Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,542   Posts: 1,544,403   Online: 1030
      
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 79

Thread: NEW Agfa APX400

  1. #61
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by brianmquinn View Post
    Remember developer times are just starting points. I’m sure Lupis did not do ANY testing of this film. They just reposted old times that should be “close enough”.
    Very true. I'm sure fine prints can be made with either Kentmere or the new APX 400. In the end, the choice of developer and technique will probably have a bigger impact on the results.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Trier, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    100
    Not that it's terribly important but whoever packaged this most likely used the same tube/canister design as for their other products. The answer is in the cap.

  3. #63
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    I agree with all the above but were still talking about good 'ol fashioned customer service and if Lupus doesn't do their homework, I might buy elsewhere...

    I wanted to run some thru HC-110 and when seeing their times (in my estimation) merely copy and pasted from prior benchmarks from the film industry, it's just not that fuzzy feel that Ilford, Kodak and ADOX provide....those are my main films....just wanted to try out APX 400 considering that the APX100 was a great film, I thought I'd see what it's like.....throwing away $20 (2 rolls a film and shipping) seems like a big amount of waste to me to dial in my dev, contrast, etc....

    Might'a just talked myself out of even considering this film due to what I perceive is bad cust serv via poor marketing, web site clarity....etc

    Am I over reacting? Just trying to justify $6 a roll....this stuff better be the bees knees to continue buying it....

    Anyone dev a roll yet?

    Fwiw, I was quite excited to mess with a new film but this apparent (my estimation) sloppy work by Lupus has me wondering why bother....
    Andy

  4. #64
    Ricardo Miranda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    644
    Andy,
    Yes, the DX database is out of date. But, when you told that APX 400 is 017712, that first part (0177) identifies the manufacturer which is used by the Kentmere films. It was just the proof that it is made by the same manufacturer.
    Also, another clue was in the expiry date: almost 5 years from now. Most of Ilford/Kentmere films have 5 years of shelf life. Oh, and the lettering of that expiry date on the box is the same style.

    I have some Kentmere 400 and I'm just waiting for APX 400 to arrive to try them together in 2 identical cameras and lenses.
    My cameras:
    Fed 2
    Zenit 11, 12XP
    Nikon F4, F4S, F401S, F601, F801, F801S, F50, F55, F60, F65, F70, F75, F80, F90, F90X, EL2, FE, FM, FG, FG-20, EM

  5. #65
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Very interesting intel Ricardo...

    So I've a roll of Walgreens branded color print film here, it says made in Japan (ie Fuji), the dx code is 706253, is that the Fuji manufacturing number?
    Andy

  6. #66
    Ricardo Miranda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    644
    Yes, some of the numbers identify the manufacturer. See Pascal de Brujin posts here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootf...7634758592012/
    And this here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootf...7634429783414/
    My cameras:
    Fed 2
    Zenit 11, 12XP
    Nikon F4, F4S, F401S, F601, F801, F801S, F50, F55, F60, F65, F70, F75, F80, F90, F90X, EL2, FE, FM, FG, FG-20, EM

  7. #67
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricardo Miranda View Post
    See here [for the DX-number]: http://www.imageaircraft.com.au/DXsim/
    It comes up as ORWO Media Gmbh! lol It is using an unallocated bar code, just like the Kentmere films. The database in that DX simulator dates from 2005, if I'm not mistaken.
    ORWO Media GmbH was never involved in film manufacture or marketing.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    107
    Images
    5
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/

    Photographer not a job description - a diagnosis.

  9. #69
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    Come to think of it, does anybody else here think it's dishonest and misleading to use an old established (and highly desirable) brand name, in order to sell a product that is something different?
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  10. #70
    Dr Croubie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    rAdelaide
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,272
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Come to think of it, does anybody else here think it's dishonest and misleading to use an old established (and highly desirable) brand name, in order to sell a product that is something different?
    I don't particularly mind it for hardware (Cosina Voigtlander, I'm looking at you), when there's no way the old and new products can be mistaken for one another. I know the difference between a half-century-old 15cm Apo-Lanthar and my 90mm f/3.5 few-years-old Apo-Lanthar.

    But for film I don't particularly like it, not because it's dishonest or anything, but if it's a different recipe and the dev times are different then that's just asking for confusion...
    An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin