Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,557   Posts: 1,545,140   Online: 1032
      
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 64
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ringerike, Norway
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    142
    This print-transfer is pretty much identical to what happens with some rolls of Shanghai GP3. I bought a brick a few years ago and it got worse with time, more or less. Didn't notice it on the first rolls, glaring on the last one I shot.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    748
    I had the same effect on the that film too. The dots are for those MF cameras that have the red window on the back and the number are pretty obvious. The film is not even worth "Playing with" complete crap. The grain was massive too. I tossed what I had left.

    ToddB

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    OK, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    301
    We'll, now I'm not feeling so alone. I tried the 120 ISO 100 film in February and discovered that I no longer possessed the skills to spool 120 film onto Jobo and Patterson reels. The challenge was there, and I couldn't resist. But, even after trying four different rolls with the "lights turned on", I couldn't manage it. Either the film base was made of spring steel, or it was petrified from age. But what I really suspect is that the base material was too thick, the manufacturer used it, and then sold the film it at a reduced price. Whatever the cause, we came to a unanimous decision . . . "Never Again". I simply can't afford repeating mistakes like this.
    Last edited by DannL.; 11-18-2013 at 06:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    5x4, 4x5, Half-Plate, 5x7, 8x10, 6x9cm, 6x7cm, 6x6cm, 6X4.5cm

  4. #54

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by DannL. View Post
    We'll, now I'm not feeling so alone. I tried the 120 ISO 100 film in February and discovered that I no longer possessed the skills to spool 120 film onto Jobo and Patterson reels. The challenge was there, and I couldn't resist. But, even after trying four different rolls with the "lights turned on", I couldn't manage it. Either the film base was made of spring steel, or it was petrified from age. But what I really suspect is that the base material was too thick, and the manufacturer used it, and then sold the film it at a reduced price. Whatever the cause, we came to a unanimous decision . . . "Never Again". I simply can't afford repeating mistakes like this.
    The sad part is that Photo Warehouse knows about this and plays DUMB. Shame on them! I bought a bulk roll of the ISO 100 35mm film from them at the same time and really like that, but this 120 junk is no good at all. JohnW

  5. #55
    mr rusty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    lancashire, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    616
    Images
    100
    I think you can totally discount the 120 is harman sourced. One of the things they have to buy in bulk is the backing paper, so even if they were manufacturing for someone else, why would they use a different backing, and that backing isn't Ilford, which as we know has little outline dotted circle shapes plus numbers and not solid dots like the image.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by mr rusty View Post
    I think you can totally discount the 120 is harman sourced. One of the things they have to buy in bulk is the backing paper, so even if they were manufacturing for someone else, why would they use a different backing, and that backing isn't Ilford, which as we know has little outline dotted circle shapes plus numbers and not solid dots like the image.
    What about the Ultrafine Extreme 400 in 120 format ? It looks like Harman made, just without any AH layer.

  7. #57
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    To me, the worst thing that can happen with film is to not know what to expect. This film seems to be hugely unpredictable.

    It's a shame that a vendor that people have depended on for years and decades, to suddenly provide a product with such inferior and completely unpredictable, and sometimes unusable results. Some of the results shown in this thread are truly horrible, and something I wouldn't take money to use. It just isn't worth spending time with.
    Many years ago I used some Agfa APX 25 that was kindly given to me. I took it with me on a photo trip, and when I processed the film there was chemical fogging on it where the dye on the film backing paper was imprinted on the film, and ruined every single frame from that trip.

    I hope they can realize that it will hurt their reputation to continue selling it. But what's worse is that it gives film photography, as an industry, a reputation for being an unreliable method of photography, something that is absolutely avoidable if it's just given half a chance with the correct methods and appropriate attention to quality parameters.
    "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

  8. #58

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,965
    Quote Originally Posted by timor View Post
    What about the Ultrafine Extreme 400 in 120 format ? It looks like Harman made, just without any AH layer.
    What is it about it that makes it look like Harman made? What are the Harman tell-tale signs.Thanks

    pentaxuser

  9. #59

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    To me, the worst thing that can happen with film is to not know what to expect. This film seems to be hugely unpredictable.

    It's a shame that a vendor that people have depended on for years and decades, to suddenly provide a product with such inferior and completely unpredictable, and sometimes unusable results. Some of the results shown in this thread are truly horrible, and something I wouldn't take money to use. It just isn't worth spending time with.
    Many years ago I used some Agfa APX 25 that was kindly given to me. I took it with me on a photo trip, and when I processed the film there was chemical fogging on it where the dye on the film backing paper was imprinted on the film, and ruined every single frame from that trip.

    I hope they can realize that it will hurt their reputation to continue selling it. But what's worse is that it gives film photography, as an industry, a reputation for being an unreliable method of photography, something that is absolutely avoidable if it's just given half a chance with the correct methods and appropriate attention to quality parameters.
    I agree Tom and film photography needs all the help it can get. I'm beginning to think they don't care about their reputation and only care about unloading this junk on folks that don't read this forum. Screw me once, shame on you! Screw me twice, shame on me! I'm not even going to buy this stuff for testing anymore since I can buy Arista(Foma) brand at a good price and know that film is darn good.

  10. #60
    ambaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    542
    you sure it isn't Shanghai? Numbers printing through to film, curly, sounds pretty familiar...


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Page 6 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