which 400 ?

Marko · 2006-10-01T11:32:03+00:00

Hallo zusammen. Ich suche einen wunderschönen Königen 400er. Im Fotoimpex Katalog habe ich so etwas über den ClassicPan 400 gelesen. Ist der zu empfehlen od...

Marko

Hello everyone. I’m looking for a lovely 400-speed film. I read something about the ClassicPan 400 in the FOTOIMPEX catalogue. Would you recommend it, or do you have any other suggestions? At the moment, I’ve had good results with the Ilford Delta 3200 Pro (set to ISO 400) and the Rollei R3 (also set to ISO 400). Unfortunately, these two films are a real drain on the wallet. That’s why I’m now looking for a more affordable yet still good solution. Many thanks,

fotomaik

Hi Marko, I can recommend the ClassicPan 400, especially if you’re developing the film in R09/Rodinal. It has a high contrast, which naturally becomes even more apparent when you perform the exposure and development of the film as if it were 800 ISO! Go for this film – it’s good and doesn’t cost the earth. Best regards, Maik

Marko

Thanks, I thought as much. Just two more questions. What about the DX coding on the film cartridge? And does the ClassicPan have an anti-fade coating (like Foma, for example)? :( Best regards, Marko

gr00vemaster

I can recommend the Adox CHM400; I use it myself (the roll film version) and think it offers excellent value for money. It doesn’t curl up as badly as the Classicpan and isn’t as prone to scratches either. It also has a very nice grain.

max

Hi Marko, I’d be cautious about the Classicpan 400. It might have a nominal 400 ASA, but in dim candlelight (yes, it’s more sensitive to red light) it’s normally 200 ASA at best. On top of that, the grain is far too coarse for this sensitivity class, in my view. Unless, of course, you want the look of the 3200 with lower speed... I’d also go for the CHM400. Regards Martin

oliverdienst

Hi Marko, I’ve been using Classicpan 400 for a while now and I’m more than happy with it (especially when it comes to grain). I always expose it as 400 ASA and develop it in Rodinal 1+25 or LP-Supergrain 1+7. I wouldn’t mention the CHM 400 as an alternative to this, as its grain (even at 800 and 3200 ASA and Rodinal 1+25) is far too fine in comparison. Here are two examples: [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND] [size=1]Classicpan 400 @ 400 ASA[/size] [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND] [size=1]ADOX CHM 400 @ 3200 ASA[/size]

cfb_de

Hi Oliver, What negative format? How are you processing them? Scanning from a print (what format?) or from the negative? Because: if those are recent GF/Rodinal prints, I’d be interested. I’ve just treated myself to just enough Classic 400 sheet films to go with the GF and don’t want to be quite so hard on it. Well, if necessary, I’ll just sacrifice the first box of film to test it out in a homemade fine-grain developer. I really like your photos, by the way. And now that I’ve clicked on ‘info’, you can forget my questions straight away. KB is enough for me to know that I won’t have any surprises with 13x18 :-) Best regards, Franz

oliverdienst

Hi Oliver, What negative format? How are you processing it? Scanning from a print (what format?) or from the negative? Because: if these are actually contacts developed with GF/Rodinal, then I’d be interested. I’ve just treated myself to just enough sheet films of Classic 400 to go with the GF, and I don’t want to be quite so hard on it. Well, if necessary, I’ll just sacrifice the first box of film to test it out in a homemade fine-grain developer. By the way, I really like your pictures. And now that I’ve clicked on ‘info’ too, you can forget my questions straight away. KB is enough for me to know that I won’t have any surprises with 13x18 :-) Best regards, Franz

Hi Franz, These are scans of the 18x24 baryta print that I made from the 35mm negative. The films were processed for 5:00 mins in LP Supergrain 1+7 at 21–22 °C; the grain becomes slightly finer at 20 °C. Don’t worry, the film produces beautiful grey tones. I also think you won’t have any ‘problems’ with the grain at 13x18 ;-) Best regards, Oliver

cfb_de

Thank you!

Marko

Thanks for your replies. I particularly liked the sample photos. Even at ASA 3200, you can’t really get any convincing grain out of the CHM (if I’ve read the image correctly :D So I’m going to give the ClassicPan 400 a go. Still, I’m left wondering about the DX coding. I often use my black-and-white films in my Leica CM. Unfortunately, the CM doesn’t have DX overwrite, so I need the ISO 400 DX coding on the cassette! With my M6 and Lynx, it doesn’t matter, of course... --Marko

oliverdienst

Thanks for your replies. I particularly liked the sample photos. Even at ASA 3200, you can’t really get any convincing grain out of the CHM (if I’ve interpreted the photo correctly :D So I’m going to give the ClassicPan 400 a go. Still, I’m left wondering about the DX coding. I often use my black-and-white films in my Leica CM. Unfortunately, the CM doesn’t have DX overwrite, so I need the ISO 400 DX coding on the cassette! With my M6 and Lynx, it doesn’t matter... --Marko

Hi Marko, The ‘standard’ ClassicPan 400 is DX-coded. The special offer item with the ‘incorrect’ label currently on sale is not. Oliver

cfb_de

Hello Marko, I don’t understand this. The CHM400 (okay, in my example, using its original name) produces roughly the following grain at 400 ASA in Ultrafin liquid (1+19, 11 mins, 20°C, 3-second tilt non-stop, condenser enlarger):

The scan is of a 16x21 print from a 35mm negative. It is not a cropped enlargement and does not represent a laboratory exception. Scanned with an Apple OneScanner and, apart from some sharpening in IrfanView, without any post-processing. One of the reasons why I’m now developing the film in HRX-II or Rodinal. Rodinal, on the other hand, is a fine-grain developer. And also one of the reasons why I still use Ultrafin. Best regards, Franz (Wolfgang, forgive me)

Wolfgg

It certainly isn't me, just so nobody gets the wrong idea... Best regards, Wolfgang

HansDerHase

Even so, I’m still left wondering about the DX coding. I often use my black-and-white films in my Leica CM. Unfortunately, the CM doesn’t have a DX overwrite function, so I need the ASA 400 DX coding on the cassette!

I wouldn’t worry about the DX coding. Anyone can patch it up as they need with a pocket knife and a marker pen. And you don’t even have to be MacGyver. :D *bookmark.search* Check this out... http://www.litratista.org/2005/11/18/decod...-film-dx-codes/ There’s also a handy guide with pictures showing what it looks like in real life, but I can’t find the link at the moment.

oliverdienst

...I don’t understand that. The CHM400 (okay, in my example I’ll use its original name) produces roughly the following granularity at 400 ASA in Ultrafin liquid (1+19, 11 mins, 20°C, 3-second non-stop tilting, condenser magnification)...

Hi Franz, Your example image is interesting! Until a few days ago, I wouldn’t have thought it possible to really bring out the grain in the CHM 400, but then I exposed it as if it were 800 ASA and developed it for 8:00 mins in Calbe R09 1+20 (20–22°C, Agfa agitation) and obtained the following result: [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND] (print: approx. 12x18 cm on Maco Multibrom F/ condenser/ gradient 3/ Moersch SE2 Warm 1+10/ 2:30 mins.) Although it’s barely visible here on the web, the images look almost like those on ClassicPan 400@400ASA in Rodinal 1+25 So there is still something to be done with the grain on the CHM400 after all :D