Gast
Hello,
I’m sitting here in a hotel in beautiful Romania, but unfortunately I’ve ‘somehow’ forgotten my film for the Rolleiflex.
The only thing the local camera shop has is Azopan PS-21, which doesn’t look very trustworthy.
I managed to buy about 20 rolls; it’s not that expensive, after all.
Now my question is, can you actually take decent photos with it at all? Otherwise, I’ll hop on the train to Bucharest tomorrow and buy some APX (or, at worst, any old film), if they have any there.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Richard
hambo
I think you can take photos with it. For development, I’d use a universal developer like D76 and try developing a roll of film for 8–10 minutes to see how it goes. You could also do some test strips.
RomanJRohleder
Richard,
>I’m sitting here in a hotel in beautiful Romania, but unfortunately I’ve >‘somehow’ forgotten my film for the Rolleiflex.
How on earth does one manage that?
>The only thing the local camera shop has is Azopan PS-21, which doesn’t >look very trustworthy.
Azomures. Ah, they’re still in the photo shops.
http://www.azomures.com/newsite/products.shtml
>I managed to buy about 20; it’s not that expensive.
How much?
>Now my question: can you actually take decent photos with it at all?
Don’t know, never used it, never read about anyone else’s experiences with it.
But: why not unpack one and have a look at it? Major casting defects, scratches etc. should be visible on the film.
If nothing else stands out, I’d just give it a 50 ASA exposure and, once home, pop it into D76 or Rodinal after using a dedicated test film.
>Otherwise, I’ll be on the train to Bucharest tomorrow
How much effort would it take to get to Bucharest and find a shop there?
Roman
Gast
Hello,
Thank you for your feedback.
Roman,
>I’m sitting here in a hotel in beautiful Romania, but unfortunately I’ve >‘somehow’ forgotten my film for the Rolleiflex.
How does one manage that?
I took the films out of my suitcase at home and put one in my jacket pocket and a second one in the camera, grr... and then didn’t put my APXs back in the suitcase.
But: why not unpack one and have a look at it? Major casting defects, scratches etc. should be visible on the film.
That’s what I did, and at least one is fine!
If nothing else stands out, I’d just give it a 50 ASA exposure and, once home, pop it into D76 or Rodinal after a dedicated test film.
Why 50 ASA? 21 DIN is 100, isn’t it? I don’t want any overexposure or anything like that.
I’ve given up on Bucharest; it’d take at least six hours including the journey there and back and searching around.
But how could you capture Romania more authentically than on Romanian film stock :angry: .
I suppose I’ll have to expect relatively coarse grain and limited antihalation?
Regards
Richard
Gast
Roman,
you did want to know the price, didn't you? It works out at just under €0.90.
Richard
Gast
Richard!
Azopan, well, it’s not sharp or fine-grained, so it’s not particularly good, but as long as it’s free of defects, you can still use it for photography.
Use a sharp developer, otherwise everything will turn out a mess.
Here’s an example of a film with defects – not meant to discourage you, but it shows very nicely what the film looks like.
http://hulubei.net/tudor/photography/photo...e-1500x1000.jpg
The anti-glare coating isn’t great, but that doesn’t matter in December, or is there bright sunshine in Romania?
Oleksander
Gast
I’m sitting here in a hotel in beautiful Romania at the moment; unfortunately, I’ve ‘somehow’ forgotten my film for the Rolleiflex.
[right][post="5534"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
Hello Richard,
First of all, a (Latin) Christmas greeting to Romania!
Where exactly are you? In Brașov/Kronstadt or Sibiu/Hermannstadt, you should also be able to get Westfilm in 120 format.
Regards,
Andreas (had enough Fomapan 120 in my suitcase 1.5 years ago)
RomanJRohleder
Richard,
>I took the films out of my case at home and put one in my jacket pocket and a second one in the camera, grr... and then I didn’t put my APX films back in the case.
Horror.
>>If nothing else stands out, I’d just give it a 50 ASA exposure and >>at home, after a specially dedicated test film, pop it in D76 or Rodinal.
Add ‘with reduced development time’ to that.
>Why 50 ASA? 21 DIN is 100, isn’t it?
Because we don’t know which standards god the Romanians worshipped when writing their spec sheet, and surely you want to enjoy a touch of shadow detail. Don’t you?
> I don’t want any overexposure or anything like that.
Pfft. The Romanians aren’t Chinese, after all.
Test the AHU: Take the test film and a hotel bill or a page from Der Spiegel or whatever. Load the film in reasonably good light and read what’s written underneath. Can’t do it? Fine.
Long words, no point – take a look at the following image, it’s a negative example:
<HTTP://blafh.de/p1010015.jpg>
>But how could one depict Romania more authentically than on >Romanian film stock
With Romanian pigments, ground and mixed by hand?
Gast
AHU test: Take the test film and a hotel receipt, or a page from *Der Spiegel*, or something similar. Hold the film up in reasonably good light and read what’s written underneath. Can’t do it? Good.
Long words, no point – take a look at the following image, which is a negative example:
<http://blafh.de/p1010015.jpg>
[right][post="5546"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
Roman,
In the "Rechungs-Teschd" test, the Fomapan 100 also fails. I haven’t had any overexposure yet, though.
