Looking for 35mm B&W G. P. film.

[Charles Webb]

I have used 35mm Tri X since it was introduced last century. It has been wonderful and delivered great resuilts all these years, however I am now interested in trying J and C's Classic Pan 400-35 Film. Has anyone experience to share in using either the 400 or 200 they advertise. Whadaya think? Any one who knows me is aware of my love for D 76, so I most likely will try it when I receive the Classic Pan film. J and C's write up sounds like the film would be just fine, but I would like to hear what other users think.


Thanks a bunch for your input on this!
Charlie........................

 

[Charles Webb]

I suppose I posted this wrong, since it didn't come up.

Oh well,
Charlie...........................

 

[Stephanie Brim]

The first medium format I ever developed was J&C 100. I also used D76 and got fine results out of it. I'm sure the 400 would be equally as good.

 

[df cardwell]

Charley

I'll buy you a beer if it comes close to Tri X.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Classic 400 looks a lot like Tri-X, but the highlights are a bit more modulated, and it's somewhat grainier. I haven't tried it in 35mm, but I've used it in medium and large format. You can use your development times for Tri-X as a starting point with Classic 400, but you'll likely settle on about 10-20% longer development time.

 

[timeUnit]

I've had quite a few issues with Fotoimpex' Classic Pan 200. Pinholes, uneven development etc. I think J&C Classic Pan is the same as Fotoimpex'...?

 

[Lachlan Young]

It has a softer emulsion than Tri-X and is curlier. Also watch out for the fact that the 400 has extended red sensitivity - great under tungsten lights but not so good out doors.

Hope this helps and good luck!

Lachlan

 

[Gerald Koch]

What can I say about the Foma 400 other than to say that you should continue to use Tri-X for your important photos.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have used 35mm Tri X since it was introduced last century. Charlie........................

Dear Charlie,

At the risk of being seen as a smart-arse, did you actually start using it in the 1940s when it was introduced, or only in the 1950s when it was introduced in 35mm and roll-film?

If the former, I'd be fascinated to hear your opinions of the original sheet-film material as compared with the early roll and mini-film, as I have yet to meet anyone who used it in the 40s.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Lachlan Young]

What can I say about the Foma 400 other than to say that you should continue to use Tri-X for your important photos.

Classic pan 400 = Fortepan 400

Fomapan 400 = Fomapan 400

Lachlan

 

[Ian Grant]

Gerald, are you implying that J&C's Classic Pan 400 is actually Foma 400.

If this is the case its very misleadıng of J&C as their mentor Fotoimpex in Berlin sells Forte 400 as Classıc Pan 400

Ian

What can I say about the Foma 400 other than to say that you should continue to use Tri-X for your important photos.

 

[Ole]

What can I say about the Foma 400 other than to say that you should continue to use Tri-X for your important photos.

Or you could switch to Ilford. Hp5+ or Delta400 if you want speed, FP4+ or Delta100 if that suits you better.

I use 90% FP4+ myself...

 

[Charles Webb]

Dear Charlie,

At the risk of being seen as a smart-arse, did you actually start using it in the 1940s when it was introduced, or only in the 1950s when it was introduced in 35mm and roll-film?

If the former, I'd be fascinated to hear your opinions of the original sheet-film material as compared with the early roll and mini-film, as I have yet to meet anyone who used it in the 40s.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger,
Indeed in my eyes you are being seen as a smart arse. Indeed I did use 4x5 and up sheet film in the late 40's. I did not use Triple x, but super double x
on ocassion. My preference at that time was Ansco and Agfa products. the double X is what we used in the portrait studio, and was a wonderful film. Later Ansco Super Hi Pan became my favorite for G. P. camera work. In the late fifties I did switch totally to Tri X in 4x5, but preferred Gavaert films for 5x7 and 8x10 for portrait work. During the mid 40's I admit I did not know the difference between a densitometer and chrome toaster.

Now if you re read my comment it clearly states 35mm Tri X on it's introduction. Now Roger you and I both know that the first of TX 35mm films
to get into dealers hands was in the early 1950's. Not the 1940's!

I apologize to everyone for trying to be cute and say "last century" it was amusing to me, but apparently not everyone shares the same sense of humor that I do. I did not mean to deceive anyone.

Don,
I have worked behind the camera for well over fifty years, and in that time I have never found a 35mm B&W film that I liked better than TriX 35mm. I have tried most of the other films over the years including Ilfords highly touted FP4 and FP5. For me and my use they never even got close enough for a comparison with TX135. So hold on to your "beer money", I'll buy the first round.


My thanks to everyone including Roger for your input, everynow and then I seem to go chasing rainbows, but the lists input points me right back to where I have been for a long, long time. It costs a lot more for twenty rolls of Tx13536 than for the Classic Pan, but I guess ya get what ya pay for!

Thanks again!!!!
Charlie...........................

 

[Charles Webb]

Roger,
The early roll films were nothing at all like the sheet film of the same name.
There was a definite learning curve in how to use them. In the early fifties the 35mm camera was beginning to get a foot hold with photographers, but most of us were using Rollei's and what ever film we could get. The folks I knew thought 4x5 TX was a poor quality replacement for Royal Pan and very few used it. Again, the cost of Kodak's offerings was always a bit higher cost wise than other manufacturers.
We looked for bargins then just as we do today.

Charlie.............................

 

[Gerald Koch]

Gerald, are you implying that J&C's Classic Pan 400 is actually Foma 400.

No, and I don't know how this could be read into my comment. Sometimes satire is misinterpreted. I was trying to make the point that there is no substitute for Tri-X. While Foma and Forte films are good they are not of the same quality as Kodak's.

 

[df cardwell]

For me and my use they never even got close enough for a comparison with TX135. So hold on to your "beer money", I'll buy the first round.

I know how to get there.

d

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I can throw another vote in for Tri-X. I farted around with all kinds of film and tried them by using them. Tri-X is the only film I've encountered where I have no desire to switch to anything else, besides the occasional roll of APX400 that are still lying around.
That's for ISO400 film.
I have tried the J&C 400 in 4x5 sheet film, and I had some success with it, but ran into problems with pinholes as well. Never with the Kodak.

- Thom