AGFAPAN 1000 Any experience/insight???

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by daniel_dufour, Sep 26, 2005.

  1. I just got my hands on a pro-pack of this, but have been unable to
    find any information on it at all on the web. It is 30 years(!) out
    of date but I thought it would be fun to try. Does anyone have any
    experience with this film? Did it resemble Royal-X or Recording
    Film? Rate it at what? On the box it recommends Atomal or
    Refinal. Any info would be of great help. Thanks.
     
  2. I'd be amazed if you can pull an image out of the fog. High speed films generally don't keep well. Thirty years is a longish time for Tri-X, and you're after 1 1/3 stops faster (similar real speed to TMZ or Delta 3200).

    Given you've got several rolls (and assuming this is 35 mm) I'd be tempted to start with a clip test and ring-around from EI 250 or 400 to establish a speed, and use a low-fog developer like HC-110. You should be able to get at least two, possibly three test clips from the first roll, which should get you close enough to get real use from the remainder if it's any good.

    Worst case, you'll waste some time and chemicals -- I'd be interested in seeing your results, if you do get anything.
     
  3. Do it, you don't have much to lose.
     
  4. It should resemble Neopan 1600. In fact, Agfa licensed the Agfapan 1000 emulsion technology to Fuji back around 1980 and thence came Neopan 1600. The true speed of this stuff is closer to 625.

    Given it's high speed, this stuff is pretty sensitive to cosmic radiation with the passage of time. I'd have modest expectations about the outcome of processing it after all this time.
     
  5. Interesting Al, thanks. I don't have high expectations really, just wanted a little guidance. It's 120 size, BTW.
     
  6. I never tried it but did shoot some Agfa Isopan Record which preceded it on the market by 10 or 15 years. It was extremely grainy! It was rated at ASA (ISO) 1000.
     
  7. Ilford Microphen is probably a good choice if you have some available. I doubt you'll be able to come by any Atomal any more (a weird recommendation to begin with, as it's a speed-losing, fine-grained developer) and Refinal isn't very common.

    Failing that, go with Donald's recommendation for XTOL. Shooting it around EI 400 sounds about right, too.
     
  8. I'd try Microphen or HC-110. Both keep fog to a minimum. Microphen is a speed enhancing developer, which means you can keep the development to the minimum necessary - this will help keep fog down as well.

    It'd probably be a good idea to start your exposures at 400.
     
  9. I do have some Microphen left, which I'll gladly use. I also have some Diafine, which hasn't been mentioned. Is this not a good choice? Thanks.
    00Dgjj-25828584.jpg
     
  10. I've had poor results with Diafine on old film, but Alan Gage swears by it. However, Diafine gives a fixed development that might or might not be what you want; Neopan 1600 would normally go to EI 2000 in Diafine, but this old Agfapan might come in anywhere between 800 and 2000, with fog ranging from mild to obscuring. Better, IMO, to use HC-110, well diluted.
     
  11. I used this film about 30 years ago and I'll try to post an example later. I can remember that even when fresh this film gave a high base fog so if you get any image at all you'll be very lucky! It's very grainy and similar to Kodak Recording film -- it isn't a bit like Neopan 1600 which has much finer grain, is a lot more contrasty and has low base fog.
     
  12. Thanks for you insight. I'd really appreciate it if you could find the time to upload a photo.
     
  13. Daniel: I'm going to upload a photo taken on Agfapan 1000.
    A few comments:
    • The negs are extremely flat and somewhat lacking in shadow detail even though they seem to be fully developed (the frame numbering looks fine)
    • The fog is not as great as I originally remembered -- certainly less than Kodak Recording Film
    • The film was almost certainly rated at 1000 ASA and shot on a Minolta SRT101 using TTL metering and most likely developed in Agfa Rodinal
    • I would suggest that you rate your film very conservatively!
     
    • Hi, Does anyone know how long to process Agfapan 1000 in Rodinal? I can't find any info anywhere and would be really grateful for help with this. Thanks
     
  14. Rodinal would not be the developer of choice for a fast film, and especially one which is well outdated.
     
  15. I haven't tried it, or even thought about trying it, but many seem to like cold stand development
    in Rodinal for old film. Maybe 1:100 or 1:200, 45F or 50F, and maybe one hour.

    The way Diafine works is similar to stand, but much faster.
    I have used Diafine on old film and gotten reasonable results.
    For the higher speed films, like TMZ and Delta3200, Diafine seems to give
    lower speed, closer to the real ISO value.
     
  16. Thanks. Maybe I'll see if I can get some Diafine, but Rodinal is all I have, and someone gave me a load of old films so one of my students shot the film and I just thought we'd give it a go. I read the post above from lol 1 in 2005 where he mentions having developed the film in Rodinal and hence my question. But one thing I don't quite get - you say cold stand development and then what looks like a high temperature, or am I misunderstanding something?
     
  17. What temperature do you usually use for stand? Normal is 68F so I thought 45F was cold, but I have
    still never done stand, at any temperature. Maybe some are down to 40F.

    Developers are Arrhenius, so you can convert time/temperature over a wide enough range.
    (Below gelatin melting temperature.)

    For more people using old film, see: Vintage Film Shooters

    Development at 68F/20C has been the favorite for many years now, but back to the early days
    of gelatin photography, maybe through the 1920's, it was colder than that, maybe 50F.
     
  18. Ahh - sorry - that was me reading fahrenheit as centigrade! My mistake. Thanks for the tip about the vintage film shooters site - I'll have a look - I have just shot a roll of what looks like really old Tri-X - and don't imagine it will process in the same way as new Tri-X for which I always use Rodinal.
     
  19. There are different times for new and old Tri-X, besides it being actually old.

    The film now named 400TX is not the same as the previous ones named just Tri-X.

    A few years ago, I got two rolls of 35mm Tri-X in cassettes with removable ends.
    The tongue was barely sticking out, so I figure that they were used, so developed one.
    No pictures, but also very little fog! I haven't tried the other one yet.

    Also, Kodak TMax 100 Professional and Professional TMax 100 are two different films.
    (I believe that is the name difference. There is a data sheet that gives the exact differences
    to look for on the cassette and backing paper.)

    New Tri-X is here: https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/f4017_TriX.pdf

    but as usual lists only Kodak developers. The older one is here:

    https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f9-Tri-X_Pan-199906.pdf

    but again only lists Kodak developers.
     

Share This Page

1111