Most controversial film

[Old_Dick]

Kodak Recording Film 2475

+1

 

[gone]

Shanghai GP3. I used to love the stuff (hey, it was cheap) but now I look at the negs and prints and they look awfully flat. Same w/ Acros, all I ever got were low contrast digital looking negs w/ little contrast, but turns out I was developing it in the wrong stuff.

I think some films get a bad rap when we pick the wrong developers for them. I shot lots of Foma 100 years ago (the film, I'm old but not that old) but developed it in Mic-X. I like those negs, but now that I soup it in Rodinal, wow, it's like a totally different film. Looks similar to the old Tri-X to me.

Maybe Foma 200? It's not very controversial if everyone seems to hate it. I developed one roll and have no idea what to do w/ those funny looking negs. Another roll has been ready to be developed for a year now, and it can sit there until doomsday. Might try something different to develop it in. Maybe gasoline? Lighter fluid at 1:1?

 

[250swb]

My candidate for a controversial film is Adox CMS20 copy film (now in it's CMS20 II version). Inherently very, very high contrast (as you'd expect) the quest was always to give it a normal tonal range and take advantage of the ultra fine grain (maybe the finest grain you've ever seen). Experts said it couldn't be done and this has largely stuck as general advice, and yet there are a lot of people who've been using special brews over the years and made it work. Unfortunately Adox's 120 machine broke down many moons ago, so it's now only available in 35mm, but fortunately Adox supply their own Adotech developer for it and you can get full tonal range MF quality negs from 35mm. That statement alone should be controversial enough never mind the film itself. There are tricks, involved, rated at 20 ISO it is very high contrast, but in the right developer and rated at maybe 6 ISO it's tamed. Also don't over fix, only one minute, and swish the developer around in the tank, don't invert or use the twiddle stick.

I think the big difference with CMS20 and a film like Foma 200 is that there is some point in pursuing the goal, the very fine grain and sharpness, and to be honest I can't see a single redeeming feature in Foma 200 to work towards. And people work hard at other films trying to get the results they want, like all the varied ways to process Tri-X, which could make Tri-X a controversial film because people argue so much about it. But CMS20 is controversial because it's impossible for a large faction to believe it's viable to process it for general photography at all.

 

[FotoD]

I can't see a single redeeming feature in Foma 200

What would people moan about on Photrio if there was no Foma 200? At least give it that!
(Personally I've never had problems with it, and it's been my main film. But I must be doing something wrong.)

 

[mrosenlof]

Try finding Butterscotch pudding in the grocery store or even on the internet. Who has the authority to make it disappear? Does anyone have a recipe to make it from scratch.

I haven't tried it, but this looks fairly easy. https://sallysbakingaddiction.com/butterscotch-pudding/

I haven't had BSP in a long time. I may have to try this one...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I haven't tried it, but this looks fairly easy. https://sallysbakingaddiction.com/butterscotch-pudding/

I haven't had BSP in a long time. I may have to try this one...

Thank you. Another afternoon project for me, but this one I can eat.

 

[drmoss_ca]

A suggestion that possibly reveals that I have no idea what I'm talking about. I used to make 10x8 paper negatives, and they were extremely contrasty. Following in the footsteps of others, I pre-flashed the paper with a brief exposure to diffuse white light (generally a sheet of paper held in front of the lens), and this reduced contrast significantly. Might the same thing be done with this film?

 

[gone]

What would people moan about on Photrio if there was no Foma 200?

That's a list that would take until next Christmas to read.

Here's a good deal for Sirius Glass on butterscotch pudding (sorta). Only 92 cents US. It's artificially flavored, and gluten free too! I'm waiting for someone to bag up some cat poop and sell it to dog owners as gluten free treats. Some dogs would kill for that stuff.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Va...scotch-Pudding-Cups-3-25-Oz-4-Count/592982966

 

[grainyvision]

I'm one of those weird people that like Foma 200 lol. It has relatively fine cubic style grain but with a more traditional contrasty curve. Unsure what's so bad about it

 

[Don_ih]

A suggestion that possibly reveals that I have no idea what I'm talking about. I used to make 10x8 paper negatives, and they were extremely contrasty. Following in the footsteps of others, I pre-flashed the paper with a brief exposure to diffuse white light (generally a sheet of paper held in front of the lens), and this reduced contrast significantly. Might the same thing be done with this film?

Yes, but pre-flashing a roll of 36 exposures might be annoying.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's a list that would take until next Christmas to read.

Here's a good deal for Sirius Glass on butterscotch pudding (sorta). Only 92 cents US. It's artificially flavored, and gluten free too! I'm waiting for someone to bag up some cat poop and sell it to dog owners as gluten free treats. Some dogs would kill for that stuff.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Va...scotch-Pudding-Cups-3-25-Oz-4-Count/592982966

Where do all the free glutens go? Do they just run around anywhere? No one tells me anything!

 

[alanrockwood]

Yes, but pre-flashing a roll of 36 exposures might be annoying.

On possibility would be to preflash each frame just before firing the frame using a good diffuser in front of the lens and flashing at whatever exposure setting one would want to use (for example, three or four stops under for the preflash might work.)

Also, I could be wrong, but based on my thinking about how pre-flash works, plus some partial (but not enough) simulated calculations, pre-flashing probably works better for some films than others, and might not even work at all for some. I think it will depend on the shape of the toe for a particular film. My theory (so far not confirmed) is that it probably won't work (or at least not very well) for long-toe films but will work for short-toe films.

 

[NB23]

on Pan F plus:
"Once exposed, process PAN F Plus as soon as practical – we recommend within 3 months."
on FP 4 plus
"Once exposed, process FP4 Plus as soon as practical."
on Ortho Plus:
"Once exposed, process ORTHO Plus film as soon as practical. Ideally before one month.
on Delta 100
"Once exposed, process Delta 100 Professional as soon as practical.

To me that rather reads as meaning all the same.

exactly!

Pan-f, I have a good experience with it. Latent image is just as any other film.

Look, that film is extremely intolerant of underexposure. It is barely even a 50 iso film.
Closer to 40 would be its top limit. And even Iso 40 is asking for trouble.

Shoot it at 25 and you will always get wonderful, meaty negatives.

i strongly believe that people who had trouble with latency were in fact having issues with under exposure and/or under development, and probably a mix of both simultaneously.

Shooting pan-f at 50 is like shooting tmax 100 at 200. Thin negatives, all the time.

 

[250swb]

@250swb that's super interesting, thank you. So the purpose of their special developer is to reduce contrast. I was hoping to get some and develop in Xtol, and looks like it's not going to work unless I shoot it at -2 or so...

The old datasheets for CMS20 do suggest other developers can be used, but Adox now say CMS20 II and Adotech IV developer are a closed system and don't recommend anything else, and I see their point, it works. But the commonality between the old CMS20 and CMS20 II is that the higher the ISO even at box speed the more contrasty the negative is. So the current Adotech IV instructions for exposure and development have maybe five options for N (normal) development, but rated at 20 ISO it is more like N+ or even N++, true N is a lower ISO depending on how you meter or the light. I am going to try CMS20 II with 510 Pyro to see how much of a closed system it is, but the Adotech IV is a remarkable developer so I won't be disappointed if it fails.

 

[Don_ih]

On possibility would be to preflash each frame just before firing the frame using a good diffuser in front of the lens and flashing at whatever exposure setting one would want to use (for example, three or four stops under for the preflash might work.)

Also, I could be wrong, but based on my thinking about how pre-flash works, plus some partial (but not enough) simulated calculations, pre-flashing probably works better for some films than others, and might not even work at all for some. I think it will depend on the shape of the toe for a particular film. My theory (so far not confirmed) is that it probably won't work (or at least not very well) for long-toe films but will work for short-toe films.

