Polypan F

Gerald, as you said the best image possible not the best film possible. Superb can and are beeing produced with less than stellar films. By all standards the Lucky line of films is shit, but in my opinion it's one of those films that can produce superb pictures reminiscent of the 1930's.
So film quality has very little to do with image or picture quality. imho

Dominik

Arctic amateur said:

For some, the purpose is just to have fun.

Click to expand...

More film photography = more fun

MDR said:

Gerald, as you said the best image possible not the best film possible. Superb can and are beeing produced with less than stellar films. By all standards the Lucky line of films is shit, but in my opinion it's one of those films that can produce superb pictures reminiscent of the 1930's.
So film quality has very little to do with image or picture quality. imho

Dominik

Click to expand...

History is examples rich!

Guys, I use Polypan F a lot. And I do mean a lot!
Some saying "DON'T BUY IT BECAUSE OF THE GRAIN".. Seriously? It is a great film... I have used it in studio, and around just shooting whatever I please, and it has never disappointed me yet. It's seriously inexpensive, and produces very rich tones, contrast, and a soft grain.
I've developed it in everything from D76, TMAX, ID-11, DekTOL, HC-110, Ilfosol-3, XTOL, Caffenol-C, Melonal, Glassenol, Rodinal.. And some of them even mixed with each other..




I've always believed that the object of photography was to produce the best images possoble. I don't see how this can be done with a film that only produces "decent" results. It seems like this film is just a waste of valuable time and effort.

Curious, why is it that some shoot with a digital camera and apply a bunch of filters to decrease the saturation, add scratches and dust marks, plus large grain and colour shifts...
The film is just a means of capturing said image, but the person behind the camera is the one that is helping to capture said, "Best possible" image.

Not trying to start a flame war, but why insult a good film, especially one that is very inexpensive so that you can literally buy a LOT OF IT and go out and excercise a camera that is +30 years old..
hell, you can blow through 5 or 6 rolls of the stuff in an hour and not feel guilty!

mikendawn, badmouthing films made by anyone but Kodak, Iflord or Fuji is well spread exercise, especially when its bulk film on PET base and goes ~ 40¢/1 roll - 36 frames. Probably its more than well priced for amateurs
The grain complain.. - so far nobody proved that its not due to operator's error...
The absence of anti-halation backing in Polypan F might be a big deal for some folks, ruin the perfect shot, lower the sharpness...
Looks like generally people prefer film coated on cellulose acetate, since if You are using auto-everything camera this film base might tear while keeping Your camera transport gear safe. However, the fact that cellulose acetate irreversibly degrade after ~ 50 years @ 65°F (18°C) and 50% relative humidity, release acetic acid and shrink in advanced stage as much as 10% is not big deal for some folks...
If I am not mistaken, all consumer films in format 135 or 120 by Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and some others are cellulose acetate.
Looks like the safety of auto-everything's plastic cameras more important than images.

Given my limited experience, I could not able to imagine the effects of absence of anti-halation backing apart from highlight glow/flare to the images.

I don't think I will like glow/flare for all shots and in that case how can I prevent the glow/flare without scrating/damaging* the film.

*Some suggest to use the paper from 120 film format.

What Murray suggested

covering the pressure plate with 120 backing paper

Click to expand...

sounds ok.
How You are gonna do it depends on Your camera specifics etc.. You might not need it.

I am shooting Polypan F with hood and filters 99% of the time, non-coated lenses, screwmount Leicas., they got kinda glossy pressure plates. No experiences with flare/glow yet but I don't shoot reflective stuff either, so can't say how much of it should You expect.

georg16nik said:

However, the fact that cellulose acetate irreversibly degrade after ~ 50 years @ 65°F (18°C) and 50% relative humidity, release acetic acid and shrink in advanced stage as much as 10% is not big deal for some folks...
If I am not mistaken, all consumer films in format 135 or 120 by Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and some others are cellulose acetate.
Looks like the safety of auto-everything's plastic cameras more important than images.

Click to expand...

Early acetate based films may be subject to degradation vinegarization but there have been substantial improvements. I have negatives that are well over 50 years of age that do not show any problems. These were stored at ambiant temperature in Florida with high humity and high temperature. If by consumer films you mean amateur films then may I point out that professional films in the mentiooned formats are also on acetate.

