J & C Photo brand film

[Ian Grant]

yes, I was referring to Classic Pan 400 in 35mm. I remember that, at the time, it was widely believed to be Forte pan 400. I also remember that it was comparatively inexpensive.

Classic Pan film and Classic Art paper were Fotoimpex's re-branded Forte materials, just before Forte closed all production went to Fotoimpex.

Fortepan films were descendants of pre-WWII Plus-X, Tri-X etc which were made and coated at the Kodak Ltd (UK) factory in Hungary in 1939, the factory was under Agfa control during the war and nationalised after the war, I still have 2 boxes of 10x8 Classic Pan 200

Ian

 

[braxus]

Fortepan films were descendants of pre-WWII Plus-X, Tri-X etc which were made and coated at the Kodak Ltd (UK) factory in Hungary in 1939,

That explains the old look and grain size for these films. I'd love to get some more of this film, but unfortunately the well seems to have dried up on Ebay for it.

Is FotoImpex selling any film like it today? Or are the old Forte formulas long gone now?

 

[DonW]

I've got a boat load of Classic Pan 400. Worst film I have ever used.

 

[braxus]

I've got a boat load of Classic Pan 400. Worst film I have ever used.

Its definately got its own look. I wouldn't use it for everything, but when you want that grainy high contrast old look, I would use it then.

 

[Ian Grant]

That explains the old look and grain size for these films. I'd love to get some more of this film, but unfortunately the well seems to have dried up on Ebay for it.

Is FotoImpex selling any film like it today? Or are the old Forte formulas long gone now?

I'm not sure there's really an old fashioned look, I've shot it with my 10x8 alongside Delta 100 or 400 in a TLR and prints sit nicely in exhibition sets.

Ian

 

[AgX]

Fortepan films were descendants of pre-WWII Plus-X, Tri-X etc which were made and coated at the Kodak Ltd (UK) factory in Hungary in 1939, the factory was under Agfa control during the war and nationalised after the war.

This gives the impression as if in eastern Europe people were only able to live on with old, foreign formulae. Typically eastern research was/is neglected in the West. Partiallly as it not always ended in commercial products. But this again often was not to blame on research.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I doubt that the Kodak formulas survived decades of intermittent shortages, supply chain issues, and economic isolation that were characteristic of the economies of Soviet Bloc countries. Was Forte making silver-rich film at the height of the Hunt Brothers era, when an ounce of silver cost more in hard currency than a month’s salary for an average worker? Surely they would have been looking for ways to economize.

 

[Ian Grant]

This gives the impression as if in eastern Europe people were only able to live on with old, foreign formulae. Typically eastern research was/is neglected in the West. Partiallly as it not always ended in commercial products. But this again often was not to blame on research.

I'd disagree, Forte evolved their products perhaps not to the same standard as Western companies but they did have help from Bergger after Guillemont ceased trading.

Many of the issue with Eastern Block films were due to poorer emulsion hardening, but I never found that an issue as I'd been used to FP3 and HP3 as a teenager buying cheap ex-Government/Military stock. My experience with Classic Pan/Fortepan 200 is that it's an excellent film. A member here tested it in 35mm for a UK photography magazine and rated it quite highly.

I doubt that the Kodak formulas survived decades of intermittent shortages, supply chain issues, and economic isolation that were characteristic of the economies of Soviet Bloc countries. Was Forte making silver-rich film at the height of the Hunt Brothers era, when an ounce of silver cost more in hard currency than a month’s salary for an average worker? Surely they would have been looking for ways to economize.

Rather like the Tessar lens design these emulsions would evolve and be improved by different companies..

I worked for a family (early 2000's) who's original company went under due to Bunker Hunt, they did all the silver recovery for Ilford, Agfa. Kodak (UK), Fuji (Netherlands), Kentmere etc. As the Silver price dropped the photographic companies wanted money not Silver. In the Eastern Block companies just wanted silver to keep manufacturing. There's a huge recycling of silver from X-ray film and colour labs. The successor company I worked for recovered many tons of silver a year and they'd lost the contracts from the film/paper manufacturers

At the time the prices went sky high I had a company making and coating silver halide emulsions. it was crippling price rises, but even when the silver price dropped there was no corresponding drop by Photo manufacturers.

The stories of what actually happened, bars of silver thrown out over the factory walls as the Administrators went in to declare the company bankrupt I've heard from both sides and they match

Ian

 

[titrisol]

I bought a bunch of rolls from them, I still use the 120roll tubes that J&C pro used to come in.
JC Pro 100 was a cheap film that gave good results in Rodinal 1+50+Vita C and Ilford DDX.

