todd_niccole

I think you should get back to home development. Developing Ilford films couldn't be simpler. Their film emulsions are prehardend in manufacture so, no hardening fixer should be used and wash times are far less. They have recently come out with their 'Simplicity' line of development products, small volume development packets for up to two 35mm rolls or one 120 roll for less than five bucks per packet. Sold individually or in a starter kit: Ilford Simplicity Starter Pack | Freestyle Photographic Supplies As mentioned HC-110 last for an incredibly long time but it only comes in 1 liter bottles which is quite a bit and maybe too much to have on hand if you are really only occasionally developing a roll. Check out Caffenol for made at home one shot use

Thank you Jochen,

I have a Vivitar v3800N SLR with a stated PK mount and would like to know if this is compatible with the standard Pentax K mount. I recently learned the hard way that a Pentax M42 screw mount lens is not fully compatible with any other standard SLR with a T mount and don't want to repeat a similar mistake. Thanks.

Since you put that way, I would say yes in some cases, particularly with Rollei in marketing the same film as Infrared and Retropan 400s.The "Infrared" sells at a higher price! And who are these highly regarded people you're referring to? Does anybody on this board work for these companies that I seem to have missed? You might want to reread my posts in the entire thread to understand how I have come to my suspicions about CatLab films and others and some firm conclusions in other cases. To reiterate, I've test many of these films in question with a more technical procedure other than simply taking pictures to compare, compared datasheets and many of them have peculiar common specs depending on the film.. Some of this you can confirm for yourself if you care to compare stated specs between these films. If it walks like a duck and quacks likes a duck, it's Agfa-Gevaert Aviphot film.

I phrased it as such because somebody is going to nitpick over some insignificant difference in how the spectral plot is presented. As I stated, some are a more simpler representation of spectral response despite otherwise being the same; One could overlay them on top top each other. Coincidence? Rollei Retropan 400s shows plotted sensitivity down to 300nm where Rollei Infrared doesn't.

Maybe I need to make the point so this doesn't turn into a hairsplitting rhetorical discussion over what rebranded means but that the same emulsions represented in these respective films.

I don't want to argue around in circles but the the larger issue regardless of how and when such films were made is that they seem to be or suspected to be the same films/emulsions being rebranded.

How many rolls is CatLabs likely to sell or ordered to begin with? How many rolls come out of even the smallest coating run? Has Agfa come up with a new means of efficient smaller production per demand? It's more likely their film is coming from a master production roll even if it was made within recent times(and perhaps made again to meet demand) and especially so with all the common characteristics among these films.

But, where are these other European ISO 80 and 320 films coming from in the last few years? It isn't Kodak.

For some films there is a lot of corroborating evidence in the datasheets. See the spectral plots for Rollei Infrared and Rollei Retropan 400s: practically the same. The spectral plot for Adox HR-50 Speed Boost and that of Rollei Retro 80s is largely the same. The Adox HR-50 spectral plot is cruder and more simplified but the curves more or less correspond to one another; That can't be a coincidence. I had tested both JCH and Rollei Retro 400 and came to the suspicion that they might be the same which was later confirmed with online search with hits going back several years.

Regardless if it's a new production run(s); same formula, same emulsion, more or less same film disregarding other variables like film base. With the rather lengthy development times these films have it wouldn't make much of a difference varying them plus or minus a few seconds from brand to brand as part of individual marketing. Catlabs is also coming out with their X Film 320 despite there already being two other films on the market with the same atypical ISO ratings: Foma Retropan 320 Soft and Imago 320. What are they going to claim is special about theirs?

I think bromide drag isn't this extreme. I bet you have some sort of a light leak around the sprocket holes. You state you don't have this problem with 120 film but, are you using a 120 camera with a 35mm film adapter? I forgot to add that is this effect consistent with a whole roll of film? Maybe light is getting in your developing tank if you are taking out the agitator that rotates the reel while developing so, through that center hole light maybe hitting the edge of the film where it is propagating through between the sprocket holes.

That's a fair suggestion but I'm not going to go way out of my way to obtain this one film just to evaluate it. I evaluate films for astrophotography and it's of particular interest to us to find films with extended red sensitivity that can either be used out of the box or benefit from enhancement techniques. It has been apparent over the last few years from personal testing and datasheet comparisons that Agfa Aviphot aerial films are just being rebranded all over the place to the point that any new film hits the market with the same atypical ISO and/or same extended spectral response; I've become more confident that it's likely the same old rebranded stuff. JCH Streetpan400/Rollei Retro 400s/ Rollei Infrared film are the same Agfa Aviphot aerial film. I suspect Film Washi "Z" is likewise. I contacted Film Washi to clarify this but no response. Agfa Aviphot 80s is Rollei Retro 80s and most likely Adox Hr-50 with Speed Boost(based on comparison of datasheets).

I'm suspicious this is rebranding of Afga Aviphot Pan 80(Rollei Retro 80s)