You may want to know that when handling APHS film under red lights, it's hard to tell which side of the film is the emulsion side, since the sheets don't have notch codes in the corners like with "real" sheet film. I've found that the emulsion side looks less reflective, more dull gray, than does the non-coated side. If you are cutting APHS down to smaller sizes, it'd be a good idea to make your own notch codes to help you keep track.
My experience with exposing APHS in pinhole cameras is that, unlike with paper negatives, there's a significant reciprocity failure, such that I've found a working Exposure Index of less than 2 is more realistic in day lit scenes. This film is so slow with pinhole cameras that I find it less than desirable, as compared to paper negatives, unless enlarging the negatives is an absolute must. For my purposes, I've found making larger format pinhole cameras (like 8x10) and contact printing the resulting larger paper negatives to be a more satisfying experience for me. YMMV.
As a comparison, I've found that with using Freestyle's Arista grade 2 RC paper as a negative, I can rate the paper at ISO12 in pinhole cameras and also glass-lensed cameras, exposed directly from a light meter's reading with no reciprocity correction, and develop it in 68f Ilford Universal Paper developer diluted 1:15, and get great negatives. Oh, I also preflash these paper negatives. As a comparison, I'd have to rate APHS at an exposure index of less than 2 (sometimes less than 1, depending on the camera's focal ratio; the higher the f-stop, the more correction required), which gives really unpractically long exposure times. Many times the paper negative images look sharper because there's less time spend on the tripod in a lengthy exposure, where the tripod legs can slowly settle into the soft terrain, or the wind can vibrate the camera excessively. These are all tradeoffs between needing to enlarge film negatives and learning to live with contact printing paper negatives.
I'm surprised no one else has mentioned the problems with pinholes when developing APHS. I've thought for a while that it was caused just by the change from alkaline developer to acidic stop bath, and went with using a water stop instead, but still got pinholes in the film. Then I went with ensuring the three baths were more consistent in temperature, along with a water stop bath, and the problem seems to be less evident, although it still happens occasionally.
If using an inexpensive sheet film were on the top of my list, I'd be looking to try some of the X-ray films available, rather than APHS. I know there's an extensive thread on this subject somewhere here on APUG.
Last edited by Joe VanCleave; 12-19-2010 at 10:57 AM. Click to view previous post history.