A preflash, I do believe, ideally should expose the material to such a degree that, if immediately developed, it would look unexposed. It's to give the material exactly the amount of exposure it can handle such that any more exposure produces detail. That would have a negligible effect on midtone through highlight but should increase shadow detail. In a darkroom, as an enlarging technique, you can use it to reduce burning in of dense areas of the negative (print highlights).

 

[grainyvision]

A preflash, I do believe, ideally should expose the material to such a degree that, if immediately developed, it would look unexposed. It's to give the material exactly the amount of exposure it can handle such that any more exposure produces detail. That would have a negligible effect on midtone through highlight but should increase shadow detail. In a darkroom, as an enlarging technique, you can use it to reduce burning in of dense areas of the negative (print highlights).

A better way to do pre/post flashing on 35mm strips of film would be to use a chemical fogging agent. I've confirmed with some films that preflashing by chemical fogging works as good or even better than actual light exposure. However, finding a shelf stable, consistent, and sufficiently gentle fogging agent for pre/post flashing is quite a challenge.

Also FYI, there's been a lot of testing which has confirmed that pre and post flashing produce identical results. I've found it often easier to deal with flashing for sheet film after exposure and just before development.

 

[alanrockwood]

A better way to do pre/post flashing on 35mm strips of film would be to use a chemical fogging agent. I've confirmed with some films that preflashing by chemical fogging works as good or even better than actual light exposure. However, finding a shelf stable, consistent, and sufficiently gentle fogging agent for pre/post flashing is quite a challenge.

Also FYI, there's been a lot of testing which has confirmed that pre and post flashing produce identical results. I've found it often easier to deal with flashing for sheet film after exposure and just before development.

That's extremely interesting. What kind of chemical treatment do you use?

 

[Don_ih]

Also FYI, there's been a lot of testing which has confirmed that pre and post flashing produce identical results. I've found it often easier to deal with flashing for sheet film after exposure and just before development.

That's good to know, especially since you can't always predict the light conditions when you shoot.

 

[GarageBoy]

I have encountered latent image problems with pan f+ - i shot three frames, and forgot about the camera for over a year, then finished the roll. First three shots were THIN

 

[Fredrixxon]

If "controversial" is to mean "disputable", I'd vote for foma - OK in terms of economy, sucks when you want good looking image (and here you come with tons of cons and pros).
But instead of blablaing certain products, I suggest another, more general "controversy" : using fresh vs expired films.
This somehow fits a division line described by Old Gregg in post #20. I do expired films for last two years, finding it a sheer challenge , But some take it seriously and get in serious argues.

 

[pentaxuser]

(Personally I've never had problems with it, and it's been my main film. But I must be doing something wrong.)

There isn't a film alive as they say in the "Old West" that doesn't meet with the two extremes of fine to crap" is there? Well certainly not from what I have seen in the range of views on Photrio

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

If "controversial" is to mean "disputable", I'd vote for foma - OK in terms of economy, sucks when you want good looking image (and here you come with tons of cons and pros).
But instead of blablaing certain products, I suggest another, more general "controversy" : using fresh vs expired films.
This somehow fits a division line described by Old Gregg in post #20. I do expired films for last two years, finding it a sheer challenge , But some take it seriously and get in serious argues.

There are enough challenges in life. I want my photographs to come out well no matter how crappy the composition may be. Then I can enjoy them as they are and not be bummed that because of out dated film, I lost the only opportunity to take that photograph. My photographs are good enough to use fresh or fresh frozen film so that I can keep them and enjoy them.

Fredrixxon Welcome to APUG Photrio!!​

 

[tih]

Huh. We're on page 5 of a thread on controversial films, on Photrio, and there's been no mention of Ferrania?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Huh. We're on page 5 of a thread on controversial films, on Photrio, and there's been no mention of Ferrania?

Who?? They have been threatening to bring out a color film for years. Much of a paper tiger.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Most controversial film

The wrongly processed kind, for sure. Merry Xmas you filthy animals!

(Pictured: An artist's rendering of the JWST)