J and C classic 400 film

[Arelia99]

Hello!

I am new to APUG...just getting back into 35mm photography. I recently set things up to develop my own film. I have R09 and have just ordered some J and C classic 400 film. Does anyone have any experience with this? I have been searching the forums and found very little info on it. I intend to try the classic 400 film out and then develop it in R09. My question is basically, has anyone also tried out Jand C classic 400? If so then what did you think? Also in general, what exactly does it mean when J and C say "These films are old-fashioned, high silver content emulsions with a look similar to the old Super XX"...What would a look similar to Super XX be? Just thought it would be fun to try it. (I normally use Ilford Delta 400 and PanF+ with D-76 and R09.)

And thank you to everyone here...so far almost any question or concern I have had has been asked and answered by the terrific people here!

Thank in advance!
Nancy

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I use it quite a bit in large format. Think of it as similar to Tri-X professional with more manageable highlights. You can even use the development times for TXP as a starting point in your developer of choice (you'll probably find that Classic 400 needs about 10-20% longer development time for the same contrast range as TXP).

 

[Eric Rose]

I use it quite a bit in large format. Think of it as similar to Tri-X professional with more manageable highlights. You can even use the development times for TXP as a starting point in your developer of choice (you'll probably find that Classic 400 needs about 10-20% longer development time for the same contrast range as TXP).

What dev are you using David? I want to push it to 1600asa. In the olden days we just souped the heck out of Tri-X in D-76. Not sure how the J&C 400 will react.

 

[hortense]

Love to try 120 size abut every time I try no inventory. A recurring problem?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

What dev are you using David? I want to push it to 1600asa. In the olden days we just souped the heck out of Tri-X in D-76. Not sure how the J&C 400 will react.

I'm not sure that I believe in the possibility of pushing Tri-X or Classic 400 to 1600 in D-76, measured as shadow detail.

I usually soup it in ABC pyro and expose it around EI 160. For speed I use Acufine and rate it at 640.

You might get another stop by using the XR-1 formula on unblinkingeye.com, but I found the results to be low in contrast when I tried it with Tri-X--good for night photography, but not what I wanted it for.

I've gotten an EI of 1000 with TXT and RAF Pyro-Metol, which produces a neg that's compatible with negs souped in ABC, and I suspect Classic 400 would be similar, but I haven't tested it yet.

 

[BradS]

Hi and welcome to APUG!

I've shot a bit of Classic Pan 400 in small format and it's ok. I'd agree that if anything, it looks like most like the old Tri-X. I don't know where they get idea that it looks like Super-XX" and it certainly looks nothing like the new Tri-X (400TX). It's defininitely not my favorite film. It's cheap and it works. It is not as forgiving of sloppy exposure/development as Tri-X (my opinion). Nor is the spectral response the same. Under-exposure can look like a red-orange filter was used. I've tried it in HC-110, D-23 and Acufine. All work well. Grain can be expected. Forte data sheets say something about this being a two layer film...if so, that might have implications for sharpness (or, lack of).

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

A couple of years ago, when the new version of Classic 400 came out, I posted some test shots from medium format negs in a few different developers here--

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008niK

 

[Arelia99]

Thanks!

Just wanted to say a quick thanks for all the quick responses! Should be fun to give it a try...I will not be shocked at some grainy results!

Nancy

 

[Eric Rose]

I'm not sure that I believe in the possibility of pushing Tri-X or Classic 400 to 1600 in D-76, measured as shadow detail.

Well back in my newpaper days in the 70's it was standard practice to shoot Tri-X at 1600 and souped in D-76. We got good negs to boot. Now they wouldn't suit a zonie but for news reporting they were just fine.

I'm doing a bunch of underwater stuff without flash, hence my -need for speed!

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've shot a fair amount of Classic 400, in 120 and 4x5. I give it box speed, and process in either HC-110 Dilution F or Parodinal 1:50 (same as F-09 1:40), either way for just about twice the time I'd give Tri-X in the same soup. The above advice of 10-20% increase is completely wrong, both based on published times and on my experience with dozens of rolls of both Tri-X and Classic 400 over the past couple years.

A "look similar to Super XX" would be a grainy, gritty image with a very linear tonal range, but in fact, IMO, Classic 400 (even in a Rodinal-like developer) isn't as gritty as Super XX was (though I've never used Super XX, I've seen scans from it); it's closer to 1970s vintage Tri-X, and about the same speed, rather than the slower, grainier Super XX of the 1950s, at least (Super XX, like most other films, did change a couple times before it was dropped in the early 1980s).

FWIW, Classic 400 is probably the best-value ISO 400 film on the current market -- I'm currently trying some Foma 400, but so far don't like it as well; I'll probably go back to Classic/Forte/.EDU (Made in Hungary) and standardize on that across my formats (especially now that I can get it in 9x12 cm).

 

[BrianPhotog]

I've shot a fair amount of Classic 400, in 120 and 4x5. I give it box speed, and process in either HC-110 Dilution F or Parodinal 1:50 (same as F-09 1:40), either way for just about twice the time I'd give Tri-X in the same soup. The above advice of 10-20% increase is completely wrong, both based on published times and on my experience with dozens of rolls of both Tri-X and Classic 400 over the past couple years.

Donald,

What's your time/temp combo for Classic Pan 400 in HC-110 Dilution F?

Thanks!