Polypan F issues

q_x · Feb 22, 2014

NB23, there's no "best" or "worst". Intersubjetively speaking, there are only parameters, like grain or detail, "better" or "worse" are subjective.

If you can think of any other film on the market, that's without AH layer, I'd be glad to hear from you. Polypan was pretty much the only thing I was able to get fresh from a can. I'm chasing "retro" or "vintage" qualities, I use small format, oldschool "white" or soft focus lenses. I explore this kind of stuff in general, let's say it's lo-fi, but very distinct kind of lo-fi is what I was after last year.

NB23 · Feb 22, 2014

AgX said:
Why do people eat "junk food" if there is a "award-winning" restaurant?

What's your argument, exactly? Wanna sound smart for the sake of it? Why talk about award winning restaurants?

An apple is cheap enough. A dozen of bananas are also cheaper then a french fry.

A roll of tri-x is cheap enough.

NB23 · Feb 22, 2014

Xmas said:
depends how poor you are and there is a different signature.

I take photos of hobos inventoring garbage containers...

Using polypan on stinkin' hobos is degrading. Hp5 not good enough?

AgX · Feb 23, 2014

NB23 said:
What's your argument, exactly? Wanna sound smart for the sake of it? Why talk about award winning restaurants?

An apple is cheap enough. A dozen of bananas are also cheaper then a french fry.

A roll of tri-x is cheap enough.

Because I did not understand your argument, still do not. People make choices. For several reason.

NB23 · Feb 23, 2014

I'm totally amazed by the fact that the worst film on the planet, no, in the Galaxy, is being defended. Price is not a valid argument as there's too much quality time lost while processing that piece of sheet.

Like the british saying goes: i'm not rich enough to buy cheap.

erikg · Feb 23, 2014

Is it really so hard to understand that some people may just like the way it looks? It's not my taste but it's a big world and it takes all kinds.

NB23 · Feb 23, 2014

AgX said:
Because I did not understand your argument, still do not. People make choices. For several reason.

Well, you said "junk food". I gather that junk means Garbage, yes?
So what was your point, that garbage food is good, or better then good food?

I'm lost now. Am I supposed to apologize because I stated the obvious?

AgX · Feb 23, 2014

As others pointed out, nothing is obvious.
"Bad" is an ambiguous term. Concerning film, from the technical perspective each material has to be looked at with its intended use in mind. And then a material may turn out anything than bad.
The same if not technical parameters are concerned.

Concerning the price: as you see I wondered myself why someone would pay much more for it than other films, though that turned out to be a mistake by me mixing up film-lengths. But as stated by others a outsider film may have features that may even make some pay more than for the common films.
And concerning being cheap: what for you may be cheap, may not be cheap enough for others.

NB23 · Feb 23, 2014

I get it. Bad can be good and bad. A little good and a little bad. 99% good and 1% bad can be 100% bad for some and it can be 96% good for others. What about the 3% bad? It depends. It can be good. And bad.

erikg · Feb 23, 2014

That about sums it up. I agree, I think the film sucks. I gave up messing around with junk film a long time ago, the pictures just became too important to me. Things change, people go and pictures matter more as time goes on.

darkosaric · Feb 23, 2014

NB23 said:
A roll of tri-x is cheap enough.

Here in EU (Fotoimpex) roll of TriX cost 4,63 euros (6,3 $). Polypan roll cost around 60 euro cents. For 152 meters that is around 380 euros (522$) difference.

NB23 · Feb 23, 2014

Darko,
One loses about 1 hour per 2-roll film processing and countless hours printing (or scanning). Think about the water waste. Think about the developer and fix involved.

In my case, one bulk roll involves 4-6 boxes of 11x14 fb papers and 2 boxes of 20x24 fb papers. Anywhere from 200 to 400 hours of work. And Thousands of liters of water waste. I'm scared to know the true figure.
That's the minimum.

I usually get about 10-20 true keepers that will whitstand the test of time. Those will go thru another round of 5x7s, 8x10s and 16x20.
And shooting a 100' bulk takes me about a week where every shot calls for concentration, each and every click.
All the above mentioned is time spent on my feet and away from my kids.

Should I be using a substandard film with mediocre coating so I could afford an extra beer during the first 5 darkroom sessions? That would be Bozoïstic on my part.

Yes, Bozoïstic.

PhotoJim · Feb 23, 2014

I prefer to shoot higher quality films, but I'd rather someone shot Polypan F than shot digital. By a long shot.

Gerald C Koch · Feb 24, 2014

What often appears as a bargain really isn't a bargain. This is terrible film without an anti-halation layer and so really cannot be used outdoors.

Arctic amateur · Feb 24, 2014

NB23: Not everybody is you. Not everybody has your priorities. You have strict quality requirements and you count the labor and paper as part of the cost. That's fine. But not everybody has those targets, and not everybody does that amount of printing. It's perfectly fine that you do, but when you belittle those who don't you're just an asshole.

Xmas · Feb 24, 2014

Yea and look what using wet plates did for some of Sally Mann's subjects...

NB23 · Feb 24, 2014

Arctic, Quality isn't your forte.
And this makes me an asshole.
Somehow, your logic doesn't surprise me.

NB23 · Feb 24, 2014

Xmas said:
Yea and look what using wet plates did for some of Sally Mann's subjects...

Were they good quality wet plates or very bad quality wet plates?

Although some people think that the difference between Good and Bad is purely philosophical, it's rather bs to me.

Polypan F issues

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency