My vote for the worst 35mm film ever.

Eric Rose · Aug 11, 2009

The old J&C Classic Pan 400. Extremely grainy, lousy tonal range, very curly, tends to crack between sprocket holes. I've rated it at everywhere from 100asa to 400asa and souped it in D-76 (straight, 1:1, 1:3), Rodinal (1:25, 1:50, 1:100), HC110( dil B and H), PryoCat-HD (2:2:100, 1:1:100, regular agitation and semi stand). For grainy gritty photos it's great for anything else is sucks. The only soups I have left to try is Xtol and DD-X.

If I still didn't have around 100 rolls of the stuff I would give up.

aldevo · Aug 11, 2009

I never used Classic Pan 400. It was, however, Fortepan 400. But certainly it was slower than its rated ISO, very grainy, and not terribly sharp...certainly not virtues for 35mm applications.

Most users actually tended to rave about its tonal range which goes to show how one man's trash is another's treasure.

It had lots of fans, so I'm sure you could find a buyer if you decided to sell your remaining stash.

cmo · Aug 11, 2009

It could be worse: Lucky film from China...

Ian Grant · Aug 11, 2009

It's got to be one of the Maco/Rollei products, the colour neg film with no masking.

Ian

Q.G. · Aug 11, 2009

OrWo slide film.
It produced any colour you liked, as long as it was a muddy brown. So it would qualify as a monochrome film.

Nicholas Lindan · Aug 11, 2009

Eric Rose said:
[J&C 400 classic] For grainy gritty photos it's great for anything else is sucks.

Picture of a derelict Lada sitting in the middle of wet potato field under a sullen winter Ceauşescu sky, a broken gaunt defeated tree on the horizon.

fotch · Aug 11, 2009

3M color, don't remember what name it had. I worked for 3M in the 70's and was able to buy it really cheap. Green cast gave me nausea.

In the 80's, I worked at GAF (non photo division) and purchase GAF color film really cheap, and of course I was a bit skeptical. Surprise. Really nice film. As good as anything out there at that time.

Sirius Glass · Aug 11, 2009

3M and Dynachrome - tended to fade circa 1960 to 1970

Steve

Jeff Kubach · Aug 11, 2009

I couldn't remember any bad film until the last 2 posts jolted my memory. I agree that 3M isn't very good but it was cheap!

Jeff

Ian Grant · Aug 11, 2009

I've used 3M products, they gave me free films and Paper to try in the early 80's, very good products then

GAF colour films were strange but good for certain uses and so were the Orwo slide films, I used them before E6 came out and they were significantly better than Kodak E3/4. But E6 took Kodak & Fuji to a level that no other company has reached, although 3M/Ferrania weren't far behind with C41. Sakura/ Konica never caught up with C41 or E6.

Ian

tomkatf · Aug 11, 2009

Polachrome...

Best,
Tom

railwayman3 · Aug 11, 2009

TriFCA colour print film.

Or, to be precise, their processing. The first film came back with halves of two adjacent frames on each print...and the negatives strips cut accordingly. :rolleyes:

They sent me a free film when I complained. I binned it. (perhaps it would sell on Ebay now as a collectable...).

The colors were awful too.

WolfTales · Aug 11, 2009

Walgreen's discount color film.

jim appleyard · Aug 11, 2009

Forte 400 and Fuji C-41 from the 70's

André E.C. · Aug 11, 2009

The Chinese Lucky Pan, the thing isn't reliable at all, poor quality control IMHO!

Cheers

André

removed account4 · Aug 11, 2009

hmmm i dont' have a worst 35mm film ever, but
i have a worst 35mm film if you use a flash ..
i would have to say tmx ( 100 ) ..
when i shot for a newspaper, i got a bricks of 100 and 400,
xxx, and +x ...
everything worked as expected, except the tmax100 with the flash
was about as useless as you could get. totally blocked up, pretty much the worst.
i have used it since in non-flash situations and it worked OK .. but
with a flash -- forgetaboutit.

skyrick · Aug 11, 2009

Nicholas Lindan said:
Picture of a derelict Lada sitting in the middle of wet potato field under a sullen winter Ceauşescu sky, a broken gaunt defeated tree on the horizon.

Whoa! Great word picture!

Rick

BradS · Aug 11, 2009

Eric Rose said:
The old J&C Classic Pan 400. Extremely grainy, lousy tonal range, very curly, tends to crack between sprocket holes. I've rated it at everywhere from 100asa to 400asa and souped it in D-76 (straight, 1:1, 1:3), Rodinal (1:25, 1:50, 1:100), HC110( dil B and H), PryoCat-HD (2:2:100, 1:1:100, regular agitation and semi stand). For grainy gritty photos it's great for anything else is sucks. The only soups I have left to try is Xtol and DD-X.

If I still didn't have around 100 rolls of the stuff I would give up.

Lots of people loved the stuff. I thought it worked great rayed at EI-200 and dev'd in HC-110B with very gentle agitation. I can't say I loved it...I grew to appreciate and respect it. I did love it's spectral response - never found anything quite like it. If you're getting too much grain...I mean really too much (hey man, it isn't TMY!) you're probably over developing. It was kinda sensitive in that regard.

I don't think you'd have any trouble at all selling it.

lns · Aug 11, 2009

Nicholas Lindan said:
Picture of a derelict Lada sitting in the middle of wet potato field under a sullen winter Ceauşescu sky, a broken gaunt defeated tree on the horizon.

And Vladimir and Estragon saying, "Nothing to be done."

-Laura

removed account4 · Aug 11, 2009

BradS said:
Lots of people loved the stuff. I thought it worked great rayed at EI-200 and dev'd in HC-110B with very gentle agitation. I can't say I loved it...I grew to appreciate and respect it. I did love it's spectral response - never found anything quite like it. If you're getting too much grain...I mean really too much (hey man, it isn't TMY!) you're probably over developing. It was kinda sensitive in that regard.

I don't think you'd have any trouble at all selling it.

i'd buy it! i had a hod of it in 120 .. next to neopan400, it is probably my favorite film!
that stuff processes great in coffee and ansco 130 steeped for about 25-30mins.

Mark Fisher · Aug 11, 2009

Another vote for JC400....It was the only film I ever shot that had no redeeming characteristics. I'd like to know what it was so I can avoid it. I've decided that I only use film from the Big Three. Paper is another story........

msage · Aug 11, 2009

jnanian said:
hmmm i dont' have a worst 35mm film ever, but
i have a worst 35mm film if you use a flash ..
i would have to say tmx ( 100 ) ..
when i shot for a newspaper, i got a bricks of 100 and 400,
xxx, and +x ...
everything worked as expected, except the tmax100 with the flash
was about as useless as you could get. totally blocked up, pretty much the worst.
i have used it since in non-flash situations and it worked OK .. but
with a flash -- forgetaboutit.

I have used it with flash and got great results!
Michael

phenix · Aug 11, 2009

Q.G. said:
OrWo slide film.
It produced any colour you liked, as long as it was a muddy brown. So it would qualify as a monochrome film.

Did you solarize it for 20min in full sun? I used several rolls of this film in the late 70s, early 80s, and remember colors were amazing. However, they washed up after 5 years (not those I kept in the refrigerator).

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 11, 2009

Eric Rose said:
The old J&C Classic Pan 400. Extremely grainy, lousy tonal range, very curly, tends to crack between sprocket holes. I've rated it at everywhere from 100asa to 400asa and souped it in D-76 (straight, 1:1, 1:3), Rodinal (1:25, 1:50, 1:100), HC110( dil B and H), PryoCat-HD (2:2:100, 1:1:100, regular agitation and semi stand). For grainy gritty photos it's great for anything else is sucks. The only soups I have left to try is Xtol and DD-X.

If I still didn't have around 100 rolls of the stuff I would give up.

Yeah, not a great choice for 35mm. There were two versions of Fortepan 400 in recent history. The earlier one didn't have a very good density range, particularly not for contact printing in large format. This was before J&C, so I don't think any of this film was sold as "ClassicPan 400." I had some in 8x10" from Fotoimpex under the brand "Classic 400," and I think I ended up tossing half a box. Forte and Fotoimpex responded to complaints and improved it, and the later version was a pretty nice film in large format--sort of like Tri-X with more controllable highlights, but not as tight grain as Tri-X. It could be exposed just like Tri-X in a variety of developers, with a slightly longer development time.

Because of the grain, it was kind of borderline in medium format, and not a good choice for 35mm. Try it in PMK. The grain masking effect might help.

fschifano · Aug 11, 2009

Lucky Pan. Balls out the worst crap I've ever used. Never again.

My vote for the worst 35mm film ever.

Eric Rose

aldevo

cmo

Ian Grant

Q.G.

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

fotch

Sirius Glass

Jeff Kubach

Ian Grant

tomkatf

railwayman3

WolfTales

jim appleyard

André E.C.

removed account4

skyrick

BradS

lns

removed account4

Mark Fisher

msage

phenix

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

fschifano

My vote for the worst 35mm film ever.

Advertiser

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency