Classic Pan 200, soft images?

As a LF newbie I've been burning film to get some practice and experience, it made sense to use a lower price film. However I've noticed that the Classic Pan 200 I've been using seems to be soft. I tried a side by side comparison between cp200 and hp5+ and there is a noticable difference between the 2 negs and contact prints I've made.
This also seems to be more noticable about 1/4 of the way in from one side.

Please take a look at the attached scans to see an example. I haven't applied any sharpening, so they aren't quite as sharp as the prints, but they do show what I'm seeing.


1. A section from the LHS about 1/4 of the way in showing the effect I'm seeing.
2. The equivalent section from the HP5 negative
3. A section from the RHS showing the effect I'm seeing but to a lesser degree.
4. The equivalent section from the HP5 negative.
5. The whole scene

The 2 exposures whre made within minutes of each other and used the same aperture, I only adjusted the shutter. Both were souped in Rodinal.

Any ideas? do I have a bad batch? is this typical of the results I could expect from CP200?

The only things I can think of is that the HP5 shot was taken first and the insertion and removal of the film holder may have moved the camera movements/focus or there is camera shake from wind or not letting the camera and tripod settle down after pulling the darkslide. I've not had a soft image from classic pan that was due to the film.

Thanks for the quick reply.

The CP200 was exposed first. I've been seeing similer effects with other sheets of Classic Pan, which is why I did the side by side in the first place. While the CP was exposed at 1/30, I was carefull to avoid vibration so I don't believe that is an issue.

Cheers

Martin

I would do another comparison test indoors just to rule out wind etc. If you still get the soft image with CP200 I would send the both HP5 and CP negs to your CP film supplier for comment.

J

Wiseowl- This is precisely why I avoid low priced off-brand films and papers and why I'm so concerned with Kodak shutting down all of its analog production properties. Living a stone's throw from Freestyle (and I love that store) for more years than I can (clearly) remember, I've had the opportunity of trying all sorts of value priced imported film and papers, especially in leaner times, and have come to the conclusion that it's false economy to use any discount film or paper for any sort of serious personal or professional work. The pinhole and Diana crowd might make good use of the stuff but for me, not knowing what problem is going to jump out at you just isn't worth the bother.

In another post I read today, a box of Kentmere paper was unusable due to strange bumps in the emulsion. Every week, there's complaints and reports of bad batches of this or that film or paper (produced in various interesting and faraway lands) ending up in someone's camera or darkroom. We are fortunate to still have Fuji Film, Kodak and Ilford to buy from. Money spent on bargain basement materials should be going to the big three so they stick around for as long as possible. Almost every photographer I know has at some point tried the cheap stuff and comes to the same conclusion- it's a waste of time.

Kentmere is a U.K. based company with, I believe, a good reputation for quality but yes, the U.K. is a faraway land from Southern California and I'll take it as a compliment that it is very interesting. Nice to know that "quaint" wasn't your preferred term.

Pentaxuser

Hey, cheap doesn't ALWAYS mean bad - even if sky falls on Earth, the materials like Foma or Forte would have their users. I love Foma tonality, for example; and for a long long time I did have only one issue with their QC - with that lot of 120 Fomapan 100. I think the guy could have exposed the sheet from the wrong side, or did not place it well in his holder, or the holder was faulty, or improperly seated in camera, or there was another factor. It shouldn't be so soft in normal situation. Well... the next try would show everything

Classic might be grainier than other films and it might also not achieve it´s rating fully (just like most films) but it for sure cannot be less sharp than another film in the way your pictures show it.

I have no clue what went wrong here but my fist impression would be that the image was out of focus for some reason.

I am using Classic and other films in 4x5" on a regular basis and never had images that much out of focus.

Mirko

John: Good suggestion, I'll give that a go and if possible will try and get enough flash power together so as to remove camera shake as an issue.

Changeling1: I'm going to reserve judgement on CP until further testing. I would be reluctant to use any film for something important (what I'm doing now certainly isn't, I'm still too low down the learning curve.) unless I'm very familier and confident with it.
With respect to Kentmere, I have used this in the past without any issues, but my paper of choice is Multigrade IV FB.

eumenius: This post is as a result of several sheets showing strange, soft effects. I am 100% certain that the film was in the holder the right way around and that it was situated properly in the holder. (I've already learned from these mistakes.) Also, I believe the holder was seated properly as it is a very positive fit and that it is not faulty as I have succesfully exposed with it before. I will post the results of the indoor trial when I get it done. Probably next weekend now.