Question about J&C Classic 200

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by eggshell, Sep 22, 2004.

  1. eggshell

    eggshell Member

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    I just order some Classic 200 sheet film and would like to shorten my learning curve by asking the following questions:-

    a. What is the ideal conventional developers for this film? Ideally I'd like to use Rodinal or HC110?

    b. Should I rate it at 100?

    c. What's the starting points in tray developing times?

    d. What is the characteristics of this film? Does it have better contrast than HP400+?

    Any tips on how best to use this film is appreciated. Ideally I'd like to stick to just one film/developer so that I can concentrate on my shooting.

    Thanks!
     
  2. doughowk

    doughowk Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,766
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Location:
    Jacksonville
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My very unscientific observations after limited usage (2X3 & 4X5 sheet film as well as 120mm roll): At 200ASA, it is thin so an extra stop of exposure would help. Developed in Rodinal 1:50 11-14 minutes with longer times benefitting thin negs. Its a good film, but if I was going to standardize on 1 film/speed would probably pick a 100ASA such as J&C's Pro 100.
     
  3. eggshell

    eggshell Member

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Also, does it do well with expansion & contraction? Thanks!
     
  4. eggshell

    eggshell Member

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Why do you pick ASA100 film? Thanks!
     
  5. mark

    mark Member

    Messages:
    5,270
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    It does not do well with expansion. This is the same film as Bergger 200 and forte 200. I shoot it at 200 and 100 and I am getting some decent negs in Pyrocat. There is not a lot of expansion available but in normal scenes it looks really good. I never saw the negs as thin at all no matter what speed I shot it at.
     
  6. Max

    Max Member

    Messages:
    97
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    I keep seeing this. I've also seen this thread.

    Is anyone else confused?
     
  7. sanking

    sanking Member

    Messages:
    4,813
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Location:
    Greenville,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Max,

    When I first tested JandC 200 my impression was that it was a different film because the results were quite different from what I had previously obtained with BPF 200. Since then I have tested several different emulsion batches of BPF 200, and the sister films Fortepan 200 and JandC 200, and I am now convinced that they are essentially the same film. Although there is some variation in actual results from batch to bath in terms of speeed and contrast the overall curve characteristics of the three films are very similar. My opinion at this point is that the films are the same and that any differences observed are due to variations in emulsion batch, aging and/or storage conditions.


    Sandy
     
  8. mark

    mark Member

    Messages:
    5,270
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Sandy has the hard data I have two negs shot of the same scene metered in the same manner and developed in the same manner. On BPF 200 and Classic 200. I have no idea which is which. They are identical in every way I can see except for price.
     
  9. Max

    Max Member

    Messages:
    97
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Makes sense now - thanks!
     
  10. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    17,980
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    My impression is that Forte made significant changes at a certain point to their 200 speed film, as they later did with the 400 speed film (increasing density range significantly), so I suspect it is more an question of a single upgrade that took a while to filter down to all the different brands of Forte film than a random consistency issue from batch to batch.
     
  11. k_jupiter

    k_jupiter Member

    Messages:
    2,578
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Location:
    san jose, ca
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Back to the original question...

    I have shot a fair amount of this in 2x3, 3x4, and 4x5. While Rodinal works well on it, it really shines when developed in W2D2+. It was if the expansion of zones 2,3,and4 were pressed into the film emulsion. What was solid shadow in Rodinal, broke into 3 distinct zones in the W2D2+. This was a test using both sides of a 3x4 film holder in a Zeiss Trona using exact same exposures, not more than 30 seconds apart. I had expected there to be changes in the upper zones of the film, not the bottom end. BTW, I meter and shoot at E.I. 160. For Rodinal, you might want to take it down 2/3s more (E.I. 100).

    Don't get me wrong, you will get very printable negatives inRodinal 1+50 @ 68deg for 12/13 min.

    tim in san jose
     
  12. Alex Hawley

    Alex Hawley Member

    Messages:
    2,894
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    David, if I remember right, Sandy confirmed this in his testing and posted the results on the Azo forum. My empircal experience shows the same thing; I was exposing and developing the new emulsion with the old emulsion methods and getting very dense negatives, with enough contrast to warrant a water bath on Azo grade 2. Still very printable on Azo but a significant change in exposure times. I also agree with what Sandy said about developing it in ABC pyro; difficult to control. I believe the new emulsion behaves better in Pyrocat HD and has an improved range.
     
  13. eggshell

    eggshell Member

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Thanks to all for responding.
     
  14. doughowk

    doughowk Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,766
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Location:
    Jacksonville
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Let me rephrase my question: If J&C 200 actually requires an EI of 100 ( my experience as well as others), then why use it instead of other films that are rated at ISO 100? I like Efke 100 & hope J&C Pro 100 in sheet film is as good as its 120mm version. Is there anything special about J&C 200 that would make one select it over the two previous films I mentioned?
     
  15. gma

    gma Member

    Messages:
    793
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Texas
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    J&C 200 costs less. That makes it pretty special for me.
     
  16. eggshell

    eggshell Member

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    I have not used J&C Pro 100. From passed experience, The films I used (Tri X, HP5 & FP4) are rated below box speed. That led to my unscientific decision for buying Classic 200. Is J&C Pro 100 a true 100 speed with conventional developer? Anyone knows? Thanks!
     
  17. Flotsam

    Flotsam Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    S.E. New Yor
    That was my logic too. It seems like I have to under rate everything I shoot by 1 stop. I wanted to shoot at 100 speed so I went for the 200.