Most controversial film

[Bikerider]

The film I had the most difficulty with was Kodak HIE Infra Red. Nominally 400iso but it was so unpredictable, I always exposed it one full stop either way as well as the indicated exposure.

The time of the year also altered the exposure, in winter there is less IR around so you rated it up to 2 stops slower. High summer with no clouds expose at anything up to 1000-1250iso.

Next in line was Kodak Technical Pan Nominally 25iso Invisible grain with horrendous contrast if over-developed. I used to manage with Rodinal at 1-100 but it was always touch and go.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The film I had the most difficulty with was Kodak HIE Infra Red. Nominally 400iso but it was so unpredictable, I always exposed it one full stop either way as well as the indicated exposure.

The time of the year also altered the exposure, in winter there is less IR around so you rated it up to 2 stops slower. High summer with no clouds expose at anything up to 1000-1250iso.

Next in line was Kodak Technical Pan Nominally 25iso Invisible grain with horrendous contrast if over-developed. I used to manage with Rodinal at 1-100 but it was always touch and go.

To properly expose HIE:

• Set the reflectance meter on ISO 400
• It is best to have the sun behind you but it is not a requirement
• Take the light reading without the sky in the light meters field of view
• Set the meter's setting
  
• Select the red filter that will be used and install it
• Use the follow filter factors for these red filters to
  
  • R23 filter factor 2 ==> use 2 times the time or 2 f/stops
    
  • R25 filter factor 3 ==> use 3 times the time or 3 f/stops
  • R29 filter factor 4 ==> use 4 times the time or 4 f/stops
    
  • 720 [R72] filter factor 6 ==> use 6 times the time or 6 f/stops
• After to adjusting to the above using a tripod if necessary take the photograph
• Develop in XTOL or replenished XTOL as designated for ISO 400

This actually works and it is not rocket science.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Tech Pan is easy to tame with the correct specialized developers. But it was designed for very high-contrast applications, and even under the best of circumstances, yields relatively disappointing con-tone pictorial images. I have a climber friend who was once addicted to its extreme sharpness in relation to his expensive Zeiss MF SLR lenses. Yeah, he sure bagged detail, but the deep shadows are upper highlights were always blank, ala that "soot and chalk" look AA frequently derided. I used it mainly for forensic and technical applications, just like its marketing name implies, including IR art photography, looking for evidence of underpainting and other signs of forgery.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak Recording Film 2475

 

[Mike Lopez]

To properly expose HIE:

• Set the reflectance meter on ISO 400
• It is best to have the sun behind you but it is not a requirement
• Take the light reading without the sky in the light meters field of view
• Set the meter's setting
  
• Select the red filter that will be used and install it
• Use the follow filter factors for these red filters to
  • R23 filter factor 2 ==> use 2 times the time or 2 f/stops
    
  • R25 filter factor 3 ==> use 3 times the time or 3 f/stops
  • R29 filter factor 4 ==> use 4 times the time or 4 f/stops
    
  • 720 [R72] filter factor 6 ==> use 6 times the time or 6 f/stops
• After to adjusting to the above using a tripod if necessary take the photograph
• Develop in XTOL or replenished XTOL as designated for ISO 400

This actually works and it is not rocket science.

Two f-stops would result in four times as much exposure as the base reading would indicate, not two times. (And a filter factor of 2 does not mean to quadruple the exposure.)
Three f-stops is eight times as much exposure as the base reading would indicate.
Four f-stops is sixteen times as much exposure as the base reading would indicate.
Etc.

 

[Sirius Glass]

To properly expose HIE:

• Set the reflectance meter on ISO 400
• It is best to have the sun behind you but it is not a requirement
• Take the light reading without the sky in the light meters field of view
• Set the meter's setting
  
• Select the red filter that will be used and install it
• Use the follow filter factors for these red filters to
  • R23 filter factor 2 ==> use 2 times the time or 2 f/stops
    
  • R25 filter factor 3 ==> use 3 times the time or 3 f/stops
  • R29 filter factor 4 ==> use 4 times the time or 4 f/stops
    
  • 720 [R72] filter factor 6 ==> use 6 times the time or 6 f/stops
• After to adjusting to the above using a tripod if necessary take the photograph
• Develop in XTOL or replenished XTOL as designated for ISO 400

This actually works and it is not rocket science.

