My vote for the worst 35mm film ever.

Anscochrome was an honest film whose stated claims were lower price and acceptable color, if you like orange and brown and short color life if exposed to light after development. The worst film was Ektachrome X. Ektachrome X had a shorter color life than Ektacolor S and under normal storage conditions developed a pink color cast in less than a year and compared to most of the available transperancy materials from Agfa and Ansco, had grain like 50 grit sandpaper and the tonal range of cave paintings. In black and white film and ignoring some modern imports from Asia and Eastern Europe, Verichrome pan just mystified me with its want of an acceptable tonal range, no matter how it is developed. After saying all this, I am aware that some will totally disagree with my assessment of these films and that is just as it should be because if we all agreed on every film, there would have been no need for the vast choice we were spoiled by in the past and we would all be shooting two or three films and have no other choice. So let's hear it for all the rotten films and the great films and the necessity to agree to disagree so we can keep the little choice we have left.
Denise Libby

fotch said:

Just wondering, whom would that be?

Click to expand...

Forte comes to mind. Fortepan films were bad films from a strictly technical point of view (i.e. speed/grain/sharpness) - and they handle poorly (fog quickly after expiration, curl like mad, etc.) but the gradation was stunning if you knew how to handle it and it suited your shooting.

Forte papers were, IMO, the very best for my purposes. I have a (dwindling) stash of them, and I will miss them terribly when that's gone.

I could probably say the same for Slavich. I think their graded stuff looks amazing and if I weren't already encumbered with a large stock of paper that I need to work through, I'd order some tomorrow.

archer said:

In black and white film and ignoring some modern imports from Asia and Eastern Europe, Verichrome pan just mystified me with its want of an acceptable tonal range, no matter how it is developed.

Click to expand...

Interesting that you should bring that up about Verichrome Pan. I've about a dozen rolls in cold storage and I used a couple of them over the weekend just past. Upon printing a couple of the negatives, I've found them to be pretty flat through the middle tones. The situation can't be through a camera fault; I shot the film in a Hasselblad with the excellent 80 mm f/2.8 Planar. Nor is it likely to be a development issue. Examining the negatives themselves, there is detail everywhere from the deepest shadows to the brightest highlights. It's just flat, and no amount of contrast adjustments to the VC paper I use makes it any better. The film is certainly not as sharp or grainless as Plus-X, and we won't even consider comparing it to TMX. But it will do what it was designed to do, and that is to deliver an acceptably printable negative from a camera with a relatively simple lens and little exposure control. It should be about the best thing you can use in something like a Holga.

fschifano said:

Interesting that you should bring that up about Verichrome Pan. I've about a dozen rolls in cold storage and I used a couple of them over the weekend just past. Upon printing a couple of the negatives, I've found them to be pretty flat through the middle tones. The situation can't be through a camera fault; I shot the film in a Hasselblad with the excellent 80 mm f/2.8 Planar. Nor is it likely to be a development issue. Examining the negatives themselves, there is detail everywhere from the deepest shadows to the brightest highlights. It's just flat, and no amount of contrast adjustments to the VC paper I use makes it any better. The film is certainly not as sharp or grainless as Plus-X, and we won't even consider comparing it to TMX. But it will do what it was designed to do, and that is to deliver an acceptably printable negative from a camera with a relatively simple lens and little exposure control. It should be about the best thing you can use in something like a Holga.

Click to expand...

Frank,

I completely agree. I find that it bears a resemblance to XP2 Super.

It was basically Kodak's "Brownie" film for many years and the characteristics you cited would be well-suited to that application. Wedding shooters also seemed to be fond of it; at least until chromogenic B&W entered the picture.

Anchell & Troop regard Plus-X as inferior to Verichrome Pan. They are very different and I generally prefer Plus-X.

pcyco said:

there is no worse film
only not the right way to use it

Click to expand...

This is my thought.

ORWO from the 1970 era.

Ilford HP5 from 1978, left for 30 years in a bulk loader on a bookshelf. Base fog is so high that I could barely find the blank 2 mm-wide lines between the frames after the film has dried. Grain is painful, even on a 5x7" print. In fact grain was almost too large for focusing the enlarger.

EI 25 still wasn't enough for this film. But looking at the print, it does have an interesting look and for this reason I haven't discarded the remaining few metres yet. For developing I have used the Rodinal stand technique as I had absolutely no starting points for film in such a condition.

I also have a half-empty box of HP4 2.5x3.5" film, from the same year. I didn't take the chance to try that yet.

Aron