equivalents - suitable for a narrow range of applications), but out right bad seems pretty rare. To the point where I have to say I have never personally experienced it.

 

[thefizz]

are you referring to defective film ( of which I have had some) or just crappy film in general.

I was thinking crappy film in general.