Many of the comments on this thread appear to be merely an attempt to gain validation. They say more about the buyer than they do of the film. The fact remains that this film was not designed for general purose use. It has its own limitations and I find it dishonest for companies to sell it (and other films) as a still camera film. I also find the name Polypan F an egregious attempt to confuse the public into thinking that this film is made by Ilford.

All the scientific data on cellulose acetate doesn't apply to Your negatives
The library of congress had to know better..

Gerald C Koch said:

Early acetate based films may be subject to degradation vinegarization but there have been substantial improvements. I have negatives that are well over 50 years of age that do not show any problems. These were stored at ambiant temperature in Florida with high humity and high temperature. If by consumer films you mean amateur films then may I point out that professional films in the mentiooned formats are also on acetate.

Many of the comments on this thread appear to be merely an attempt to gain validation. They say more about the buyer than they do of the film. The fact remains that this film was not designed for general purose use. It has its own limitations and I find it dishonest for companies to sell it (and other films) as a still camera film. I also find the name Polypan F an egregious attempt to confuse the public into thinking that this film is made by Ilford.

Click to expand...

georg16nik said:

All the scientific data on cellulose acetate doesn't apply to Your negatives
The library of congress had to know better..

Click to expand...

The requirements of the Library of Congress are very, very convervative, in some cases in excess or 200 years. I submitted some of empirical data that acetate films stored under adverse conditions for over 50 years show no degradation. In fact some of the negaives in my files are over 70 years old. I am sure that there are other members that have had similar observations. As i said there have been improvements in the manufacture of acetate fim base that slow vinegarization. Eliminating all films on an acetate base would mean giving up such favorites as Tri-X and FP4+.

In Europe, the archival standards are the same.
Only PET is considered archival. No one is archiving on cellulose acetate.

Actaully, the glow without an Anti-Halation layer, PLUS adding a "shiny" pressure plate, and you get an almost "IR" feel to it...
Sure, I blew out the highlights a little here, and the shiney backing plate really added to it, but the effect is almost like an IR HALO, but not quite.

I liked the look, but it isn't for everyone, and thats why some that shoot IR don't use AURA

i have seen terrible results with just ever film made,
i don't think polypan f is the only film that can produce bad images.
i think it is a concerted effort between the photographer, his camera
and processing techniques as well as the film ...

buy it if you want, have fun.

john

jnanian said:

i have seen terrible results with just ever film made,
i don't think polypan f is the only film that can produce bad images.
i think it is a concerted effort between the photographer, his camera
and processing techniques as well as the film ...

buy it if you want, have fun.

john

Click to expand...

I guess that's not much different than seeing terrible results with a Leica...
The film does not a photograph make... just like the camera...

If you can't use either, you can't use either..

of course if you're Chuck Norris, time just stands still for you...

Some Polypan in Rodinal 1+50
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link RemovedDead Link Removed

These examples should not create any more doubts about this film...

georg16nik said:

Some Polypan in Rodinal 1+50
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link RemovedDead Link Removed

Click to expand...

Nice work there with Rodinal!

Anyone got any samples with D76/X-TOL or anything in that line?

(I got a full 90 meter roll of this one in my fridge, not yet opened).

Polypan F in Rodinal 1:50 :

Polypan F in Diafine :

A great film. If it's interesting images you are after and not just 'test' shots or something, this stuff is a great buy.

I love this film. I use either HC110 B for 10.5 minutes or TD3 full stand for 2.5 hours. Great.

Polypan Experiment...

Hi, all!

Well, for about £30 I landed a tin of Polypan from Germany - I had read all these threads and more and trawled for as many images and reviews as I could find. I really don't know why I went to such effort as, even at £30 (€35?), how could I go wrong?

I have only used a few rolls of this film in my Leica M6 with a Voigtlander Nokton 40mm f1.4. I also have a beautiful and very under appreciated Jupiter 8 50mm f2 which I LOVE! The results so far are really very encouraging! I estimate that I may be able to roll out up to 60 rolls of 24 exposure films... maybe many more!? I have recently moved from SLR (Nikon FM2N + 50mm f1.8) to rangefinder.

I'll try to attach some examples here (fingers crossed as it's my first ever post here!). I guess I need to play around with development times and dilution ratios, but in truth, I feel this is going to be a very forgiving film indeed! Some of my shots are either a wee bit underexposed or I'm in need of slightly longer development time!? Either way, I think these shots demonstrate that Polypan is, indeed, more than worth £30 for over 60 rolls of film - 50p a roll!!??!!?? It's what we call a 'no-brainer'... Bear in mind, I'm no professional and the results are more than pleasing for my level of skill.

I use Ilford & Rodinal developers and Ilford Stop & Fixer. These are fine for me. Images are then scanned with an Epson V350 Perfection.

The only problem I've encountered is this. I use an Agfa Rondinax for developing the negatives. This is a fantastic unit at least 40 years old and I'll never part with it! The problem is that when you've loaded the film into the unit and then rolled it out into the tank, the internal blade won't cut the film as, although the film is 'finer' than celluloid, it's millions of times tougher! There are two solutions to this (if you're interested!?). [1] when you attach your film to the film canister spindle to begin with, use only a little Sellotape on one side of the film, just enough to allow you to load the film into the canister/cartridge. If you're rolling 24 exposures - then aim to load enough for 27. for a 36 loaded film then maybe enough for 39 - then ensure you shoot 24 or 36 respectively. When you come to use your Rondinax, just roll out the whole film and the small amount of Sellotape will simply come off the spindle in the canister and there's no need to cut it in the tank. [2] the 2nd solution is even more convoluted and I'll be happy to respond to anyone interested.

Anyway, I'm always happy to give and receive any advice, pointers suggestions with other fellow amateurs - of which I'm very much at a humble level!

Rondinax 35

You might have a look at the knive. If it it does not look sharp, might take it out and try to resharpen it. But due to its serrated form you need special tools. Do not attempt it unless you successfully did similar work before.

Alternatively you might try the Agfa Rondix 35. It is a daylight-loading tank of more simple design and without reel. The film is not cut off.

The most recent model of a daylight-loading tank comes from Jobo and was marketed until few years ago. It is based on the 1500 tank system.

Hi, and thanks for the response!
(sorry, I don't know your name - I'm Eoin!)

The blade's fine it's simply that the synthetic Polypan film is too tough to cut. The blade on the Rondinax cuts upward into a thin plastic slot on the inside of the lid. The gap between the two sides of this lid is just a little too wide and the Polypan film, rather than being cut, is pushed upward and into this gap. This can compress the film on the film spool. The alternative to my fist suggestion was to narrow the gap in this slot is to put a few strips of insulating tape over it. I used about three layers. Then with a razor-sharp blade, recut the slit for the Rondinax blade to go through. This works for me. But the earlier suggestion is the best, less fuss and you never need to worry about wasting your precious shots and film if it won't cut!

Now, I heard about the Rondinax 35. Is that the one that develops the film within its cartridge? If so, I understand the results are variable at best. But I will look out for the Jobo - that sounds interesting!

Thanks again for your response! I'll battle on with this film, I really do like it and it's such good value!

With the daylight tanks, usually they need more chemicals than a Jobo 1500 or a Paterson. A changing-bag can do far more than just loading spirals and doesn't cost any more than a third-hand daylight-loading tank. . .

Hi, Martin!
The Rondinax is just superb, I use it for Colour C41 now too! It uses only 200ml of each chemical solution and I'll get 5 or 6 rolls easily. The only chemical that 'gets tired' is the Fixer. So in truth, this is replaced after about 4 films. I've used Tetenal for the colour negatives and I've achieved 8 rolls out of a 200ml solution (mixed!) with no visible deterioration in the quality of the negatives or scans.
If I'm correct, the Jobos and Pattersons use much more solution even for only one spiral. The only downside to the Rondinax is that you can only do one roll of negative at a time. Other than that, I swear by it! Top results every time!
I have a mini 'tent' as opposed to the bag and I only need that for loading up the bulk loader. This was a downside to the Polypan - the 90m spool is too large to fit in the loader so I managed to get about 40+ metres in.
What do you use? What's your setup?
Regards
Eoin

Sorry, meant to add...
Further advantage of the Rondinax is that you load the film straight in... no need for a dark bag. For me, this is one of the main selling points.