Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,876   Posts: 1,520,254   Online: 1129
      
Page 9 of 26 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213141519 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 253
  1. #81
    Aurelien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Limoges, France
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    669
    Images
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas.Goehler View Post
    Pray that it really is a data sheet and not some typical Maco-like marketing poetry.
    can you please tell us which films you are using?
    Aurelien, Analog Photographer

    the analog place to be

  2. #82
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,763
    Pan F+ is an "odd" duck among Ilford films in that it's not much like any of the others. I do get good results with it. I like it in Diafine which helps control the highlights and gives a small but useful effective speed increase.

    Good to know this is a "normal" film then. We'll just look forward to trying it out.

  3. #83
    Thomas.Goehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    51
    I have stopped using Maco films after some disastrous results. Since then I have been mainly using Kodak Tri-X, Ilford HP5 and Delta 100 among others.
    Canon FD &EF, Mamiya AF, Nikon, Pentax, Praktica, Minolta

  4. #84
    Aurelien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Limoges, France
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    669
    Images
    96
    You probably know that H. Schroeder left the Mahn Company two years ago. Since then, the new director of the photo division really works hard to build a consistent range of products with premium manufacturers, and the most insurances that products won't be discontinued soon.

    H. Schroeder made a lot of mistakes. Yes I agree. He also made good things. But he is the past.

    The present and the future are without Mr Schroeder. ANd the present team tries to make you forget these former times. But your memory is really unerasable
    Aurelien, Analog Photographer

    the analog place to be

  5. #85
    Thomas.Goehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    51
    As far as I know Mr Junghans, also reponsible for Maco's disastrous marketing campaigns, ist still on board ... alas!
    Canon FD &EF, Mamiya AF, Nikon, Pentax, Praktica, Minolta

  6. #86
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    6,991
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by PerfesserKev View Post
    I see on the B&H site that the RPX 25 will(?) be available in 127 rolls as well:

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...px_25_127.html

    But the price shows as TWICE as high as the 120. I am only partially surprised by that. Sales will be lower. Rolling a different size will be labor intensive and all that. I'd buy a few (very few) rolls at that price, so the choice strikes me a touch odd. There are few 127 cameras with lenses and focus accuracy to make good use of a high-resolution film in 127 -- the baby Rolleis and Yashicamats and maybe a couple others. Most 127 cameras are little bakelite boxes with meniscus lenses or folders with zone or front-cell focusing. I love all mine. They're fun. But why not bring back the 80S in 127 or produce the RPX 100? Cheap cameras with cheap lenses want cheap film.

    Not that I ever thought I'd complain about a new 127 B/W film, but US$10 would be much more appealing. This puts cost per frame at a large-format US$2.50 per shot for full-frame 127.

    The ISO 25 is a good one for many of these cameras though. If they have no exposure controls, ISO 25 is probably period accurate.
    Holy crap! $20 per roll?? That's just insane, I'm so glad that I bought the ilford 50 feet of 46mm ULF run film, that's only $5/roll of 127... Plus it's HP5+ so it can be used as 200 speed film up to 3200 speed film, a lot more versatile for 127 than 25 speed film...
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #87
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    6,991
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurelien View Post
    I am, but I am subjectively serious , as all of us. Because Photography is a subjective world, where feeling is the key point. I have not the feeling with Pan F and more than that I have real problem to develop it with the same high quality as the other ilford films.
    If you're having trouble developing PanF+ as other films, there must be something with your developing technique that's wrong, but the film itself certainly is not a bad duck in anyway, and I would ask you to think about rephrasing your sentences when commenting about film that can't possibly be bad, in fact it may be ilford's best film hands-down. I do agree in an artistic sense that all film is subjective and it may not be the film for you but calling it a bad duck is in accurate and just plain wrong, you may not like it but it's certainly not a bad film.

    As an example you could say that EFKE100 is a bad duck because many times the emulsion would have "EFKEitis" which would cause rice shaped specks to appear all over the film, a profit of factory problems and static etc, that is a "bad duck"

    But PanF+ has no major emulsion issues at all, is both fine grained and a good tonal range. It DOES have a latent image failure issue that if you leave the film sitting on a desk for a year in 80 degree temperatures, your image may slightly fade, but that's also fairly bad user failure and I would blame the user for failing to develop the film in a timely manner. That makes it a sensitive but not a bad one, develop your film within 3 months of shooting it and you should have no issues whatsoever... This is also something they are open about and is an effect caused by it's awesomeness haha (what I really mean is it couldn't have the look it does if it didn't have this flaw). But that last part is not FACT but rather opinion based on logic.... If they could produce the film without this latent image failure, they would, ergo it couldn't be made without it...

    I'm curious, if you wouldn't mind PMing me with what issues you had with it as maybe I can shed some light on the issues.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #88
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,763
    I think if you left exposed Pan F+ sitting on a desk in 80F for a year it would to a lot more than "slightly" fade. The latent image fading is pretty bad if left that long in that kind of temperature. I've left it in a cool basement for a few months and experienced it. But process even reasonably promptly and it's fine.

    I like it, and there's nothing at all wrong with it, but it is different from other Ilford films.

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,053
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Holy crap! $20 per roll?? That's just insane, I'm so glad that I bought the ilford 50 feet of 46mm ULF run film, that's only $5/roll of 127... Plus it's HP5+ so it can be used as 200 speed film up to 3200 speed film, a lot more versatile for 127 than 25 speed film...
    Yeah, holy crap is right! I'm glad I don't shoot 127. I hope the 35 & 120 sizes are better priced.

  10. #90

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurelien View Post
    I am, but I am subjectively serious , as all of us. Because Photography is a subjective world, where feeling is the key point. I have not the feeling with Pan F and more than that I have real problem to develop it with the same high quality as the other ilford films.
    Try Ilford Perceptol 1:3 and you just might have the "feeling"! Rodinal 1:100 isn't bad either! I like both of these to help with a contrasty type shot. Works for me, but then again that's me and not you. There is certainly nothing wrong with PanF if you know what you are doing. JohnW



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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