Film testing & review

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by anorth, Oct 4, 2011.

  1. anorth

    anorth Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Location:
    Sydney, aust
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
  2. Jeff Kubach

    Jeff Kubach Member

    Messages:
    6,930
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Location:
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Interesting!

    Jeff
     
  3. Newt_on_Swings

    Newt_on_Swings Member

    Messages:
    2,129
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Location:
    NYC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    facebook probably isn't the best way to show case your testing, and Australia I hear is an awfully expensive place to buy film. +1 for effort

    any info on cameras/lenses/filters, as well as developers used? They affect image quality very much so, and can attribute to that "flat" quality you mention often.
     
  4. anorth

    anorth Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Location:
    Sydney, aust
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I used most on my leica M6 and a few on the my Nikon F6 on the 35mm , both with a 50mm lens, for 120 my trusty Hasselblad 80mm lens no filters used, I used tmax, d-76 whatever compatible and ilsosol 3 on the ilford films,tmax films with tmax Dev.


    One thing I can say about the ilford developer ilsosol 3 as I have used it for a couple times, I have always used ilfordsol S on my ilford films wherever possible and ilfordsol S was a perfect match with pan F producing beautiful tonal range.I have not used much ilford stuff over the past 10 years, but I can tell you this ilford films are not the same as they used to be , not as user friendly in the darkroom(curly negs, curly film to load onto reel on 120 format and on 35mm the canister is hard to rip off after loading film onto reel) either as it used to be.developing Pan F with ilfordsol S made it a contrasty film, I do not know weather it the developer to blame or the film to blame, but it just not the same as it used to be.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2011
  5. anorth

    anorth Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Location:
    Sydney, aust
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Another thing I found that kentmere and ilford pan films are nice films to use expecially the 100 asa ones which is far better than the Ilford FP4
    The kentmere films and Ilford pan films are very hard to get in Australia, I have to order them Internationaly, I would go for the Ilford pan film range and not use the ,fp4 , hp5, xp2 and the delta 35mm & 120 films, as a matter of fact I have not yet got my hands on the pan 100 in 120


    ---
    I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-33.858348,151.208227
     
  6. sandermarijn

    sandermarijn Member

    Messages:
    769
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Location:
    Leiden, Neth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    As I have never used the Ilford Pan films, how would you describe the 100 version is "far better" than FP4+? Matter of tonality or grain or contrast, etc?

    Just curious after your opinion.

    Thanks, Sander
     
  7. theoria

    theoria Member

    Messages:
    53
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Location:
    Bucharest
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  8. anorth

    anorth Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Location:
    Sydney, aust
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
  9. sandermarijn

    sandermarijn Member

    Messages:
    769
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Location:
    Leiden, Neth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Hm, that page contains one, small, digitized Pan 100 sample. What I meant to know is: how, in your own subjective experience, would you say that Pan 100 is "far better" than FP4+ (to you, personally)? I love to hear different opinions, especially if they go against the general flow.

    This Pan stuff is hard to come by in western Europe. First Call in the UK have it, but it's not that much cheaper than FP4+, and seems to come in 135 only.