Most controversial film

[alanrockwood]

I think there are probably a lot of candidates for the most controversial film. I'm going to nominate one, based on the widely divergent opinions that have been expressed about it. In general terms I would speculate that it would be the fomapan line, but more specifically, fomapan 200 (which by the way, I have a lot of in my bulk loader.)

Some say it's fine-grained. Some say it's coarse grained. Some say it has wide latitude. Some say it has poor latitude. Some say its box speed is its true box speed. Some say its true speed is way less than its box speed. Some say its tonality (whatever that is) is great. some hate its tonality. Some say its too contrasty. Some say it looks dull. Some say it has a classic look. Some say it has more of a modern look. Some say it's T-grain. Some say it's not. (I think the consensus is that it is partly T-grain.) Some say it has a lot of emulsion defects. Some say they never had that problem. Some complain about the anti-halation dye coming out in the developer is troublesome. Some people don't care. Some say the emulsion is too soft. Some people say it's not so bad. Some people (as I recall) complain about it not drying flat. Some say it's very flat. Some people love it. Some people hate it. Some say it's a good deal because it's inexpensive. Some people say it's not a good deal because it leads to too many missed shots. Some say it has too much blooming around the highlights. Some people see that as a positive aspect of its personality. Some say it has poor long-shutter-speed reciprocity characteristics. Some people say... well I guess nobody claims its long-shutter-speed reciprocity characteristics are great.

Did I miss anything?

What other films are candidates for being among the most controversial.

On the flip side, the films that could be nominated as least controversial would probably be Tri-X, HP5+, and FP4+.

 

[BrianShaw]

Kodachrome

 

[Don_ih]

Shanghai GP3 has had many detractors. The older version of it (prior to their shutdown and subsequent restart) was very untrustworthy. It regularly had defects in the emulsion, it often could not capture any shadow detail at box speed, it sometimes seemed to be only around 1/2 box speed - but sometimes seemed to be a bit faster. It was generally unreliable but it was also the cheapest thing you could buy at $30 for 10 rolls shipped.
Now, it's no longer so cheap. I think it is a bit more reliable, though.

 

[AgX]

Up to this thread the idea of a film being "controversial" did not even come up to me.
Well, after some contemplating Kodachrome comes to my mind. But I consider it controversial only as by some it was considered a kind of holy grail, which as such provoked critique.

 

[Don_ih]

Kodachrome is not controversial, now - it's totally useless.

 

[ic-racer]

Triumph des Willens?

 

[Bikerider]

Kodachrome is not controversial, now - it's totally useless.

Agreed but I think they are talking B&W here. I think that comment was from a troll emerging out of the shadows!

For me it is Ilford Pan F which some say the latent image fades very quickly if it isn't processed soon after taking. It is a while since I used it and cannot say that I found a problem. I used to go away for a couple of weeks at a time and the film was processed when I got back and to me there was never any problem I could detect. It wasn't until I read it on this forum I realised that there was supposed to be a problem. I always stored it in a fridge in one of the plastic tubs either exposed or otherwise. I have looked on the Ilford website and cannot find any specific mention that it was important to process immediately.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I have looked on the Ilford website and cannot find any specific mention that it was important to process immediately.

There is a statement here under 'important note': https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1905/product/699/

 

[AgX]

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.

 

[BrianShaw]

Wasn't Kodachrome B&W, wit the color added in processing? See how controversial is was/is!

 

[swchris]

There are time frames with "Pan F" and "Ortho Plus". So I'd say they're not the same.

 

[removedacct1]

The term "controversial" is a peculiar one to attach to a film type, but anyway...

CatLabs X80: worst crap I have ever used. I left an opened box sit unused for 6 months, came back and loaded a few film holders (4x5) only to discover that the film - once processed - was covered in blurry spots all over the image. The film was still over a year away from its expiry date. I threw the rest of it out. Never buying that shite again.
Also, there's no way you can expose it at 80 ASA and expect to get any semblance of a full tonal scale. Its more like a 20 ASA film. Good luck holding on to shadow detail.

 

[gone]

I'd go w/ Foma 200 too because of it's hybrid grain scheme. It's also the only film that I have set aside for later because it has just never has worked for me.

 

[swchris]

Agfacolor CNS

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodachrome is not controversial, now - it's totally useless.

So true. It was so over rated.

 

[pentaxuser]

Kodachrome

Well said. Has to win by a mile on Photrio

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

Rather than controversial I would say my least favorite is Bergger Pancro400 in 35mm, might like it 4X5, will not buy it again in 35mm. I cant seem to get more than ISO 100 out of it, grainy, resolution is rather poor as well.

 

[flavio81]

So true. It was so over rated.

I can set aside our differences over Swedish stuff and promptly join forces with you in this topic!!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Rather than controversial I would say my least favorite is Bergger Pancro400 in 35mm, might like it 4X5, will not buy it again in 35mm. I cant seem to get more than ISO 100 out of it, grainy, resolution is rather poor as well.

Mine too, but I'm only talking about 120 film. To much grain for me and terrible emulsion defects. Won't buy again!. JohnW

 

[Danny D]

The difference between a bulk roll of Foma 400 and Kentmere 400 is 12 euros (14 bucks) where I live. I know what film I'd get if I were shooting a budget option.

For me the biggest controversial films are what Maco puts out under the Rollei brand.

 

[swchris]

Fomapan, no question about it. Remember, the OP asked about controversial films, not films you merely like or dislike. The reason Fomapan is always controversial on this forum is because it splits us into two camps:

1. Getting your pictures ruined due to manufacturing defects of your film is fine, as long as it's cheaper than competition.
2. Ruining photos is never worth it.

See? The fact that a product causes a group of people to take opposite stance is exactly what makes it controversial. Other films differentiate on subjective qualities (grain, speed, resolution, etc), but Fomapan's "Russian roulette" differentiator is definitely the most controversial.

Don't diss Fomapan. I've never had a bad experience with it. Maybe you mean former Efke...?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nothing is more controversial than ANY film which someone expresses an uninformed controversial opinion about. Is that a controversial enough statement for you?

 

[Jonno85uk]

I'd say foma 200 too.

I like it in 35mm but had bad experiences in 120.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, it's on that very premise that Space-X has successfully gone into competition or perhaps partnership with NASA. It's just a matter of time till the film speed rating is faster than the speed of light itself, and photons will bounce off film, return to the Sun before even the highest shutter speed closes, and leave you with a blank image every time, which you can neither prove nor disprove. But Space-X film is really just relabeled old Super-XX, according to controversial rumors I've heard.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You mean like when someone says the real speed of x film is something other than the ISO rating?

For starters. Especially the IE talkers who use reflectance meters to aim at the sky and then complain that the ISO is wrong.