Polypan F equivalent available today?

[Steve@f8]

I’ve been looking back at photos produced from PolyPan F (stand developed) with really nice rich blacks and glowing whites with evidence of halation, and I’d like to know if there‘s an equivalent available in today, or something close?

Here’s what the advert (below) says: “PolyPan F - perfect for creating dreamy portraits... [a] motion picture copy film, "that has little to no anti-halation layer, and can give beautiful bloom effects in bright light.”

https://filmphotographystore.com/products/35mm-bw-film-polypan-f-50-1-roll?variant=4943076786209

 

[darkosaric]

Hi Steve, I use(d) Polypan a lot, I got more than once 90m roll on auction sites. I have couple of rolls still, using it for test shots. As a substitute I would search any copy film, important is that does not have halo layer.
From time to time there is for sale still - but the price it too much nowadays. My first 90m roll I paid like 35 euros, last year I got expired 90m roll for 60 euro, now I see 50ft roll is £30 on auction site, still not too expensive as a link that you posted.

 

[Steve@f8]

Hi Darko,
I’ve been internet searching and Washi ‘Film F‘ is described as an “atmospheric” emulsion without an anti-halation layer: https://filmphotographyproject.com/content/2019/06/film-washi-35mm-f-s-film-review/

Could be worth a try!

 

[darkosaric]

I just got Washi S, to play a little, as I like changing films/dev/cameras/lenses .

 

[pentaxuser]

Hi Darko,
I’ve been internet searching and Washi ‘Film F‘ is described as an “atmospheric” emulsion without an anti-halation layer: https://filmphotographyproject.com/content/2019/06/film-washi-35mm-f-s-film-review/

Could be worth a try!

Steve, currently in the U.K. R K Photo has it although only in 120. It is expensive at £8.40 It is described as a special X Ray film for mass lung disease diagnosis. This suggest to me that it is either an existing film or old stock that has been confectioned into 120. Not sure what justifies the price other than what users seem prepared to pay for it. Then again this is what justifies the price of almost anything

pentaxuser

 

[Steve@f8]

Hi Pentaxuser,
Firstcall photographic have Washi F in size135 @ 24 exposure for £6.99.
I started googling films with little or no anti-halation and came up with Lucky, the Chinese brand. I’ve placed an eBay bid (and won) for some outdated stock. Pictures I’ve seen show halation as I desire, so it was worth a punt.
In searching I came across a thread that brought me back here to Photrio, and the discussion, as it were, suggested Lucky is making a come back, but search in vain I can not get external confirmation of this, or a stockist.

 

[darkosaric]

I see some new thread about new Lomography films (Babylon 13?) / it looks like that film also does not have anti-halo layer. You can checking that thread.

 

[Steve@f8]

Thanks Darko, I will do that.
I think I’m right it was started by Huss, who’s a really good contributor- god knows why he received a temporary ban from the RFF!

 

[R.Gould]

Hi Darko,
I’ve been internet searching and Washi ‘Film F‘ is described as an “atmospheric” emulsion without an anti-halation layer: https://filmphotographyproject.com/content/2019/06/film-washi-35mm-f-s-film-review/

Could be worth a try!

Hi Steve, Firstcall Photographic have the full range of washi films in both 120 and 35mm, as far as anti halation layers go, Foma 35mm film has no anti halation layer, as farc as I know

 

[Steve@f8]

Hi Steve, Firstcall Photographic have the full range of washi films in both 120 and 35mm, as far as anti halation layers go, Foma 35mm film has no anti halation layer, as farc as I know

Thanks for the info R.Gould.
I’ve done a lot of interweb searching and reading about Fomapan film, and the consensus seems to say it does have ani-halation. Whether this true for all, ie 100,200, 400 and retro pan I’m not sure.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I see some new thread about new Lomography films (Babylon 13?) / it looks like that film also does not have anti-halo layer. You can checking that thread.

ORWO's data sheet for DN21 (which is believed to be the same film Lomography rebrands as Babylon 13) states that it does have antihalation. However, as a duplicating film, it may be that the AH is designed to cover the needs of controlled light, and is inadequate for very high brightness more than three or four stops above middle gray.

Thanks for the info R.Gould.
I’ve done a lot of interweb searching and reading about Fomapan film, and the consensus seems to say it does have ani-halation. Whether this true for all, ie 100,200, 400 and retro pan I’m not sure.

Fomapan 100 and 400, for certain, have antihalation. That's the blue/green dye that comes off in the pre-wash or developer. Now, again, what level of extinction the AH layer provides, or what camera (chrome pressure plate?) it was shot in are unknowns in most cases where you see halation. In some cases, it might even be lens-derived flare rather than actual halation.

 

[R.Gould]

Thanks for the info R.Gould.
I’ve done a lot of interweb searching and reading about Fomapan film, and the consensus seems to say it does have ani-halation. Whether this true for all, ie 100,200, 400 and retro pan I’m not sure.

According to at least some posts on this forum Fomapan film in 35mm does not have an anti halation layer, and I have used for at least 25 years as my main film, and from what I can see 120 has a very distinct green anti halation layer, which turns the developer green, but with 35mm developer is clear upon pour out, so I am 99% certain that 200/400 35mm is anti halation layer free

 

[Steve@f8]

According to at least some posts on this forum Fomapan film in 35mm does not have an anti halation layer, and I have used for at least 25 years as my main film, and from what I can see 120 has a very distinct green anti halation layer, which turns the developer green, but with 35mm developer is clear upon pour out, so I am 99% certain that 200/400 35mm is anti halation layer free

This is interesting comparing to Donald Qualls preceding post.

 

[R.Gould]

This is interesting comparing to Donald Qualls preceding post.

\donald Qualls wa regfering to the 120, that has a anti halation layer that is why the developer upon pour out is green, but the 35mm, for certain 200/400, is clear when you pour the developer out, and it has that look, difficult to describe, but I guess you know what I mean, of no anti halition layer, the look of 35mm is completely different to that of 120, against the light portraits on 35mm have a sort of halo, which you don't get with 120, I use nothing else but Fomapan 200/400 in both 120 and 35mm, and have used mno other b/w film for at least 25 years, and when you compare the same shot of the same subject on both 35mm and 120 there ios a very real difference which is due to the lack of anti halation layer in the 35mm film

 

[Steve@f8]

\donald Qualls wa regfering to the 120, that has a anti halation layer that is why the developer upon pour out is green, but the 35mm, for certain 200/400, is clear when you pour the developer out, and it has that look, difficult to describe, but I guess you know what I mean, of no anti halition layer, the look of 35mm is completely different to that of 120, against the light portraits on 35mm have a sort of halo, which you don't get with 120, I use nothing else but Fomapan 200/400 in both 120 and 35mm, and have used mno other b/w film for at least 25 years, and when you compare the same shot of the same subject on both 35mm and 120 there ios a very real difference which is due to the lack of anti halation layer in the 35mm film

According to the Fomapan data sheets, for all three films 100, 200 and 400, both 120 and 135, have an ‘antihalo colour backing’. Detailed in Base (text under the graphs).


https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-100
https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-200
https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-400

 

[pentaxuser]

Looking at the Base to which I think you refer it says: The following bases are used for manufacturing the particular sorts of the film: - 120 rollfilm - a clear polyester base 0.1 mm thick, furnished with an antihalo colour backing which will decolourize during processing. - 35 mm film - a gray or gray-blue cellulose triacetate base 0.125 mm thick, - sheet film - a clear polyester base 0.175 mm thick furnished with an antihalo colour backing which will decolourize during processing.

While it doesn't say specifically there is no anti-halation for 135 it mentions a grey or grey blue base. Is this the anti-halation base? It might suggest that this is why there is no colour in the processing of 135 as Richard Gould has said. So if grey or grey-blue qualifies as anti-halation then somehow this colour is built in whereas for some reason this is not built-in with the 120. It just seem strange that Foma does not say that the anti-halation base ( the blue-grey ) in the case of the 135 film will not wash out

Maybe with polyester as opposed to triacetate a colour base cannot be built in hence the decolourisation during the process?

pentaxuser

 

[Steve@f8]

I suppose a test for halation would go some way to determining the situation.

There is another way: https://tiffen.com/products/black-pro-mist-filter?variant=29609077178410

 

[R.Gould]

According to the Fomapan data sheets, for all three films 100, 200 and 400, both 120 and 135, have an ‘antihalo colour backing’. Detailed in Base (text under the graphs).


https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-100
https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-200
https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-400

On the data sheet it states that the 120 and sheet film have a anti halation layer, but it does not say the 35mm has any anti halation colour layer, when developing 120 film the anti halation layer comes off the film anf turns the developer green, when developing 35mm the developer comes out as clear as it went in, with other mainstream films that I have used in over 60 years of developing film they have all left the developer with some colour in the developer, be it pink,green or other colour that the maker used, only film without anti halation layer comes out completely clear, in years gone by a few 35mm films were made without this layer, they always came out clear, I can't find anywhere that says foma 35mm film has an anti halation layer, this is why I like to use Foma 35mm 200 and 400 film, you just get a different, old fashioned look to the negatives,whiles't you get a old fashioned look to the negative with 120, it is way different to 120, so conclusion, is it has no anti halation layer, and looking at some very old negatives, made from film that is long gone, made with no anti halation layer you can see the similarities to the fomapan 135 film, and looking around for fomapan 35mm film it seems common knowledge that the 35mm is made with no halation layer, sorry to disagree with you but I am 99.9% sure of this, best way is to get a couple, and try them

 

[R.Gould]

The blue base is long gone, all Foma films was coated on a slight blue base up till around 7 years ago, then they did something about the curling problem, (It used to need flatening like FB paper), and the blue went, the base is now the same as most othe r film, the grey is very slight, almost clear, and with the R film it is a clear base, so I don't see how the base could be anti halo, and against the light shots of, say, portraits, with the 35mm film do have a slight halo, the halo ion against the light shots is something that I, and many others that I know who use this film, love, surely if there was a anti halo then it would not have this halo effect? I haven't seen it on other 35mm film's that I have used,

 

[pentaxuser]

Thaks Richard. Your explanation looks pretty convincing to me. Just a pity perhaps that Foma in its sheet to which Steve refers has not added a line that the blue-grey has been superseded on 135 films since whatever the date was to an almost clear base. Maybe as there is still the slightest of grey there Foma thought it was not worth the bother and expense of this additional sentence?

pentaxuser

 

[R.Gould]

Foma is a funny company that way, the fact sheets we up,in many things they are very good, in dealing, for instances, with problems, to the extent that one year, I can't remember which, there had been problems when they bought back the 200 film, it had gone due to problems with getting some ingredient's, but due ti popular demand they re formulated the film but hurried and had QC problems, so during the summer shutdown the worked hard though the summer shutdown to get it right, and since then no more problems, in fact it was the one and only time I contacted them by Email, and I got a very nice reply saying how sorry they were for the problems, and when all was right again they sent me a brick of it to try, asking me to get backmto them if there were any problems, used all the films and perfect, but I remember the blue base they used on both the 120 and 35mm film,first time I used the film, and it came out blue I almost gave up on it until I printed it, it printed perfectly, but had a horrendous curl, but when the changed base's to what pretty much every other manufacturer uses the curl went, but the colour of the base for 35mm is pretty well what Kodak and Ilford use, and no curl, I love it and would not use anything else, and use 200 or 400, I can't use the 100, much as I would love to try it, but it is to slow for a lot of thing'g I photograph in a normal year such as found still life in Hamptome country life museum, in dim dark corners, hand held, sometimes as low as 1/2 second with my Barnack leica's or Rolleiuflex/Microcord,
Richard

 

[Steve@f8]

Thanks guys, on that basis I’ll order one or two of each of the 100, 200 and 400 and give them a whirl.
Any recommendations for developer? I’m about to kit up with film processing equipment, tank etc, after many years of relying on commercial processing.

 

[pentaxuser]

Steve a lot depends on what facilities you have. By that I mean what methods can you use for storage. I use Xtol and have done for about 8-10 years now. The problem with Xtol if you can call it a problem is that it makes 5L of stock solution which may take quite a lot of films before it is used up so I'd consider either the 5L wine bags and boxes that can be obtained from home brew stockists which prevent air entering the bag and you simply dispense what you need each time or you store all 5 L in 4x 1L bottles such as Soda water bottles and up to the brim of the bottle. Decant the remaining 1L into 4x250 or 3x 300mls bottles for use. Again make sure the liquid comes to the top of the bottle. Once you have used all 4 bottles ( one per film) then decant a 1L bottle into the four and start again

I use two old 3L winebags and boxes that held wine but frankly the wine in boxes now seems to be in bags with dispensers that cannot be prised off and re-inserted. The homebrew boxes do not have this problem

If you want to use Xtol on a 1+1 basis for films then you might want to consider a Protectan Gas canister than injects a heavier than air gas on top of the remaining liquid to exclude air

If this sounds like a lot of time and trouble then consider good old Rodinal which lasts nearly forever and does not suffer from the problem of air HC 110 is economical and also avoids the issue of air spoilage

pentaxuser

 

[R.Gould]

I currently use ID11 stock,8 minutes, rate the 400 at 250, it does not reach box speed, and 200 at 125 or 100, you can also use RO9/one shot (Rodinal) at 1 in 50, develop for 18 minutes, I have found that gives nice smooth negatives, I have used both 400 and 200 this way for a long long time, and the only 2 developers I have used are ID11 or Rodinal, and I am tending lately to find that ID11 stock gives me better negatives than the Rodinal, and 8 minutesa is Foma's suggested time, I agitate for the first 30 seconds the 4 inversions every minute, for rodinal it is first minute then 2 inversions every 30 seconds, and my time is longer than the suggested foma time, but for me it works, good luck, it is I think they are lovely films with a look that is their own, and I have used them both professionally, ( i was a pro black and white photographer since 2000) and now I am retired (forced retirement this year by Covid, I planned not to retire fully for a few years yet) and as a amateur for years before and again now, Just to add Rodinal keeps almost forever, and ID11 for at least 6 months, buy the 1 litre pack, store it in a PET bottle, and if you do use it as stock you can develop 10 films per liter by adding 10 % to the developiung for every film, that is 8 for film one the 10,20,30 40 50 60 70 80 and 90% up to film ten, following Ilfords guidelines, stok is the most economical use of the developer, just make up a label with 1 to 10 and the date of mixing on itm cross off each film as you develop it,pouring the 300 or so ml back into the rest of the stock every time,
Richard

 

[Steve@f8]

Thanks for the info Pentaxuser and Richard,
I quite like the idea of HC110 being slow to oxidise / deteriorate and economical in use, so I may start there. Storage of bulk chemicals would be an issue due to space, and what’s more I don’t think my wife would be too impressed.
I’ve been reading about stand development and the way the highlights develop first, followed by the shadows in slower time. Rodinal is slow to deteriorate too I believe.
Thanks again,
Steve