My vote for the worst 35mm film ever.

[starvingjack]

another vote for lucky.
It's amazingly. bad.

never again, even thou they are $2 per pop.

 

[oscroft]

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

Ah yes, and if you leave the slides for 30 years they turn even browner.

 

[oscroft]

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.

I recently came across some 3M slides from around 1976, and they're pale pink now.

 

[Steve Roberts]

For me it has to be Perutz/Peruchrome. Weird stuff that came back in green plastic mounts with transparency colours that were pretty indistinguishable from that mount except for the odd splurge of brown. Nice box, though, that seemed to suggest a riot of colour.

Steve

 

[2F/2F]

I have never used a film that was so bad it made the word "worst" come to my mind. I guess I have just never sought out the cheapest of the cheap! I suppose the worst I have ever used in a "real" camera is probably drugstore 400, rated at 1600 and pushed two stops. Even then I got usable photos (and they even got published...HA!). Expired Superia 1600 is pretty grisly. I have had very good luck with expired Superia 800, though.

 

[railwayman3]

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.

I used Orwo as a penniless student, and didn't find it too awful. It certainly needed more exposure than the box speed, then it gave rather pastel colors, a sort of "Eastern European" or early-Agfacolor appearance. Some batches did have the rather yellow cast, though.....I once read that emulsions were sometimes affected by air pollution problems around Wolfen where the factory was?

Most of my Orwo slides are still in reasonable condition, and actually I wouldn't mind trying it again if it were available, just to see the different "look".

 

[Akki14]

Fomapan 120, way too curly. I don't think lucky film is that bad...

 

[Ian Grant]

Fomapan 120, way too curly. I don't think lucky film is that bad...

Fomapan might be curly but the quality is very good, so it's not really the worst film, just a pain to handle Some people pay a lot of money to be curly

I've also used Lucky 100 New in 120 and it was surprisingly good, but I think it reverted back to the older emulsion.

Ian

 

[Stan160]

I used Orwo as a penniless student, and didn't find it too awful. It certainly needed more exposure than the box speed, then it gave rather pastel colors, a sort of "Eastern European" or early-Agfacolor appearance. Some batches did have the rather yellow cast, though.....I once read that emulsions were sometimes affected by air pollution problems around Wolfen where the factory was?

Most of my Orwo slides are still in reasonable condition, and actually I wouldn't mind trying it again if it were available, just to see the different "look".

I tried one roll, bought from a magazine advertisement, when I was a penniless teenager in the late '80s.

The slides came back with a definite sepia toned appearance, but I projected some in the last year and I don't think they have deteriorated. Some of the Fujichromes shot around the same time, which looked OK to start with are now catching up with the Orwo appearance!

Ian

 

[aldevo]

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........

There's a saying in major league baseball that the worse you were as a player the better you will be as a manager.

Similarly, it seems that the manufacturers that are derided for producing low quality film (at least, quality control-wise) seem to produce the best paper.

One of life's mysteries...

 

[fotch]

There's a saying in major league baseball that the worse you were as a player the better you will be as a manager.

Similarly, it seems that the manufacturers that are derided for producing low quality film (at least, quality control-wise) seem to produce the best paper.

One of life's mysteries...

Just wondering, whom would that be?

 

[pcyco]

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

 

[benjiboy]

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.

Orwochrome was a pretty lousy film QG, but was excellent on just two colours, yellow and purple so was great for shooting bananas, and bishops

 

[srs5694]

Walgreen's discount color film.

Currently Walgreens uses Fuji as their supplier. I don't believe I've shot any of the current Walgreens film, but if it's anything like other store-brand Fuji I've shot recently, it's about like any other Fuji consumer-grade film -- far from the worst in most respects.

For at least a decade prior to Agfa's demise, Walgreens used Agfa as its supplier. This film was just like other Agfa consumer-grade films, and IMHO it wasn't bad at all. I happen to like Agfa's overall look.

I don't know who Walgreens used as a supplier prior to the mid-1990s -- I don't recall buying any Walgreens-brand film prior to 1994 or 1995. It's conceivable they used something subpar before then.

More generally, though, I'd say that there really is no "worst film." Even stuff that's dreadful by most measures (grainy, bad color for color film, etc.) can be good for specific purposes. I like a grainy look for certain B&W subjects, such as old buildings. Poor anti-halation characteristics are generally considered bad, but they can work for certain subjects. I've got a photo on my wall, shot with Fomapan 400, of the interior (as seen through a door) of a fire-gutted mill. A hole in the ceiling has a halo around it because of the film's poor anti-halation qualities, and IMHO that halo makes the photo -- it draws attention and speaks to me, subjectively, of the renewal that will inevitably follow the fire. (A new middle school is now almost finished on that site.)

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have liked every black and white film I've ever tried, for one reason or another.

Then there are some less redeeming qualities with most of them. For instance, if Foma 400 was available on a base that didn't curl like it had to to survive, I would buy it and use it, because it is lovely lovely film.

The film I liked the least was J&C Classic 200. I just couldn't get along with it and get the highlights where I wanted them.

 

[Aurelien]

Fomapan are not curly if you let them dry with a heavy clip (paterson ones only).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Not my experience, Aurelien. I have let the films hang with weights for two days, and then put them in Print File negative sleeves, and stored the negatives in heavy books for six months. They still curl up like a fist when I take them out. Whatever you do, it doesn't work for me.
(This is 120 film format, by the way).

 

[keithwms]

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

I think I would agree though [fortunately] I haven't shot it in 35mm.

 

[2F/2F]

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

Ian

Perhaps Crossbird?

 

[fschifano]

Not my experience, Aurelien. I have let the films hang with weights for two days, and then put them in Print File negative sleeves, and stored the negatives in heavy books for six months. They still curl up like a fist when I take them out. Whatever you do, it doesn't work for me.
(This is 120 film format, by the way).

That's the same for me. The 35mm stocks of Foma films are beautifully flat, flat, flat. The 120 stocks like to curl up, but at least they do it on the short axis. A tiny bit of low tack masking tape deals with that when I make a contact sheet, and the negative carrier handles it well when enlarging. I can deal with that. The Lucky Pan 120 stocks are just godawful, wanting to twist up into a tube along the long axis of the film strip.

 

[Aurelien]

Just processed two yesterday in 120: they are as flat as the ilford stuff... But it can occur they curl if the wieght is not heavy enough.

Oh... I let them dry in a jobo mistral with cold air... (not hot due tu problems of reticulation).

 

[Andrew Horodysky]

I used Lucky Pan in a pinch, once. Terrible stuff.

Maybe, it should have been souped in duck sauce...

 

[rjr]

Orwocolor

Some batches did have the rather yellow cast, though.....I once read that emulsions were sometimes affected by air pollution problems around Wolfen where the factory was?

Thats true. Next to the Wolfen factory a former lignite pit was used to dump waste from the plastic fiber production, forming the Silbersee - silver lake; this 12m thick mud contained a lot of sulphur and when it started to decompose it emitted large amounts of hydrogen sulfide.

Sometimes the wind blew these clouds towards the film factory, fogging the production, giving it a base toning of sepia.

Most of the fiber plant is closed today, the Silver lake has been analysed and partially cleaned up. They build a dam, keep blowing air into the water and covered it with a special material to support bacterias to break the mud down.

But even today the hydrogen sulfide can be smelled at the factory site; I visited the Filmotec plant and the IFM film museum and when leaving the museum to wander about the ruins, a stinky cloud came along and burned my nose. <g>

My favourite for the worst film goes to Fortepan - nasty stuff. Lucky, too.

 

[removed account4]

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

maybe they changed the emulsion since 1993 ?
all i can say is , it was awful!
i shot it with 2 cameras, with 2 different films
sometimes ... to see if it was me or IT ...
tmx always failed the test, its cousin tmy was
at the top of the a-list ( the good list that is ).

michael,
i am glad it worked for you ...

 

[CBG]

Anscochrome was pretty bad too.