Exeter Pan XX - what is it?

[pentaxuser]

It doesn't mean anything, really. It has HP5 and Fomapan in that title to show up in searches for HP5 and Fomapan - because the guy is selling film that he says is iso400. He doesn't need anything special to spool out 25 feet if he can also spool out 100 feet. And he doesn't need a lot of space for it, either - but does need a darkroom.

Yes I appreciate both points you make but was simply contrasting the amount he would need to buy direct from Ilford and what you suggest as a knife and fork method of spooling it out. Yes it makes sense if he only sells small quantities at a time such as he appears to be ( he had sold 17 and had 5 remaining =23) but it would seem that in those quantities he will have this massive roll for a long time. On the other hand he may be getting small batches at a time from some other party which from a cash flow point of view would seem to make more sense

pentaxuser

 

[Flighter]

Thanks. Do you use it at ISO 400 and did you have to decide development times yourself or does it come with any instructions such as may help establish what it is?

So far I've only used it at 400.

The first roll I developed in Microphen using the time (8 mins) used by Agulliver (post #41) just to get a reference point, therafter I tried Caffenol C-H, first at 15mins (normal starting point for Caffenol) but it looked a bit under-developed so the next roll was done for 20mins and then I went back to Microphen (8 mins) for the fourth roll for a comparison. I've still one unexposed roll from the 25ft roll left and then I'm on to the 100ft roll.

No instructions come with the film and as Agulliver said in post #5 the Ebay listing just said to develop as per Fomapan 400 or Ilford HP5.

Agulliver is certain (post #57) that it is not Fomapan of any sort (I don’t have enough experience to make any sort of judgement), so if the made in EU is correct and it is not pre-Brexit Harman I guess that leaves us with either Inoviscoat or possibly a former Soviet Union plant in one of the countries now in the EU.

 

[pentaxuser]

So far I've only used it at 400.

The first roll I developed in Microphen using the time (8 mins) used by Agulliver (post #41) just to get a reference point, therafter I tried Caffenol C-H, first at 15mins (normal starting point for Caffenol) but it looked a bit under-developed so the next roll was done for 20mins and then I went back to Microphen (8 mins) for the fourth roll for a comparison. I've still one unexposed roll from the 25ft roll left and then I'm on to the 100ft roll.

No instructions come with the film and as Agulliver said in post #5 the Ebay listing just said to develop as per Fomapan 400 or Ilford HP5.

Agulliver is certain (post #57) that it is not Fomapan of any sort (I don’t have enough experience to make any sort of judgement), so if the made in EU is correct and it is not pre-Brexit Harman I guess that leaves us with either Inoviscoat or possibly a former Soviet Union plant in one of the countries now in the EU.

Thanks You last paragraph would appear to be a reasonable conclusion. Can I take it that in Microphen and using the time you mentioned that it was not underexposed (zone III shadows being very dark and featureless) which is the usual test for whether a film said to be a genuine 400 speed actually is 400?.

The waters are further muddied by there being appreciably different times for HP5+ and Fomapan 400 in Microphen, such times in stock solution being 6.5 mins for HP5+ in both the Ilford times and MDC times and 6.5 mins HP5+ and 8-9 mins for Fomapan

As the label on the Exeter Pan gives speeds for films speeds of 200, 250 and 400 only this suggests that it is unlikely to be HP5+ which largely can achieve its box speed and more likely to be Foma 400 but Agulliver is certain that it is not Fomapan

If the filmmaker or whoever sold the film to the shop doesn't want the make revealed then I wonder whose idea it was to not reveal it by stating 2 makers' films?


If it works at box speed and a developer or developers and times can be found that produces satisfactory results for the users then on a "bang for buck" basis then why should anyone be worried may be a reasonable question

Why look a gift horse in the mouth is the cry.

I just have uneasy feelings that make me wary whenever I come across anything that is surrounded by what appear to be contradictions and conflicting information

I have just checked AgPhotgraphic's prices for Fomapan 400. It is quite a large retailer in Birmingham, England and its prices match what the shop is charging for 100ft of Exeter Pan to within pennies and in fact would undercut its price for 25ft if it were to cut its 55ft roll Coincidence? Maybe but just a pity that Agulliver has ruled out it being Fomapan 400


pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

And he doesn't need a lot of space for it, either - but does need a darkroom.

He doesn't need a darkroom; he needs a dark room.

 

[Flighter]

Thanks You last paragraph would appear to be a reasonable conclusion. Can I take it that in Microphen and using the time you mentioned that it was not underexposed (zone III shadows being very dark and featureless) which is the usual test for whether a film said to be a genuine 400 speed actually is 400?.

I'm afraid I don't have the experience to really say, it didn't look underexposed to me but I wouldn’t have any confidence in my ability to identify zone III areas. The label on the can gives speeds of 250 ISO, 400 ISO and 650 ISO and refers to the film as being 'Multi latitude'.

As to including Fomapan 400 and Ilford HP5 in the listing title my assumption would be that this was done to ensure that the listing is picked up by anyone searching for either of those two films.

 

[MattKing]

From the discussion between cmacd123 and Matt I was unsure of what conclusions were reached but I think it might be that the film Fligher's showed us was still film but cine film also has the same perforations

Is this a correct conclusion or can we be sure it is or isn't cine film stock?

No conclusion can be reached.
If the perforations were the perforations found in many/most motion picture camera film stock, we could have reached a conclusion.
It has the same perforations as motion picture projection print stock, but that film wouldn't be close to 400 ISO.
It could also be a non-standard motion picture camera film stock, but many of the potential customers for motion picture camera film stock wouldn't be happy with those perforations.
Or it could be from a master roll of film that was intended to be finished/confectioned as motion picture camera film, but was third party finished/confectioned for still film use.
Like I said, no conclusion can be reached.

 

[pentaxuser]

No conclusion can be reached.
If the perforations were the perforations found in many/most motion picture camera film stock, we could have reached a conclusion.
It has the same perforations as motion picture projection print stock, but that film wouldn't be close to 400 ISO.
It could also be a non-standard motion picture camera film stock, but many of the potential customers for motion picture camera film stock wouldn't be happy with those perforations.
Or it could be from a master roll of film that was intended to be finished/confectioned as motion picture camera film, but was third party finished/confectioned for still film use.
Like I said, no conclusion can be reached.

Thanks Matt That was my conclusion as well on what I thought was yours and cmacd123's conclusion

pentaxuser

I'm afraid I don't have the experience to really say, it didn't look underexposed to me but I wouldn’t have any confidence in my ability to identify zone III areas. The label on the can gives speeds of 250 ISO, 400 ISO and 650 ISO and refers to the film as being 'Multi latitude'.

As to including Fomapan 400 and Ilford HP5 in the listing title my assumption would be that this was done to ensure that the listing is picked up by anyone searching for either of those two films.

Just one more if I may: The two frames you have shown us have no edge markings. Is this the case throughout? If it is then one for anyone with the knowledge: Does Fomapan 400 also have no markings on bulk rolls?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

He doesn't need a darkroom; he needs a dark room.

Hmm, yes. You should consider a hobby, Macrame is nice.

 

[faberryman]

Hmm, yes. You should consider a hobby, Macrame is nice.

There is a big difference between "darkroom" and "dark room". I read posts on photography (camera) forums where people say they can't process their own film because they don't have the space for a darkroom, which is nonsense. You just need a dark room (like a closet) for a couple of minutes to get the film out of the cassette and onto the reel. Then it's lights on and out to the kitchen sink for processing. Of course, it's easier to send it to the film processor. You just have to get in the car, drive over to the post office, wait in line to buy postage, and drive back home. The post office does the rest.

 

[Don_ih]

There is a big difference between "darkroom" and "dark room".

In context, the difference here was a press of the spacebar. Forgive my awful, awful faux pas.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

You just need a dark room (like a closet) for a couple of minutes to get the film out of the cassette and onto the reel.

Or a changing bag.

 

[faberryman]

Or a changing bag.

Then you don't have the fun of dropping stuff and having to get on your hands and knees and feel around to find whatever you dropped, which is an essential element of the whole experience of processing your own film. With a changing bag, you only have the experience of having sweaty hands, which is hardly comparable.

