My initial thought is that it'd be like Foma if anything.. that 200 would be generous, so most of the testing was over-exposure. With a couple under-exposures out of left field.

I dont have the images here, they are at work, but I'll show some histograms from a Flextight of them, the 200 ISO ones are bunched up the right with extremely little difference between dmax and dmin, 1280 had a generous difference between dmax and dmin.

They are visually very dense as well. I couldn't discern the first pair of lines at all on the chart at the 200, 400 ones etc, but those were further away than the 1280 one. But the first element would have represented between 30 and 40 lp/mm iirc, and I couldn't detect any contrast at all between them even on the highest contrast line pairs.

I'm going to shoot some images in a bit on the street, on an AE-1 with the meter set to 1600 and 3200.

The test chart was only a small portion of the neg. But the rest of the shot is interior anyway.




I wonder if it is just this batch that is like this. I've head of QC issues. Though I've only shot one roll of it so far. But I've ruled out as much as possible:

One half of the film was machine processed, every other film coming out of it is perfectly fine. The other half was hand-processed in C-41 with KBr added making it lose density, and 200 was still too dense.

I used a modern Gossen meter, incident metered. Checked it against camera meters and other meters, they agree, I also shot Agfa Precisa CT 100 and it came out, if it was overexposed it'd blow out quickly.

It's not the camera or shutter, as it was stop watch timed bulb exposures for the 400 and slower exposures.

I'll develop the roll from tonight tomorrow.




It is very strange, but it seems like EI 200 grossly overexposed the roll I shot.