The worlds worst film

[Donald Miller]

I spent the day processing film from my trip northwest and back. Since I had some Bergger BPF 200 left over from awhile back I thought that I would use it up. If this isn't the worlds worst film it has to be a close second. This stuff will not build density. I shot it at 100 and processed in Pyrocat 2-2-100 (these are 4X5 negatives for enlarging) and I still can not build any density range with it. God if I had anymore left over I would pay someone to take it off my hands. Never, and I mean never again!!!!

 

[Thomassauerwein]

Don, I still have 30+ rolls of Ilford 50 speed 120 that I would'nt give to an enemy. Not having used your problem film I have no comparison but I certainley understand your frustration.

 

[Black Dog]

Pan F could be notorious for picking up marks in processing-nice tonality though. I've used BPF 200 in PMK/ metol 2 bath and it's lovely. Maybe your PCat was a bit off?

 

[MikeK]

The worst I have ever used is Shanghai GP3 100. Sent to me by a buddy working in China. The emulsion has bits of crud embedded and the quality no matter what developer I used was really bad. Second in this category is another Chinese film called SHD-100, little better but not much.

- Mike

 

[Donald Miller]

Pan F could be notorious for picking up marks in processing-nice tonality though. I've used BPF 200 in PMK/ metol 2 bath and it's lovely. Maybe your PCat was a bit off?

I thought that too but I developed some Classic 200 in the same developer and had no problems. Bergger may work for normal contrast scenes but for scenes that require expansion it really sucks big time. Normally a film would be developed at 1-1-100 for enlarging...I was developing at the mixture that would be used for contact printing on Azo and it wouldn't get to a decent negative for enlarging. For a negative that requires expansion or a higher density range, my experience is that it doesn't come close.

 

[David Vickery]

I've been using BPF 200 for at least a year now and have had no problems building density with it. In fact, you could study the Sun with some of my negatives. I did try some of that Pyrocat HD with an arista film and had no shadow density at all.**** After looking through my notes I have realized that it was not pyrocat hd that I tried. It was something else with Pyrocat.

 

[bjorke]

Embedded crud notwithstanding, surely Max Gold 200....

 

[Grady O]

Kodak Tmax 400 is pretty nasty.

 

[glbeas]

Don, I still have 30+ rolls of Ilford 50 speed 120 that I would'nt give to an enemy. Not having used your problem film I have no comparison but I certainley understand your frustration.

So what are you going to do with them? Sounds like something I'd have fun playing with.

 

[noblebeast]

Hmm...

I've never heard of any of these other entries, but I always thought "Endless Love" was the worlds worst film. :whistle:

 

[Thomassauerwein]

Don, I still have 30+ rolls of Ilford 50 speed 120 that I would'nt give to an enemy. Not having used your problem film I have no comparison but I certainley understand your frustration.

So what are you going to do with them? Sounds like something I'd have fun playing with.

Well, I don't consider you my enemy. It's in the fridge I just keep, in the back of my mind thinking someday I'll try to figure the film out. The film has a powdery charchol look to it once printed it's a unique look that could be interesting with the right subject matter, but it's several years old now and not being wine I'm guessing I will probably toss it. Every time I do want to experiment I get flashbacks to all the frustration and lost images this horrible film caused.

 

[glbeas]

Don, I still have 30+ rolls of Ilford 50 speed 120 that I would'nt give to an enemy. Not having used your problem film I have no comparison but I certainley understand your frustration.

So what are you going to do with them? Sounds like something I'd have fun playing with.

Well, I don't consider you my enemy. It's in the fridge I just keep, in the back of my mind thinking someday I'll try to figure the film out. The film has a powdery charchol look to it once printed it's a unique look that could be interesting with the right subject matter, but it's several years old now and not being wine I'm guessing I will probably toss it. Every time I do want to experiment I get flashbacks to all the frustration and lost images this horrible film caused.

Well, being a fine grained slow film it will probably last like Azo. I would think a POTA developer or technidol or maybe stand development would bring out the best in the film. I've used it and got pretty clear shadows, so it needs more exposure and less development that I was treating it to. I was seriously impressed by the detail and fineness of the grain though and would love to play with more. Think you would want to part with it?

 

[mikepry]

Not to mention the edges on BPF 200 are rougher than my wifes nail file. It's almost like they use a pizza cutter to cut it. I e-mailed the rep to ask what gives twice and never even got a reply. I gave up on it.

 

[Paddy]

I've just finished completing development/density testing on ClassicPan 200 (aka BPF 200), using HC-110 Dil H (1 stock:15 water), and PMK 1:2:100.

I had no problem getting excellant densities in either soup, although my E.I.'s are 20 and 25 respectively. That's fine by me.

I live in Canada, and thought that J&C had the cheapest price on this film ($11.99 U.S. per 25 sheet 4x5),...well they do, in the States. But in Toronto, Eight Elm Photo/Video sell the same film packaged as FortePan 200 & 400 for $21.00 CDN per 25 sheet box. (4x5) This saves me even more money, as it cuts out the Customs/Duty charges at the border.

I agree that the film is a little rough around the edges,...maybe that's why they go to so much trouble with the packaging. It doesn't present any problems for me, because I develop either one sheet at a time, or multiples by using the six sheet tray from summitek [http://www.summitek.com/][/url]

 

[Donald Miller]

I've just finished completing development/density testing on ClassicPan 200 (aka BPF 200), using HC-110 Dil H (1 stock:15 water), and PMK 1:2:100.

I had no problem getting excellant densities in either soup, although my E.I.'s are 20 and 25 respectively. That's fine by me.

I live in Canada, and thought that J&C had the cheapest price on this film ($11.99 U.S. per 25 sheet 4x5),...well they do, in the States. But in Toronto, Eight Elm Photo/Video sell the same film packaged as FortePan 200 & 400 for $21.00 CDN per 25 sheet box. (4x5) This saves me even more money, as it cuts out the Customs/Duty charges at the border.

I agree that the film is a little rough around the edges,...maybe that's why they go to so much trouble with the packaging. It doesn't present any problems for me, because I develop either one sheet at a time, or multiples by using the six sheet tray from summitek [http://www.summitek.com/][/url]

I am happy that you experienced the results that you want with the material. My complaint with this film, which I still maintain, is that it fails to build density range (aka contrast). This is a deficiency in the material when one wants to expand contrast to the levels that one would want for Azo or alternative printing (1.60 in the case of grade two Azo). Additionally this is a bothersome aspect when one wants to expand a low brightness ratio scene into a greater contrast. I found that with development times of 18 minutes with 2-2-100 Pyrocat that I was not able to expand the film past one zone of expansion. I found myself printing these negatives at grade five and they will need further intensification or contrast masking to achieve the results desired. This requires additional time that I would rather spend in exposing film.

Granted, if one overexposes the film by three stops, it should build density. I have no doubt of that. But building density range is another matter in my experience. Good luck to you in your photography.

 

[Annie]

Paddy mentions in his posting that Classic Pan200 is AKA BPF200 & then later states it is the same film packaged as FortePan 200. Could someone please clarify for me .......Are these 3 films in fact the same film?

 

[Francesco]

Nope they are not Annie. Fortepan 200 and Classic 200 are the same. BPF is Bergger.

I agree with Don about Bergger. Besides if you need a 200 ASA film, why buy Bergger when Classic/Fortepan 200 is available and cheaper (at least where I buy mine) - and so much better!

 

[Annie]

Whew! That's a relief ..... I just made an order to J&C for more of the Classic 200 and thought I might be in for the same problems that Don was having. Ordering from J&C is cheaper for me too and I am in Canada. There is no duty on photographic film entering Canada and Customs charges a flat $5 'handling fee' per package regardless of contents. The taxes that we pay on film imports in British Columbia are the same as those when purchasing domestically so for me J&C is cheaper than 8 Elm as the shipping & taxes are about the same.