 

[mtnbkr]

There is a big difference between "darkroom" and "dark room". I read posts on photography (camera) forums where people say they can't process their own film because they don't have the space for a darkroom, which is nonsense. You just need a dark room (like a closet) for a couple of minutes to get the film out of the cassette and onto the reel. Then it's lights on and out to the kitchen sink for processing.

That's how I do it (walk-in closet without windows off of the master bathroom that also lacks windows). Then I use my digital camera to "scan" the negative. The negative development gear fits in a small box that lives in my nightstand between uses.

If something is particularly compelling, I can choose to send the negative off for printing.

Chris

 

[Agulliver]

The perforations are definitely not cine perfs. I've used B&W 35mm cine film in still cameras before and know the difference. So this isn't cine camera stock....but then we don't actually know if the film coater/manufacturer is the same entity as whoever finished it.

The whole UK/EU thing only matters *if* it's respooled Kentmere (or theoretically some other Harman product). In which case it could be "Made in EU" if it was made in the UK before 2020....but it equally could have been made anywhere else in the EU.

I've shot it at 400 and 1600. It pushes well and I am prepared to say it's not any known version of Fomapan. The whole "Dev Fomapan 400 HP5" is supposed to mean that one can develop it as per Fomapan 400 or Ilford HP5+ which *is* confusing as both have different development times. I've found that developing under the assumption that it performs similar to HP5+ works best.

Elsewhere on the interwebs there's a discussion about it being Ilford Surveillance film. Harman has recently manufactured Ilford P4 Surveillance film. I don't know if they still are making it, but they certainly were until quite recently. It was originally intended for security cameras, a use which must be dying out, so it's possible there were large stashes being sold off cheaply. The Exeter vendor could conceivably have a huge freezer or three full of the stuff. I think P4 used to come in 150 foot rolls which would permit spooling down to the various lengths this seller offers.

But ultimately we really don't know what it is. I suspect the Exeter name is used because the seller is based near the town of Exeter. Fair enough. XX could be to make people think about Kodak XX as this is in some ways a film that fulfils a similar role. The addition of Fomapan and HP5 in the description are probably again to show up in searches that people make for other 400ISO films. I found it by looking for "35mm bulk film".

The conclusion I draw is that I do like it, and when the seller returns from his holiday I shall likely buy a 100 foot roll.

 

[Flighter]

Just one more if I may: The two frames you have shown us have no edge markings. Is this the case throughout? If it is then one for anyone with the knowledge: Does Fomapan 400 also have no markings on bulk rolls?

No worries, yes, there are no edge markings throughout. I have only used Fomapan 400 in 36 exposure cassettes, not bulk, so I can't confirm the position for bulk Foma 400 but their technical data sheet suggests that it is marked 'ULTRA 400' saying:

Packaging
FOMAPAN 400 Action is available in the following sorts:
– 120 rollfilm 60 mm wide, exlusively on a 120 spool; identification edge markings:
„ULTRA 400“
– double-edge perforated 35 mm film in 135-36 and 135-24 cartridges for 36
and 24 exposures 24x36 mm; bulk lengths of 17, 30.5 and 50 m in a darkroom
packaging; identification edge markings: „ULTRA 400“
– sheet film (for large-format cameras) sized 10 x 15, 13 x 18 and 18 x 24 cm in a
box of 50 sheets. Orientation emulsion side of the film - is determined by a notch located on the right upper corner of the short side of the film format.

 

[Flighter]

The conclusion I draw is that I do like it…

That is my conclusion as well.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Then you don't have the fun of dropping stuff and having to get on your hands and knees and feel around to find whatever you dropped, which is an essential element of the whole experience of processing your own film. With a changing bag, you only have the experience of having sweaty hands, which is hardly comparable.

Call me crazy. I prefer sweaty hands to sore knees. Besides, I can watch the witty repartee of Bones and Spock with the changing bag on my lap.

 

[pentaxuser]

No worries, yes, there are no edge markings throughout. I have only used Fomapan 400 in 36 exposure cassettes, not bulk, so I can't confirm the position for bulk Foma 400 but their technical data sheet suggests that it is marked 'ULTRA 400' saying:

Thanks so this suggests that if Foma do not put edge markings on their cassette film and as it has no Ultra 400 markings either then maybe it is Foma 400 bulk roll. It fits with the price comparison I mentioned re. AgPhotographic's prices for bulkroll Foma 400 and with made in the EU label

I note that in Agulliver's helpful recent reply he is not saying that it is definitely Foma 400

pentaxuser

 

[Flighter]

Sorry, badly worded on my part, the Exeter Pan has no edge markings.

Foma 400 in cassettes has edge markings and the Foma data sheet seems to indicate that Foma 400 bulk roll also has the same ULTRA 400 edge markings.

My understanding is that Agulliver is saying it is definitely not Fomapan:

I've shot it at 400 and 1600. It pushes well and I am prepared to say it's not any known version of Fomapan.

 

[pentaxuser]

Sorry, badly worded on my part, the Exeter Pan has no edge markings.

Foma 400 in cassettes has edge markings and the Foma data sheet seems to indicate that Foma 400 bulk roll also has the same ULTRA 400 edge markings.

My understanding is that Agulliver is saying it is definitely not Fomapan:

Yes you are right about what Agulliver said about it not being any known version of Fomapan but I am unsure of the reasons why he is so sure.

It says made in the EU ( could be Fomapan 400 or some version of any other film made in Europe including pre-Brexit Kentmere but you've seen my reasons why this draws further questions at least on my part

Is it HP5+? I'd have thought it unlikely unless some third party can buy from Ilford HP5+ a large roll in sufficient quantity to be able to instruct Ilford to delete any edge marking. Could this be a small shop in Exeter? Could be but I rather doubt it. So could it be a much larger player who is able to buy a large quantity of unmarked HP5+ and sell it well below the "street price" for HP5+ Maybe but where else is it being sold at this low price other than from a Exeter shop?

This still leaves the question of whether IlfordPhoto have now abandoned its policy of not selling its films to be re-badged

Now we have a new "suspect" Ilford Surveillance P4 film which allegedly is being sold by Ilford as the stuff is no longer being used. I am sorry but I remain suspicious of the reliability of discussions on the Interwebs. This might be such film but has this shop bought it all or is there another seller that anyone else knows of?

Can I ask when was P4 stopped being made for surveillance cameras and was it, when it was made, unmarked? Also do we know for a fact that Ilford does not mark its surveillance film? If P4 is HP5+ or its exact equivalent and is cheaper to manufacture then in times of rising film prices would it not make sense for Ilford to keep producing it and labelling it HP5+?

Can I ask Agulliver this question. Does this stuff match HP5+ in every way?

Don't get me wrong I am fine with a film that is as cheap as Foma 400 and appears to be as good as HP5+ but it's just that there seems to things about it which I have mentioned above that are hard to reconcile with it being HP5+ but are much easier to reconcile with Foma 400

There may be an explanation that reconcíles all the questions that surround this film and remove all the contradictions but I feel we are a long way from being able to effect such a reconciliation.

pentaxuser

 

[Agulliver]

It's not any known verion of Fomapan because I use them all regularly and Exeter Pan XX behaves very differently to any of them. Development times are different, more like HP5+. The Exeter Pan film pushes much better than Fomapan 400, which would be the only possible candidate in Foma's range of films to push to 1600. Even if we consider a possible stash of the old Foma 800, that was far more grainy when pushed to 1600. Fomapan 400 is not only far more grainy but develops far more contrast when pushed.

Foma bulk films have no edge markings, probably because they're a;so sold rebranded - perhaps most notably by Freestyle.

This isn't identical to HP5+ in my opinion. The halation effect is greater with this Exeter Pan film. Otherwise it is certainly similar, though I do not have the time nor equipment to conduct laboratory type tests on it's. Development times for HP5+ at 400 and 1600 in Microphen seem pretty much bang on, whereas development times for Fomapan 400 are incorrect - in my opinion and as per my preferences.

The only solid conclusion I will say is that this isn't any Foma film that we're aware of. It *might* be Harman/Ilford P4. It *might* be something else. I've never had any P4 in my hands to compare directly.

Ilford P4 Surveillance film was available on eBay until about 4-5 years ago. Make of that what you will. Sometimes 150 foot rolls, sometimes shorter "ends" sold as 25 feet or 50 feet.

Curiously B&H still have a listing for P4, though it is no longer availbale

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/446865-REG/Ilford_1675364_1675364_400P4_35mm_Surveillance.html