Comparing HP5 and J&C Classic

[Andrew O'Neill]

I was quite attracted to a balustrade which led to a big column with the shadow of leaves cast upon it. I brought along HP5 and the no longer available J&C Classic. Fomapan 400 has a very different characteristic curve than HP5. I wanted to see if the differences were noticeable.

 

[cmacd123]

I always thought the J and C stuff was Hungarian Forte. BUT I never used the sheet film version of it.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello Andrew, thanks for sharing!
Wasn't the Foma negative underexposed compared to the HP5+ one?
I never did the same scene with both, but when I tried it, Foma400 looked like a slower film...

 

[MattKing]

I always thought the J and C stuff was Hungarian Forte. BUT I never used the sheet film version of it.

It was Forte, I believe.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've heard from several people that it is the same stuff as Fomapan 400 which was also Forte.

 

[MattKing]

I've heard from several people that it is the same stuff as Fomapan 400 which was also Forte.

Andrew,
I don't think that Fomapan, which originated in what is now the Czech Republic, was in any particular way connected with Forte, which had a former Kodak factory in Hungary.
EDIT: see the listing for Forte on Wikipedia: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Forte

 

[braxus]

My understanding also was that J&C Classic 400 was Forte 400. Not Foma. I think this was confirmed by the guy who actually ran J&C back in the day, and when I got my own sheets of this stuff. I have rolls of J&C Classic 400 in 35mm and it looks pretty much like the rolls of Forte 400 I have also used.

That said I did watch your video Andy and I much prefered the J&C shots. HP5 just doesn't have enough contrast to my liking. Its why I never use it.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew,
I don't think that Fomapan, which originated in what is now the Czech Republic, was in any particular way connected with Forte, which had a former Kodak factory in Hungary.

I cannot find anything definitive other than speculation. I've even heard that J&C Classic could even be rebranded Chinese Seagull! I'll keep digging. In the meantime, I'll be drawing up some curves, and doing some spectral tests to see if the stuff I have matches Fomapan 400. And if they do not match, at least I can still get my hands on Fomapan 400, with it's interesting characteristics.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

My understanding also was that J&C Classic 400 was Forte 400. Not Foma. I think this was confirmed by the guy who actually ran J&C back in the day, and when I got my own sheets of this stuff. I have rolls of J&C Classic 400 in 35mm and it looks pretty much like the rolls of Forte 400 I have also used.

That said I did watch your video Andy and I much prefered the J&C shots. HP5 just doesn't have enough contrast to my liking. Its why I never use it.

HP5 is a fantastic film. I have made many wonderful images with that film. Pretty much all my coal mine series was shot on that stuff. It's only flaw is that it cannot be used for Alt printing... but I believe there is a way around that. But yes, the J&C version has a lot more oomph.

 

[Oren Grad]

I've heard from several people that it is the same stuff as Fomapan 400 which was also Forte.

Andrew - I owe you an apology. I think I told you Fomapan in a thread over at the Large Format forum, but that was a brain hiccup. I agree with Matt and braxus that it was Forte. I will go find the other thread and correct it. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[otto.f]

Thanks a lot Andy!

 

[Ian Grant]

J&C did sell rebranded Chinese film but as Pro 100 not sure if there was a faster version. They made a big blunder on the order as they had the film cut to the exact sizes 5x4, 7x5, 10x8 etc and as a consequence it didn't fit most DDS film holders. Ilford made the same mistake when sending out their first test batch of Harman Direct Positive paper.

Film sizes are nominally based non the plate sizes, however film was used in sheaths in plate holders initially, so needed to be cut slightly smaller. J&C had a lot of unhappy customers.

This was the Chinese J&C film.

Classic Pan was the name used by Fotoimpex for their re-branded Forte films, and J&C were their US distributor. The Forte factory was set up by Kodak Ltd (UK) and made Pan X , Plus X, Super XX, and Tri X, until Germany invaded Hungary, it was then under Agfa control.

