Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,973   Posts: 1,558,725   Online: 748
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 67

Thread: Polypan F

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,869
    We never made miniature copy film, it ain't PAN F or PAN F plus.

    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    984
    Possibly a re-packaged cine-print film from Filmotec? So perhaps specified by them to Innoviscoat for the actual production? We won't find out for sure - so just see if it is useful to you, from the many many examples on the web, and go from there. After all, it isn't claiming to be anything that it isn't (a rival to Delta3200, or some equally nutty claim) , though the marketing blurb is not very helpful admittedly. I can think that the Lomo people would love to use this, especially in that "cine" camera.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,966
    I've always believed that the object of photography was to produce the best images possoble. I don't see how this can be done with a film that only produces "decent" results. It seems like this film is just a waste of valuable time and effort.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ringerike, Norway
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    151
    For some, the purpose is just to have fun.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    984
    ....
    Last edited by MartinP; 08-13-2012 at 01:13 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Pointless

  6. #26
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Gerald, as you said the best image possible not the best film possible. Superb can and are beeing produced with less than stellar films. By all standards the Lucky line of films is shit, but in my opinion it's one of those films that can produce superb pictures reminiscent of the 1930's.
    So film quality has very little to do with image or picture quality. imho

    Dominik

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    707
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctic amateur View Post
    For some, the purpose is just to have fun.
    More film photography = more fun

    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    Gerald, as you said the best image possible not the best film possible. Superb can and are beeing produced with less than stellar films. By all standards the Lucky line of films is shit, but in my opinion it's one of those films that can produce superb pictures reminiscent of the 1930's.
    So film quality has very little to do with image or picture quality. imho

    Dominik
    History is examples rich!

  8. #28
    mikendawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    57
    Guys, I use Polypan F a lot. And I do mean a lot!
    Some saying "DON'T BUY IT BECAUSE OF THE GRAIN".. Seriously? It is a great film... I have used it in studio, and around just shooting whatever I please, and it has never disappointed me yet. It's seriously inexpensive, and produces very rich tones, contrast, and a soft grain.
    I've developed it in everything from D76, TMAX, ID-11, DekTOL, HC-110, Ilfosol-3, XTOL, Caffenol-C, Melonal, Glassenol, Rodinal.. And some of them even mixed with each other..

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	6920601562_1bc9a5800c_o.jpg 
Views:	116 
Size:	553.4 KB 
ID:	55486


    I've always believed that the object of photography was to produce the best images possoble. I don't see how this can be done with a film that only produces "decent" results. It seems like this film is just a waste of valuable time and effort.

    Curious, why is it that some shoot with a digital camera and apply a bunch of filters to decrease the saturation, add scratches and dust marks, plus large grain and colour shifts...
    The film is just a means of capturing said image, but the person behind the camera is the one that is helping to capture said, "Best possible" image.

    Not trying to start a flame war, but why insult a good film, especially one that is very inexpensive so that you can literally buy a LOT OF IT and go out and excercise a camera that is +30 years old..
    hell, you can blow through 5 or 6 rolls of the stuff in an hour and not feel guilty!
    --------------------------------

    APS, 35mm, 120, 4x5 and a Deardorff & Sons 4x5 Special under restoration.

    I don't care the format, as long as it's film!

    Flickr Pages - Here

    Blogs - Here and Here

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    707
    Images
    15
    mikendawn, badmouthing films made by anyone but Kodak, Iflord or Fuji is well spread exercise, especially when its bulk film on PET base and goes ~ 40¢/1 roll - 36 frames. Probably its more than well priced for amateurs
    The grain complain.. - so far nobody proved that its not due to operator's error...
    The absence of anti-halation backing in Polypan F might be a big deal for some folks, ruin the perfect shot, lower the sharpness...
    Looks like generally people prefer film coated on cellulose acetate, since if You are using auto-everything camera this film base might tear while keeping Your camera transport gear safe. However, the fact that cellulose acetate irreversibly degrade after ~ 50 years @ 65°F (18°C) and 50% relative humidity, release acetic acid and shrink in advanced stage as much as 10% is not big deal for some folks...
    If I am not mistaken, all consumer films in format 135 or 120 by Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and some others are cellulose acetate.
    Looks like the safety of auto-everything's plastic cameras more important than images.

  10. #30
    baachitraka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,461
    Given my limited experience, I could not able to imagine the effects of absence of anti-halation backing apart from highlight glow/flare to the images.

    I don't think I will like glow/flare for all shots and in that case how can I prevent the glow/flare without scrating/damaging* the film.

    *Some suggest to use the paper from 120 film format.
    Last edited by baachitraka; 08-15-2012 at 09:29 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
    Rolleicord Va: Humble.
    Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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