Mystery Film

[ambaker]

Looks/sounds like GP3 to me. The numbers and dots from the backing paper coincide with my experience. Apparently no way to avoid that either.

The ink comes off on the emulsion side of the film from the outside of the backing. The camera I used was a Pentax 67, so no window. In the frames the image was lighter on the area where the number appeared on the negative. Which indicates the ink blocked the light, and then washed off during development.

The stuff does not curl so bad in HC-110 B, for 7.5 minutes. Just ruins most negatives with numbers and dots.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[37th Exposure]

If it is Foma or the Arista version, the necessary info is on the sealing strip ie.black and white 100, 400 or whatever. Edge marking will be Fomapan, FP, or Ultra, according to Foma tech data.

 

[pdeeh]

You're hitting more nails on the head of GP3...

I've developed dozens of rolls of GP3 in several different developers, and never had a problem with "low image density and lots of fog"; it's perfectly good film for what it costs, and if folk are getting thin foggy negatives the chances are it's how its being exposed &/or developed, not the film

 

[ambaker]

If it weren't for the ink transfer off the backing paper, I would agree.

In the images that are not damaged, or I can work a little dark room magic, the film is well exposed and no fog.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[pdeeh]

I've never had the ink transfer. It seems to have been limited to one (albeit large) batch.