Two f-stops would result in four times as much exposure as the base reading would indicate, not two times. (And a filter factor of 2 does not mean to quadruple the exposure.)
Three f-stops is eight times as much exposure as the base reading would indicate.
Four f-stops is sixteen times as much exposure as the base reading would indicate.
Etc.

Thank you for pointing that out. I did that on the fly.

From WikiPedia:
Converting between filter factors and stops
The table below illustrates the relationship between filter factor, the amount of light that is allowed through the filter, and the number of stops this corresponds to.

Filter factor Proportion of
light transmitted (1/FF)

Number of stops
1 95–100% 0
1.3 75% (3/4) 1⁄3
1.4 70% 1⁄2
1.5 67% (2/3) 2⁄3
2 50% (1/2) 1
2.5 40% (2/5) 11⁄3
3 33% (1/3) 12⁄3
4 25% (1/4) 2
8 12.5% (1/8) 3
16 6.25% (1/16) 4

A correction is in order:

• Set the reflectance meter on ISO 400
• It is best to have the sun behind you but it is not a requirement
• Take the light reading without the sky in the light meters field of view
• Set the meter's setting
  
• Select the red filter that will be used and install it
• Use the follow filter factors for these red filters to
  • R23 filter factor 4 ==> use 4 times the time or 2 f/stops
    
  • R25 filter factor 8 ==> use 8 times the time or 3 f/stops
  • R29 filter factor 16 ==> use 16 times the time or 4 f/stops
    
  • 720 [R72] filter factor 64==> use 64 times the time or 6 f/stops
• After to adjusting to the above using a tripod if necessary take the photograph
• Develop in XTOL or replenished XTOL as designated for ISO 400

 

[drmoss_ca]

I'm afraid this thread has simply made me think about controversial thread titles.

"What is the worst developer you could ever use for cooking?"
"Why you should never buy a Minolta unless you hate sheep"
"Hasselblad stinks and causes global warming"
"Heidecke and Franke were secret alchemical Masonic heretics"
"Canon made cameras for years. Here's what you need to know about why they were wrong"
"One cool trick to make your photographs be on Flickr Explore every day"

And no doubt it could get much worse than any of the untruths proposed in those titles!

 

[JensH]

My vote for Rollei ATP 1.1 in 120, it took me a long time to get good results without strange effects.
The trick was not to use the recommanded developer (RLC) but the special one (ATP DC/AB2) by Spur.
EI was just 3 to 12...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm afraid this thread has simply made me think about controversial thread titles.

"What is the worst developer you could ever use for cooking?"
"Why you should never buy a Minolta unless you hate sheep"
"Hasselblad stinks and causes global warming"
"Heidecke and Franke were secret alchemical Masonic heretics"
"Canon made cameras for years. Here's what you need to know about why they were wrong"
"One cool trick to make your photographs be on Flickr Explore every day"

And no doubt it could get much worse than any of the untruths proposed in those titles!

Thank you I really needed that.

 

[swchris]

I like sheep, but I like cats more. I like cows. Don't know how I like goats.

 

[abruzzi]

I like sheep, but I like cats more. I like cows. Don't know how I like goats.

they’re quite tasty and also make great cheese. (Technically they only make the milk, not the cheese…)

 

[AgX]

There is nothing controversial at Fomapan at all:
Some say, they take the risk, others say they don't. So where is the controversy?

 

[Richard Man]

Tri-X, the best film ever. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

Oh wait, controversial film, not controversial personal statement. Never mind

 

[removed account4]

Might be Peeping Tom it ruined his career after it was made.
As for stuff to put in a camera? I don't think any film is controversial, its just film.

 

[foc]

Agfacolor CNS

Why?

 

[Horatio]

Damn. I just bought 100’ of Arista Edu 200, allegedly Foma 200.

For now, my vote would be for Shanghai 220.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Damn. I just bought 100’ of Arista Edu 200, allegedly Foma 200.

For now, my vote would be for Shanghai 220.

Use it, learn it and love it! I find it one of the better ISO 100 films. I think Fome 200 Is very nice, but only rate it at 100 and that's in Xtol-R. I just filled two bulk loaders, one with Foma 200 and one with Foma 100. I have never used the Foma 100 in 35mm only 120. I'm thinking the Foma 100 should look very nice in Pyrocat-HDC. Like you, I guess I'll find out. JohnW

 

[Horatio]

Use it, learn it and love it! I find it one of the better ISO 100 films. I think Fome 200 Is very nice, but only rate it at 100 and that's in Xtol-R. I just filled two bulk loaders, one with Foma 200 and one with Foma 100. I have never used the Foma 100 in 35mm only 120. I'm thinking the Foma 100 should look very nice in Pyrocat-HDC. Like you, I guess I'll find out. JohnW

Actually I used a Edu 200 test roll last year, among others, and chose it for quality and economy. My test roll did well at 400 ISO in D76. The Edu 100 test roll
scratched easily.

 

[Maris]

Sirius Glass mentioned infrared film which I think is inherently controversial.

The photographer can't see infrared so there is no act of true visualisation.
Whatever the camera and filter chosen by the photographer the exact result of exposure is not only unknown but unknowable. It's a case of rolling the optical dice in hope rather than certainty.
The film delivers what it delivers and the photographer rakes through the resulting pictures and claims creative credit for the pretty ones.

At least that's what I do when I shoot infrared and I do shoot a lot of it. The aleatory aspect of infrared film photography is both exciting and a little disconcerting.

 

[removed account4]

The photographer can't see infrared so there is no act of true visualisation.
Whatever the camera and filter chosen by the photographer the exact result of exposure is not only unknown but unknowable. It's a case of rolling the optical dice in hope rather than certainty.
The film delivers what it delivers and the photographer rakes through the resulting pictures and claims creative credit for the pretty ones.

At least that's what I do when I shoot infrared and I do shoot a lot of it. The aleatory aspect of infrared film photography is both exciting and a little disconcerting

sorry to seem controversial but I don't understand why that is controversial .. any black and white media is like that, doesn't matter if it is panchomatic or the different flavors of non panchromatic emulsions.. not even for people who have black and white vision, NOTHING looks like you think it looks when it is any form of black and white.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Actually I used a Edu 200 test roll last year, among others, and chose it for quality and economy. My test roll did well at 400 ISO in D76. The Edu 100 test roll
scratched easily.

Wow ISO 400! Rating at 400 ISO in D76. How did you do it? Pushed? Still held the High values with enough shadow details to get by? I'm only getting by with a rating of ISO 125 or so and that's with Xtol-R, which I would think to be a little speedier than D76. Fill me in as I'm curious how you did ISO 400. JohnW

 

[Horatio]

Wow ISO 400! Rating at 400 ISO in D76. How did you do it? Pushed? Still held the High values with enough shadow details to get by? I'm only getting by with a rating of ISO 125 or so and that's with Xtol-R, which I would think to be a little speedier than D76. Fill me in as I'm curious how you did ISO 400. JohnW

Well for Edu 200 that’s only one stop. I’ll have to check my notes, but I was inspired by a thread on Rangefinder Forum where the OP compared Edu 200 to TriX. He processed the film in Rodinal, which normally results in speed loss.

Edit: I found my notes. I had determined N+1 in D76 would be 7:45, but my temps were 70F so I shortened the time by one minute. Normal Ilford agitation was used. Pretty sure time was based on MassDev recommendations.

 

[pbromaghin]

P30

 

[flavio81]

Well for Edu 200 that’s only one stop. I’ll have to check my notes, but I was inspired by a thread on Rangefinder Forum where the OP compared Edu 200 to TriX. He processed the film in Rodinal, which normally results in speed loss.

Edit: I found my notes. I had determined N+1 in D76 would be 7:45, but my temps were 70F so I shortened the time by one minute. Normal Ilford agitation was used. Pretty sure time was based on MassDev recommendations.

No wonder. Check out foma's tables. At 6:45 minutes in D76 straight, you're developing for a very high gamma. The film is effectively being pushed. Did you print those negatives? Which contrast grade did you use?

Real ISO of this film in D76 is about 160 (check the curves).

MassDevChart has wrong info in some places.

 

[Horatio]

I have no way of wet printing, yet. I've only made scans. I'll post one tonight.



This is a jpeg from the TIFF scan, no modifications. Not a great photo, but I can see detail in the shadows.