Question about J&C Classic 200

eggshell · Sep 22, 2004

I just order some Classic 200 sheet film and would like to shorten my learning curve by asking the following questions:-

a. What is the ideal conventional developers for this film? Ideally I'd like to use Rodinal or HC110?

b. Should I rate it at 100?

c. What's the starting points in tray developing times?

d. What is the characteristics of this film? Does it have better contrast than HP400+?

Any tips on how best to use this film is appreciated. Ideally I'd like to stick to just one film/developer so that I can concentrate on my shooting.

Thanks!

doughowk · Sep 22, 2004

My very unscientific observations after limited usage (2X3 & 4X5 sheet film as well as 120mm roll): At 200ASA, it is thin so an extra stop of exposure would help. Developed in Rodinal 1:50 11-14 minutes with longer times benefitting thin negs. Its a good film, but if I was going to standardize on 1 film/speed would probably pick a 100ASA such as J&C's Pro 100.

eggshell · Sep 22, 2004

Also, does it do well with expansion & contraction? Thanks!

eggshell · Sep 22, 2004

Why do you pick ASA100 film? Thanks!

mark · Sep 22, 2004

It does not do well with expansion. This is the same film as Bergger 200 and forte 200. I shoot it at 200 and 100 and I am getting some decent negs in Pyrocat. There is not a lot of expansion available but in normal scenes it looks really good. I never saw the negs as thin at all no matter what speed I shot it at.

Max · Sep 22, 2004

This is the same film as Bergger 200...

I keep seeing this. I've also seen (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Is anyone else confused?

sanking · Sep 22, 2004

Max said:
I keep seeing this. I've also seen (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Is anyone else confused?

Max,

When I first tested JandC 200 my impression was that it was a different film because the results were quite different from what I had previously obtained with BPF 200. Since then I have tested several different emulsion batches of BPF 200, and the sister films Fortepan 200 and JandC 200, and I am now convinced that they are essentially the same film. Although there is some variation in actual results from batch to bath in terms of speeed and contrast the overall curve characteristics of the three films are very similar. My opinion at this point is that the films are the same and that any differences observed are due to variations in emulsion batch, aging and/or storage conditions.

Sandy

mark · Sep 22, 2004

Max said:
I keep seeing this. I've also seen (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Is anyone else confused?

Sandy has the hard data I have two negs shot of the same scene metered in the same manner and developed in the same manner. On BPF 200 and Classic 200. I have no idea which is which. They are identical in every way I can see except for price.

Max · Sep 22, 2004

Makes sense now - thanks!

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 22, 2004

My impression is that Forte made significant changes at a certain point to their 200 speed film, as they later did with the 400 speed film (increasing density range significantly), so I suspect it is more an question of a single upgrade that took a while to filter down to all the different brands of Forte film than a random consistency issue from batch to batch.

k_jupiter · Sep 22, 2004

Back to the original question...

I have shot a fair amount of this in 2x3, 3x4, and 4x5. While Rodinal works well on it, it really shines when developed in W2D2+. It was if the expansion of zones 2,3,and4 were pressed into the film emulsion. What was solid shadow in Rodinal, broke into 3 distinct zones in the W2D2+. This was a test using both sides of a 3x4 film holder in a Zeiss Trona using exact same exposures, not more than 30 seconds apart. I had expected there to be changes in the upper zones of the film, not the bottom end. BTW, I meter and shoot at E.I. 160. For Rodinal, you might want to take it down 2/3s more (E.I. 100).

Don't get me wrong, you will get very printable negatives inRodinal 1+50 @ 68deg for 12/13 min.

tim in san jose

Alex Hawley · Sep 22, 2004

David A. Goldfarb said:
My impression is that Forte made significant changes at a certain point to their 200 speed film, as they later did with the 400 speed film (increasing density range significantly), so I suspect it is more an question of a single upgrade that took a while to filter down to all the different brands of Forte film than a random consistency issue from batch to batch.

David, if I remember right, Sandy confirmed this in his testing and posted the results on the Azo forum. My empircal experience shows the same thing; I was exposing and developing the new emulsion with the old emulsion methods and getting very dense negatives, with enough contrast to warrant a water bath on Azo grade 2. Still very printable on Azo but a significant change in exposure times. I also agree with what Sandy said about developing it in ABC pyro; difficult to control. I believe the new emulsion behaves better in Pyrocat HD and has an improved range.

eggshell · Sep 24, 2004

Thanks to all for responding.

doughowk · Sep 26, 2004

Let me rephrase my question: If J&C 200 actually requires an EI of 100 ( my experience as well as others), then why use it instead of other films that are rated at ISO 100? I like Efke 100 & hope J&C Pro 100 in sheet film is as good as its 120mm version. Is there anything special about J&C 200 that would make one select it over the two previous films I mentioned?

gma · Sep 26, 2004

J&C 200 costs less. That makes it pretty special for me.

eggshell · Sep 27, 2004

doughowk said:
Let me rephrase my question: If J&C 200 actually requires an EI of 100 ( my experience as well as others), then why use it instead of other films that are rated at ISO 100? I like Efke 100 & hope J&C Pro 100 in sheet film is as good as its 120mm version. Is there anything special about J&C 200 that would make one select it over the two previous films I mentioned?

I have not used J&C Pro 100. From passed experience, The films I used (Tri X, HP5 & FP4) are rated below box speed. That led to my unscientific decision for buying Classic 200. Is J&C Pro 100 a true 100 speed with conventional developer? Anyone knows? Thanks!

Flotsam · Sep 27, 2004

eggshell said:
I have not used J&C Pro 100. From passed experience, The films I used (Tri X, HP5 & FP4) are rated below box speed. That led to my unscientific decision for buying Classic 200. Is J&C Pro 100 a true 100 speed with conventional developer? Anyone knows? Thanks!

That was my logic too. It seems like I have to under rate everything I shoot by 1 stop. I wanted to shoot at 100 speed so I went for the 200.

Question about J&C Classic 200

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency