J&C Classic 400 VS Kodak 400TX
Seduced away from Tri-X by very favorable pricing and the fantastic reputation J&C has earned with its many loyal customers, I bought a small stash of J&C Classic 400 35mm film. So far, I like the film a lot but I find it is definitely different from the modern Tri-X. I'm treating it exactly as I do 400TX. That is:
rate the film at at EI-250.
Develop in HC-110 dil. D, 20 deg. C, 6 minutes, agitate 10sec / minute.
After just three rolls of Classic 400, I have the following observations:
- The spectral repsonse of Classic 400 appears to be quite different from that of Tri-X.
- Tri-X gives finer grain
- Classic 400 appears to have slightly less latitude
- Although not quite as robust as that of Tri-X, Classic 400 emulsion is plenty robust. About on par with similar offerings from Ilford.
ALl in all, it seems like a winner. Like I said above, I'm still not getting it quite right but, it does look promising. Anybody else have hints or observations on this film?
Piggybacking, a question for all - when Forte improved the film, were the old quality-control issues ironed out (curl, blotches, etc.)?
Hi Brad, Interesting to read your thoughts on this "other " film and how you are getting on with your testing. It took me a good while to get used to NEW Tri-x, but once having established its effective speed and a development regime to suit it, I think it takes some beating ! I use it exclusively now, and am invariably disappointed when seduced away by other emulsions. Anything else just isn't the same. As Frank Hurley said, "Near enough, is not good enough !"
Hi there, I believe the different spectral response of the Classic Pan 400 (as it is called in Britain) is down to the fact that it has an 'extended spectral sensitivity to the near infrared' according to UK importers Retro Photographic. Retro have a review of this film & more info on this page http://www.retrophotographic.com/classicfilms.htm
Hope this helps,
Ah, yes. I beleive it is properly "Classic Pan 400" here too. The technical data on the J&C website also clearly show extended red sensitivity.
Originally Posted by Lachlan Young
I guess that the summary is that the two films can be preocessed about the same but they look completely diffeerent. I haven't shot any of the old Tri-X in a while. I am interested to go back and look at some of my old negs to see if the old tri-x is closer in appearance to Classic Pan 400.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
There was a write-up in UK mag Black & White Photography a few months ago. An interior shot of a church showed a noticeable 'halo' effect around incandescant lighting, and the reviewer commented on its red sensitivity.
Just picked up a handful of rolls of JandC's 400 myself. Someone mentioned it being similar to old Trix-X, and so I'm looking forward to assessing that statement.
And the lower price is a nice touch too.
Not sure. I have noticed that if the film is underexposed a little bit (EI-640) and dev'd normally, it produces very nice skies - almost as strong an effect as if an orange filter were used.
Originally Posted by outofoptions
That is correct. Normal B&W films are balanced for
Originally Posted by outofoptions
tungsten. Apparently it's not possible to so sensitize
an emulsion to green and red so as to equal it's inherent
blue sensitivity. To balance where there is a high blue
content to the light, subtract that excess of blue
with a yellow or orange filter. Dan