Regards,
Andreas
Gast
Andreas,
Roman is right, but the emulsion side must definitely face upwards.
If I don’t take that into account, films like the KB Efke or Pan-F, for example, fail the test as well.
Incidentally, the Svema, which has only a grey base in the KB range, fails the test in any case; perhaps we could revisit this in the context of Efke Triacetate – a grey base simply isn’t enough.
Roland
ChristianKolinski
Pfft. Romanians aren’t Chinese, after all.
Here’s a quick test: Take the test film and a hotel receipt or a page from *Der Spiegel* or something similar. Hold the film up to a decent light source and read what’s written underneath. Can’t do it? Fine.
Long words, no point – have a look at the following image; it’s a negative example:
<http://blafh.de/p1010015.jpg>
I really must take this unsightly image offline at last.
Gast
Hello,
To get straight to the point and say something on the subject, I believe the issue of antihalation protection is irrelevant here, because the anti-halation layer on roll films is located on the back of the base.
It’s only a problem with 35mm films, where the anti-halation layer – if present – has to be between the emulsion and the base material, because it’s somewhat sensitive to mechanical stress, which apparently not every manufacturer can manage.
Is there any roll film at all that doesn’t have a decent anti-halation layer? As far as I know, even with Lucky, the problem only affects 35mm film, doesn’t it?
Richard, if you want to know whether the edges are sticking to the back, just put the film in water; if it discolours, then everything’s fine.
Roland
Gast
Christian,
whichever image I try, I just get an error message.
Roland
ChristianKolinski
Hello,
To get straight to the point and say something on the subject, I believe the issue of antihalation is irrelevant here, because in roll films the anti-halation layer is located on the back of the base.
It is only a problem with 35mm films, where the anti-halation layer, if present, has to be placed between the emulsion and the base material, as it is somewhat sensitive to mechanical stress, which apparently not every manufacturer can manage.
Is there any roll film at all that doesn’t have a decent anti-halation layer? As far as I know, even with Lucky, the problem only affects 35mm films, doesn’t it?
No, it affects roll film too, as could be seen/read even in the very well-written ‘test report’ in the Wollstein column of SW Magazine. It affects 35mm more severely, however, and combined with the larger dimensions to which a 35mm negative is enlarged... *shudder*.
The image
http://blafh.de/p1010015.jpg
shows the 400 Lucky, by the way – here’s the well-known HP5+ for comparison:
http://blafh.de/p1010014.jpg
.
The Lucky combines two unfortunate characteristics: an almost crystal-clear base film, and a pitiful (or non-existent) AHU... we can see the result in our host’s catalogue.
Christian
huehnerhose
Good morning!
I think your ‘over-exposure test’ is nonsense. I’ve just put a roll of Fuji Neopan 400 through this ‘test’ and the background comes through perfectly well. But I haven’t heard anyone say that it’s over-exposed.
And personally, I thought the result from my Lucky film was good too. Yes, it looks different from what you’re used to with other films, but you can certainly make the most of its “weaknesses”. The catalogue image is a very good example of that. (Please don’t use this as a hook; I don’t want to start a religious war now – I think the topic has been discussed enough already)
And at the end of the day, the subject matter is what counts anyway! Somehow that gets lost when reading the forums...
Regards
huehnerhose
P.S. Please just ignore the 2nd/3rd paragraph; this was about helping Richard with his film, not talking about perspectives and luck :angry:
ChristianKolinski
Good morning!
I think your ‘first-run test’ is nonsense.
It is – unless the film manufacturer has been asleep at the wheel on all fronts.
But I suppose they have at Lucky. Still, if I find the time early next year, the image will disappear.
RomanJRohleder
Sebastian,
Strong words. But it seems nobody has ever explained the difference between ‘Teschts’ and ‘tests’ to you. A shame – your loss.
Rainer had reservations; it was just a quick, clear, simple experiment, nothing more.
>(Please don’t use this as a hook; I don’t want to start a war of words right now, >I think the topic has already been discussed at length)
Why did you bring it up in the first place, then?
Roman
huehnerhose
Morgen Roman,
I have to agree with you on two counts: I really don’t know the difference, and I don’t see the point in promoting stuff like that, which has absolutely no practical use.
And secondly, you’re right, I shouldn’t have said anything about Lucky at this point. I’m just annoyed that the film always has to serve as an uncritical negative example and that I’ve never said a single positive word about it.
RomanJRohleder
Sebastian,
What makes you think of referring to an assessment as ‘unreflective’?
Just because you don’t agree with a judgement, or because it goes against your own feelings, that doesn’t mean the judgement is unreflective or plucked out of thin air.
You don’t know the story, do you? First, a material is sold as a new professional-grade product at rock-bottom prices; then it’s touted as suitable for beginners; and finally, it’s pushed into the art market. It paints a somewhat incoherent picture.
Roman
Gast
Hello,
It doesn’t quite look right – how do you manage to get such lovely, rich-looking photos like the ones in the example?
Mine always turn out rather plain and plain-looking, rather than wonderfully creamy.
Many thanks,
Willi
