Bad Pan F ??
-
A
- Thread starter brianentz
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Rolleiflex 2.8A-E Mirror - Rolleiflex Viewing Screen
- Started by davela
-
For Sale Nikon SB-20 Flash - Working
- Started by davela
-
For Sale Pentax 67: Accessories Now Individually Priced
- Started by RitchieLB
-
For Sale Pentax 67: Five Lenses Now Individually Priced
- Started by RitchieLB
-
For Sale Pentax 67: Two Bodies Now Individually Priced
- Started by RitchieLB
Forum statistics
- Status
If the box were on the closer cheek, it would block the buttocks crease which would make it less interesting
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
What box?
We're waiting for NB23 to pony up.
Well I did say "put up or shut up" so maybe he just chose the later
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Yea I think the memory of the shot is why I mixed the developer wrong, I must have still been distracted
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Yea I think the memory of the shot is why I mixed the developer wrong, I must have still been distracted
The box of Pandora... the evil began.
Ah, an SD card on her belly eh?
Well I did say "put up or shut up" so maybe he just chose the later
Wouldn't be the first time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, an SD card on her belly eh?
Wouldn't be the first time.
Hahahahha!!!! OMG what a great idea!! Even better would be an SD card in an ilford box, haha
Or a whole digital camera in the shot!
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Hahahahha!!!! OMG what a great idea!! Even better would be an SD card in an ilford box, haha
Or a whole digital camera in the shot!
May the Ilford God Simon smite you for blasphemy!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,307
- Format
- 35mm
Wouldn't be the first time.
Wtf does that mean?
You have any examples of that?
About this pan-f conversation, i will post a picture that absolutely proves my point about the latent image theory being absolute BS. No matter what you or mister galley say. I'll do it when I'll have the time to do it. My real life is extremely busy. All these internet conversations are more childish then anything else to me. There's no "put up or shut up" with me. When I say something it is because I totally mean it.
Until now, no one has still convinced me that I am wrong.
Well, this thread has been rather amusing to read.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,816
- Format
- 35mm
FWIW, I found in a box in my garage (damp, hot in summer, cold in winter) a Kodak disposable camera (expired 2003) containing a half-finished 400 speed film. I recently finished off the film and sent it away for cheapy D&P.
The "old" shots had faded as if badly underexposed, while the recent shots were as good as fresh film. But, oddly, all the edge markings were bold as a fresh film! How do we explain that?
The "old" shots had faded as if badly underexposed, while the recent shots were as good as fresh film. But, oddly, all the edge markings were bold as a fresh film! How do we explain that?
Do not waste your time posting the picture. Move on with life, and shoot some film then develop it promptly.
No matter what your picture shows it will not prove to me that "the latent image theory being absolute BS". Only a carefully controlled study will do that. That study will take at least a year if we shoot one image a week or 10 days and have other films tested side by side.
A Pentax LX or MZ-S that lets you reload a film exactly and reshoot the roll from where you left off would be perfect for this study. I have one but really have no interest in doing this study as I will not let any Pan-F I shoot sit around for months before I develop it.
Something else of interest.
NOTE :"particularly in low exposure areas" in this thread.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
NOTE :"particularly in low exposure areas" in this thread.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Last edited by a moderator:
A simple test for edge marking stability might be to get a fresh roll of Pan-F and leave it unexposed.
Every time you develop an exposed roll of Pan-F just include a inch or so of the unexpoded roll in the tank. As long as you use the same devloper and time each roll you may see the edge marking fade over time on the unexposed roll.
A question; Are the edge markings, "in low exposure areas"?
Every time you develop an exposed roll of Pan-F just include a inch or so of the unexpoded roll in the tank. As long as you use the same devloper and time each roll you may see the edge marking fade over time on the unexposed roll.
A question; Are the edge markings, "in low exposure areas"?
As another said. Posting a print doesn't prove anything.
And "when I say something I mean it" doesn't mean anything either, if you're unwilling to send off the film to ilford, then you're ether afraid of being proven wrong, lying and trolling, or just plain lazy.
I'm watching "game of thrones" a show on HBO so I'm prone to say bold things like ...
"Either send the film or be viewed by all in the community as a coward and a liar!"
Haha
I'm cheeky this Sunday afternoon ~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Summing up, the consensus is that that anyone making comments like this "I don't get all these warnings and extra careful manipulations. I really don't care how I handle my films" and then making all kinds of unfounded complaints really can't be taken seriously.
Oh and BTW Stone from a few time zones ahead of you: It's still Saturday
Ian
Oh and BTW Stone from a few time zones ahead of you: It's still Saturday
Ian
I'd still like to hear more about this.
Summing up, the consensus is that that anyone making comments like this "I don't get all these warnings and extra careful manipulations. I really don't care how I handle my films" and then making all kinds of unfounded complaints really can't be taken seriously.
Oh and BTW Stone from a few time zones ahead of you: It's still Saturday
Ian
Hahaha OMG it's SATURDAY!!!! That means I get another day!!! Haha so funny, I did an overnight on a movie set and came home at 7am (Saturday morning) and then passed out and woke at around 11am, but because I went to sleep on Saturday, I was thinking it was Sunday haha.
Your other response reminds me about when I was saying I thought Tmax400 was not producing any good tones and then said to someone who suggested changing agitation and I said "I don't care about agitation technique changes I want to not change anything and have good images" or something like that, and then I went and changed my technique (I compromised to somewhere in between my old and his suggested) and got some nice results.
Sometimes it takes time to accept that you're wrong or foolish, sometimes it never happens haha
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Better than an unexposed roll shoot a step table 36 times and use a 3 inch clip in the tank each time. With 3 inches you should get all of the steps visible each time (plus the edge markings). There is no way to know exactly when the edge marking were put on the film but we would know the date of the step tablet images.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,307
- Format
- 35mm
So guys, why do these expired films (2005) with markings that might be dating as far back as 2000 show up so nicely, contrasty and sharp?
Shouldn't they be faint, or even completely non-existent, according to the "poor latent image theory" that some people want to believe?
I firmly stand on my position: There is either a manufacturing inconsistency, bad QC or we're being sold some very expired but marked as fresh film.
I'm not accusing Ilford. But as a consumer with minimal knowledge, I just can't swallow quite easily the fact that some Fresh pan-f go bad on me while some other 8 years expired pan-f films look incredibly good.
Poor latent image? No way.
Shouldn't they be faint, or even completely non-existent, according to the "poor latent image theory" that some people want to believe?
I firmly stand on my position: There is either a manufacturing inconsistency, bad QC or we're being sold some very expired but marked as fresh film.
I'm not accusing Ilford. But as a consumer with minimal knowledge, I just can't swallow quite easily the fact that some Fresh pan-f go bad on me while some other 8 years expired pan-f films look incredibly good.
Poor latent image? No way.
Attachments
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
Simple
Done
Simple
Done
NB23, pretty stong words from
Unless you know exactly how the edge markings you compare have been generated the only conclusion you can draw from their appearance is wether you mixed up developer and fixer or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
You can't have it both ways.
At the very least, you are suggesting Ilford are acting in bad faith, while you go on to suggest they might be acting fraudulently.
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |