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.

So what you’re saying is that this is all speculation and you’re accusing these highly regarded people who are friends of some of us here of lying in advertising their products without being able to provide evidence.

 

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.

Largely the same and more or less corresponding mean not the same. A re-badge would be the same thing in a different box.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

We went through this when JCH released Streetpan. It isn't from an old roll. Your search came up wrong. It was a new run of an old Agfa film...not from an old roll. You appear to not know what is going on here.

 

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.

The ascertain is that there are no companies willing to do small runs of films. That is untrue.

 

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.

I wouldn't exactly call 320 an atypical ISO-I have a fair 320 speed film in the freezer in yellow boxes, and a good bit of it is in date...

 

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

Can you cite any evidence that these films are the same emulsions as other films on the market? Anything beyond speculation, I mean.

 

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.

This is the same idea as JCH 400 Streetpan. It isn't respooled. It was a new coating in small batch run of an old formula surveillance film from Agfa. This is becoming quite common...so I too am surprised that some people claim companies are lying about this...especially CatLabs as they are well respected in the film community. I guess some people prefer conspiracy theories over actual knowledge

 

 

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.

May I ask you to try this new film and then show us some negatives comparaison with your comments? That would be great!

 

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)

Hey all, new to the developing world and have only handled a dozen rolls or so. The last two I did had these dark streaks on the edge of the frame, but only two or three frames (at the outside of the reel) have them. Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong or what could cause it?

 

 

I think this is called bromide drag. I have never had it. I think it's from not properly agitating. I found an old post you can read up on it; 2nd response:

 

what is bromide drag? And how can I fix it?

I would have said Agfa Copex Rapid 50 but oh well.

<p>Ok, I forgot about the $10 thermometer but you don't necessarily need a changing bag. I have a small one but I go into a dark room and closet at night to reel my film. B&H has film scanners starting at less than $100.</p>

<p>$100 for a developing kit? What are you intending to buy for b&w home development? A developing tank costs $20 to $35. Maybe a film clip for drying only a few bucks more or use a clothes pin on a wire hanger. Chemicals are cheap; Kodak D76 liter is $4, fixer can be stored for a much longer time. I have been using as of late Ilford rapid fixer from a open used bottle from early 2015. It was a little concentrated but no problems. For pre-hardened emulsions like Ilford you don't need hypo, only three chemicals: developer, rapid fixer, photo flow and water in between and after. I think Kodak is pre-hardened but not certain but I don't use hypo on kodak films, no problem that I have noticed. I have heard one can use a drop of dish soap in a measure of water instead of photoflo. If you really want to save on developer for the long term and ready make it try Caffenol. The Scanner is another issue but there are far cheaper scanners than $400 or scavenge for a used one. Or, if you have a good enough digital camera or DSLR try rephotographing your negs and getting them printed as positives. For casual personal b&w photography I don't see a point in having a lab develop the film; It's too easy to do at home.</p>

<p>These images look rather pushed and way over developed than pulled. Maybe the neg. is overexposed along with over development. The highlights are extremely grainy and almost posterized. I stumbled upon this effect in experiments on how long can a film be developed with full strength developer. I think I used HC-110 dil.B, went upwards of a a half hour.</p>

<p>I have experience in film astrophotography and made many film tests over the years with reciprocity in mind. The fastest films are generally the worst like Ilford 3200 and the defunct Kodak 3200. Aside from that the all time worst films for any astrophotography are Rollei. If your going to do fixed tripod shots then something like Tri-X, Tmax400 or Ilford HP5 at 30 seconds pushed processed would be best with a 50mm lens wide open. These films would actually be faster for images under a couple of minutes than Acros or even hypered Techpan.</p>

 

<p>"Ok, maybe I should rephrase. The idea I had is that the energy from the light creates a chemical bond. If the development process does not break that bond and release the energy, then in effect (theory) the light's energy is stored in the negative. Am I anywhere close to reality?<br>

For most subjects there may be no significance to this, at least not in the way I'm thinking, because light is reflected off the subject. Therefore the light source is either the sun or some artificial bulb. However, in astrophotography the light coming from a star is arguably a real piece of the star. In this case, if my other assumptions about the chemistry/physics are correct, then a negative actually captures a piece of the star. Of course, prints will not contain any of this "stardust," but the negative may."</p>

<p>- I think this is true only in a poetic sense. The photon isn't stored per se but obsorbed to energetically liberate an electron, creating an ion, causing further chemical reaction. Since the photon has been obsorbed it ceases to be. The way your describing this presumingly sounds as if the light being "stored" potentially could be released with determinable qualities of that specific photon... it can't. I think regardless of wavelength, photons are photons. It's the parameters of detection (i.e. film/detector, spectral response, filtration, exposure) that can determine qualities of emission/spectrum and intensity. In a truer sense what has been stored temporarily is energy in it's reaction to the emulsion with development amplifying the effects, stopped then most of the remaining potential chemical energy "washed away" in fixing.</p>

 

<p>Rollei R3 has lots of grain which I've tried with HC-110 dil. B @ ISO 400. I would say even more than TMax or Delta 3200.</p>

<p>Rollei R3 in HC-110 dil. B has huge grain.</p>

<p>I have read about a similiar approach in regards to my interest in photography being astrophotography and I'm just about to experiment with this for some simple imaging fun. But, why diulute so much? I have read that development under a certain time (~ 5min) can produce uneven results but with such an approach why not push with 1:1 dilution for a much shorter dev time instead of 4 times for 40 minutes? Aside from extending chemistry what does one gain with the more dilute longer development?</p>

Another repackaging of Kodak PLUS-X 125 and Tri-X?