Yep. Last time I saw it was 2005. I shot several rolls of the 100 speed in 120, and liked it a lot. There was considerable speculation at the time about what Chinese source J&C Photo had purchased from -- pretty well had to be Lucky or Shanghai, I'd have thought.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I bought a bunch of rolls from them, I still use the 120roll tubes that J&C pro used to come in.
JC Pro 100 was a cheap film that gave good results in Rodinal 1+50+Vita C and Ilford DDX.

I've got a stack of those tubes, too. IIRC, I actually bought some separately from the J&C film, as well as having the ones that came with it. They do a fine job of protecting an exposed roll, but they're a little tight to get a roll in with the wrapper still on, and with the wrapper off, the roll is still subject to humidity-induced issues (mottling).

 

[titrisol]

The two rolls I have are of the Pro variety, so it must be Chinese. Thanks again!

I went through my notes and found I had a printed copy of the dev times for most JandC films,
JandC pro 100
Rodinal 1+25 8.5
Rodinal 1+50 13.5
D76 9.5
Xtol 7
HC110(B) 7.5

From my notes, I exposed as 50 and developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 10 minutes (70F)
Something that was noticeable on that film is the completely clear base


https://web.archive.org/web/2004120...ndcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=2

 

[braxus]

With Forte gone long ago, did FotoImpex ever make the same film under a new name today? Im just wondering if any new current film is the same old Forte emulsion?

 

[cmacd123]

With Forte gone long ago, did FotoImpex ever make the same film under a new name today? Im just wondering if any new current film is the same old Forte emulsion?

they seem to be trying to emulate the old EFKE formulas, (which go back to Dupont-ADOX )at the moment. they also are apparently working on a paper similar to the Forte "Poly Warm Tone"

 

[Yaakov Israel]

It hasn’t been available for about 14-years.

Thanks! looking for affordable films for large format - anything?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Thanks! looking for affordable films for large format - anything?

X-ray. Single sided, "green" (orthochromatic), 8x10 and larger for less than Fomapan 100 4x5. Can be recut under red safelight (test your light first). Very soft emulsion, but very high resolution available depending on specific product.

For 4x5, Fomapan and .EDU Ultra (same film, different label) runs around $1/sheet if you buy the bigger boxes. Standard panchromatic, no special handling needed (other than care for the relatively soft emulsion). It's my standard.

 

[BradS]

affordable large format....oxymoron?

 

[removed account4]

some have good luck with the litho film that photowarehouse sells and processing it in hc 110 to get a negative .. me ? expired film, any kind, old or new, and paper. negatives make the best large format snacks.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Ortho lith is a good alternative. Doesn't have to be HC-110; you can process it in any common developer (though you might have to find your own times).

 

[Kodachromeguy]

affordable large format....oxymoron?

Ho Brad, just the opposite. LF photographers take fewer photos and typically each frame was carefully composed. Compare to smaller formats, where photographers are often more cavalier about taking multiple frames. And especially compare with the D crowd, some of whom endlessly upgrade equipment in the search for perfect pixels, non-cheating ISO, equivalence, card slots, "sharpness," megapixels, bokeh, whatever.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The film can get expensive, but the equipment is available for pennies on the dollar. It all evens out.

 

[Yaakov Israel]

איש

X-ray. Single sided, "green" (orthochromatic), 8x10 and larger for less than Fomapan 100 4x5. Can be recut under red safelight (test your light first). Very soft emulsion, but very high resolution available depending on specific product.

For 4x5, Fomapan and .EDU Ultra (same film, different label) runs around $1/sheet if you buy the bigger boxes. Standard panchromatic, no special handling needed (other than care for the relatively soft emulsion). It's my standard.

thanks!

 

[braxus]

Here are some results from J&C Classic Pan 400 (Forte 400) that I recently acquired. The film was always cold stored, so fog wasn't too bad. I shot it at 400 and scanned on an Epson flatbed (I need to get my film scanner running again). It seemed quite a few shots on the roll were underexposed, as I had to lighten some shots with sky in them. It would have been better exposed if shot at 200 ISO. I developed it in Xtol straight using stock 400 times. Still a completely usable film, even after 13 years in the fridge. Take a look.

 

[braxus]

I got my Minolta film scanner going again. Had to get the updated Vuescan program for it to work in Windows 10. The scans from it for these same shots was not as contrasty, but sharper. I can show them if anyone is interested.

 

[DonW]

Hey it turned out really good!

 

[braxus]

Hey it turned out really good!

Yeah. I thought so too. For some fog on the negative itself, the images scanned really well considering. My flatbed scans vs the film scanner, was a contrast difference. I got more contrast on my flatbed. The film scanner was more neutral in tones. I still think shooting it at 200 would improve things. I will try that on my next roll.