Has anyone heard of this Film before? How about this film developer,
FA-1027?
Thanks
Jim
FA-1027?
Thanks
Jim
Fine Art Pan 125 Sheet Film From Fine Art Photo supply
-
A
- Thread starter Jimbob
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Leica MP .72 as new
- Started by rhondal mckinney
-
For Sale Wacom Cintiq 16 HD Drawing Tablet with Wacom Adjustable Stand
- Started by Barlow
-
Free Chromega replacement filters
- Started by Terrence Brennan
-
For Sale Minolta Hi-Matic 7S 35mm rangefinder camera.
- Started by binglebugbob
Forum statistics
The film is rebranded FP4+. They hint at this, but I am sure they are not allowed to outright say so. The developer is one that I have tested, though I am not sure I see anything great about it. It has a very lumpy curve, which I find odd. The actual images I made with it were not bad, but I could not see anything exceptional either. Given the shape of the curve I am worried that I will get strange results at certain times.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2004
- Messages
- 388
- Format
- 4x5 Format
I'v been using hc110 for years with consistent results,but I started wandering what other products are out there, so I just ordered his print, neg developer, and fixer. Hope I don"t regret it.L Gebhardt said:
Louis Nargi said:
I like the print developer, though from what I can tell it is very close to Ansco 130. The fixer I haven't tried, but I think it is more expensive than TF4 with no real benefits that I can see.
David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
I asked Anthony about the fixer a while back, and he acknowledged that there might be no significant difference between their alkaline fixer and TF-4, but they are about the same price ($9.54/gal Artfix, $9.95/gal TF-4 ), and Artfix comes in a powder instead of a liquid, which makes it cheaper to ship. I can buy TF-4 off the shelf from B&H at the Formulary price, and since FAPS and B&H are both in New York state, I have to pay sales tax either way, so I use TF-4. If I were ordering by mail, though, I'd probably use Artfix or just mix my own TF-3.
David, I guess I was reading the prices wrong. It looks like the FineArt product is indeed cheaper, and even more so when you factor in price.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2005
- Messages
- 134
- Format
- Multi Format
What I know about Anthony
David, I was rather disturbed when I read that Anthony Guidice said there 'might be no significant difference between their alkaline fixer and TF-4'.
This is duplicitous on Anthony's part. What I discovered when Bud Wilson bought FAPS was that his 'Artfix' is merely my own alkaline sodium thiosulfate formula, from my own book, which Anthony appropriated despite that I said in the book that these formulas were disclosed for non-commercial use only.
For him to claim that this in any way approaches the quality or value of TF-4 is simply not true, and he knows it.
In the first place, I don't recommend sodium thiosulfate fixers for most modern materials because they fix iodide-containing emulsions too slowly.
In the second place, TF-4 is an ammonium, not a sodium thiosulfate fixer. That means it will fix materials several times faster than any sodium thiosulfate fixer. (First of all, the clearing time is much shorter, second of all, you only have to fix for twice - or a little less - than the clearing time, rather than, with sodium fixers, three times the clearing time.) Furthermore, TF-4 contains non-thiosulfate accelerants.
Especially with paper, this means much faster washing times, because the material spends so little time in the fixer. Anthony's claims for a ten minute washing time with 'his' fixer are groundless and irresponsible. Anyone who follows these directions will not have adequately fixed prints.
In the third place, the capacity of TF-4 is, litre for litre, at least 50% greater than that of any sodium thiosulfate fixer. In fact, if you really tested them to exhaustion, you would probably find that the capacity of TF-4 is about double. The speed and capacity of TF-4 are already substantially greater than that of any ammonium thiosulfate fixer on the market.
I do not think anyone should be using sodium thiosulfate fixers today. They are not more economical, and they don't fix modern films and papers as well as ammonium thiosulfate fixers.
For this and for several other reasons I am not impressed with Anthony Guidice's ethics.
And a word on the film. I have investigated this reduced price FP4.
Does anyone really think you are going to get factory-fresh FP4 for 50-75% of the normal price?
Of course not. It turns out - I have discussed this with Anthony's supplier - that this is older film that has often travelled around the world and been sent back to the factory or a distributor for resale under bargain basement labels. No way would Ilford ever sell this film under it's own name. It isn't good enough. If you want Ilford quality, you have to pay for it. If you want to get off-label film, the best bet is J&C as far as I can determine. They are honest about what they have, and whatever is available, they have.
What about the rest of Anthony's products? Well, what doesn't come from my book - without a syllable of acknowledgment or thanks - comes from an OEM manufacturer of no great repute. There is nothing in the smallest degree unique about anything Anthony Guidice sells, except his effective sales patter.
I know for a fact that eyebrows were raised high at Formulary when they found out what Anthony's products were.
And then after selling the business and promising he never wants to be in the photo business again, he turns around and starts competing with Formulary again - just a few months later.
I am not getting a good impression of Anthony Giudice.
David A. Goldfarb said:
David, I was rather disturbed when I read that Anthony Guidice said there 'might be no significant difference between their alkaline fixer and TF-4'.
This is duplicitous on Anthony's part. What I discovered when Bud Wilson bought FAPS was that his 'Artfix' is merely my own alkaline sodium thiosulfate formula, from my own book, which Anthony appropriated despite that I said in the book that these formulas were disclosed for non-commercial use only.
For him to claim that this in any way approaches the quality or value of TF-4 is simply not true, and he knows it.
In the first place, I don't recommend sodium thiosulfate fixers for most modern materials because they fix iodide-containing emulsions too slowly.
In the second place, TF-4 is an ammonium, not a sodium thiosulfate fixer. That means it will fix materials several times faster than any sodium thiosulfate fixer. (First of all, the clearing time is much shorter, second of all, you only have to fix for twice - or a little less - than the clearing time, rather than, with sodium fixers, three times the clearing time.) Furthermore, TF-4 contains non-thiosulfate accelerants.
Especially with paper, this means much faster washing times, because the material spends so little time in the fixer. Anthony's claims for a ten minute washing time with 'his' fixer are groundless and irresponsible. Anyone who follows these directions will not have adequately fixed prints.
In the third place, the capacity of TF-4 is, litre for litre, at least 50% greater than that of any sodium thiosulfate fixer. In fact, if you really tested them to exhaustion, you would probably find that the capacity of TF-4 is about double. The speed and capacity of TF-4 are already substantially greater than that of any ammonium thiosulfate fixer on the market.
I do not think anyone should be using sodium thiosulfate fixers today. They are not more economical, and they don't fix modern films and papers as well as ammonium thiosulfate fixers.
For this and for several other reasons I am not impressed with Anthony Guidice's ethics.
And a word on the film. I have investigated this reduced price FP4.
Does anyone really think you are going to get factory-fresh FP4 for 50-75% of the normal price?
Of course not. It turns out - I have discussed this with Anthony's supplier - that this is older film that has often travelled around the world and been sent back to the factory or a distributor for resale under bargain basement labels. No way would Ilford ever sell this film under it's own name. It isn't good enough. If you want Ilford quality, you have to pay for it. If you want to get off-label film, the best bet is J&C as far as I can determine. They are honest about what they have, and whatever is available, they have.
What about the rest of Anthony's products? Well, what doesn't come from my book - without a syllable of acknowledgment or thanks - comes from an OEM manufacturer of no great repute. There is nothing in the smallest degree unique about anything Anthony Guidice sells, except his effective sales patter.
I know for a fact that eyebrows were raised high at Formulary when they found out what Anthony's products were.
And then after selling the business and promising he never wants to be in the photo business again, he turns around and starts competing with Formulary again - just a few months later.
I am not getting a good impression of Anthony Giudice.
Having run extensive fix tests during my R&D work at EK and having just run a series of fixer comparisons at the request of an OEM manufacturer that sent me some samples (not the Formulary), I can affirm Bill Troop's comments on TF4 regarding speed, wash rate and capacity vs sodium hypo fixes. The OEM fixes did not meet the specs of TF4 in any way, nor did they meet their own hype.
In addition, Bill has copyrights on many fine developer formulas in A&T. The fact that they were used happily by many who bought FAPS products attests to that. That does not mitigate the fact that the formulas were apparently taken from Bill's book without his permission or that of Steve Anchell.
Considering all of this, the FAPS developer product line has a 'noble' heritage and are good products as now sold by the Formulary. IMHO Bill is being a gentleman about the whole thing regarding the original FAPS usage of his chemistry. From what it appears, the Formulary has been innocent of any wrongdoing in this matter.
Reading between the lines, I would assume that Bill has no objections to the Formulary continuing to produce products using his developer formulas.
PE
In addition, Bill has copyrights on many fine developer formulas in A&T. The fact that they were used happily by many who bought FAPS products attests to that. That does not mitigate the fact that the formulas were apparently taken from Bill's book without his permission or that of Steve Anchell.
Considering all of this, the FAPS developer product line has a 'noble' heritage and are good products as now sold by the Formulary. IMHO Bill is being a gentleman about the whole thing regarding the original FAPS usage of his chemistry. From what it appears, the Formulary has been innocent of any wrongdoing in this matter.
Reading between the lines, I would assume that Bill has no objections to the Formulary continuing to produce products using his developer formulas.
PE
The Arista brands from freestyle are good rebranded film, you cant beat the price.
| 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:  |