Ian

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I took down the video and edited it slightly. The last thing I wanted to do was cause any confusion as to what J&C Classic really is. When my order of Fomapan 400 arrives, I will be comparing the two characteristic curves and out in the field. Now back to playing with CatLabs 80 II... Cheers!

 

[BradS]

J&C classic pan 400 was well known to be Forte pan 400 (definitely not Fomapan 400) and it was nothing like HP-5. Classic pan 400 was difficult to dial in and very interesting once figured out. I'll dig through my archives and see if I can find some examples.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

J&C classic pan 400 was well known to be Forte pan 400 and it was nothing like HP-5. Classic pan 400 was difficult to dial in and very interesting once figured out. I'll dig through my archives and see if I can find some examples.

I'm happy that that was cleared up. I'm looking forward to playing with Fomapan 400 and comparing it to HP5 I uploaded an edited version of the video.

 

[Ian Grant]

You may find Fomapan 400 a little disappointing, particularly compared to HP5, I was sent a few sheets by another photographer who wanted a second opinion, lacklustre was my comment. Some people find it's OK.

I do like and use Fomapan 100 & 200, they are quite different to the 400, and I also like the Classic Pan 200, I still have two boxes of 10x8 from the last Forte production run.

Ian

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

You may find Fomapan 400 a little disappointing, particularly compared to HP5, I was sent a few sheets by another photographer who wanted a second opinion, lacklustre was my comment. Some people find it's OK.

I do like and use Fomapan 100 & 200, they are quite different to the 400, and I also like the Classic Pan 200, I still have two boxes of 10x8 from the last Forte production run.

Ian

Ian, how did you find the base + fog with the Fomapan 400? If it's anything like the J&C stuff, I'll consider it for Alt. processes. Thanks!

 

[pentaxuser]

Interesting video, Andrew. I just don't think that I'd have the patience required for this kind of photography but then again at the price of 8x10 HP5+ I might just about manage it

The J&C was certainly punchier in the scan format and I suspect that as a normal print on MGV it would still be my favourite. It does seem to give both more punch and not at the sacrifice of much if any shadow detail

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Interesting video, Andrew. I just don't think that I'd have the patience required for this kind of photography but then again at the price of 8x10 HP5+ I might just about manage it

The J&C was certainly punchier in the scan format and I suspect that as a normal print on MGV it would still be my favourite. It does seem to give both more punch and not at the sacrifice of much if any shadow detail

pentaxuser

It certainly does have more bite than the HP5 version. Kind of makes me sad, because HP5 has been a film that I have made many satisfying images on over the years... I've got some Fomapan 400 on the way. Have you ever used this film before?

 

[koraks]

I found foma 400 not very ideal for alt. processes. It doesn't build contrast as easily as the 100 or 200 from the same manufacturer. It has its price going for it for course, but I stick with the 100 and 200 instead for sheet film formats. B&f is low btw and not a concern.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I found foma 400 not very ideal for alt. processes. It doesn't build contrast as easily as the 100 or 200 from the same manufacturer. It has its price going for it for course, but I stick with the 100 and 200 instead for sheet film formats. B&f is low btw and not a concern.

Thanks for that info, koraks. I'll look into those slower ones.

 

[Paul Howell]

I am surprised how much old stock is still floating around. I did try Forte 400 in 4X5 towards the end of Forte run, my box had issues with pin holes. I did like the tones, and seemed to shoot well at box speed when developed in DDX without horrible grain. B

 

[pentaxuser]

No Andrew I have never used any Foma film but have read a lot of posts here about it and looked at various video presentations on it including Greg Davis film comparison

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

Always interesting.
I’m probably never going to shoot 8x10, but it’s large format porn and many of the observations and ideas is applicable across all formats.

Foma 400 seems to have lost its high red sensitivity and it’s definitely not a patch on HP5.
200 and 100 is really good film.
Slightly grainier and perhaps lower res than Ilfords equivalent FP4, but with a real pleasant curve.

 

[Eric Rose]

J&C Classic Pan 400 35mm is the crappiest f'n film I have ever used. Period. YMMV