Hungarian Fortepan B&W 200ASA

They're selling this stuff at the local camera shop for the introductory
price of $1.00. I ran a roll of it through my Kiev 60 last week. I like
the results. It seems to be a bit more contrasty (?) than Ilford.

The construction of the Fortepan roll is unusual. The paper retaining ring
is really a sticker- you have to rip it off, thus ripping a layer of the
backing off in the process. The spool is also different from most, but it
works just like a normal spool. There are circles cut out of the film tab
slot.

The negative is thin. My processor remarked that she probably should've
left it in the developing tank for another minute or two. It lacks any
lettering on the edges. I had major frame spacing issues with Fortepan.
Other films (Agfa and Ilford) didn't give me any frame spacing trouble.

But for $1.00 a roll I'll shoot it all day long.

Humanoid

Paul Friday wrote in message ...
In message , humanoid
writes
I had major frame spacing issues with Fortepan.
Other films (Agfa and Ilford) didn't give me any frame spacing trouble.

The backing paper and/or film base must be thin. Try putting a short
strip of masking tape across the film backing, as it winds onto the
take-up spool, just before you close the back on a new film.

I have heard that in eastern-block countries the thickness of backing
paper was not changed since the 50s or so, but in western countries
manufacturers use a thinner backing paper.

I think this might be true - I have heard several people complaining
about frame spacing with CertoSix folding cameras (with automatic
frame spacing). I have two french Semflex TLRs, one from the 50s and
one from the 70s. The 1950s model has very tight framespacing with
modern film, on the 1970s model it is OK. It seems as if the older one
is calibrated to older 120 film backing paper, while the newer one is
calibrated to the thickness of newer (western) film.

Winfried

Paul Friday wrote in message ...
In message , humanoid
writes
I had major frame spacing issues with Fortepan.
Other films (Agfa and Ilford) didn't give me any frame spacing trouble.

The backing paper and/or film base must be thin. Try putting a short
strip of masking tape across the film backing, as it winds onto the
take-up spool, just before you close the back on a new film.

I have heard that in eastern-block countries the thickness of backing
paper was not changed since the 50s or so, but in western countries
manufacturers use a thinner backing paper.

I think this might be true - I have heard several people complaining
about frame spacing with CertoSix folding cameras (with automatic
frame spacing). I have two french Semflex TLRs, one from the 50s and
one from the 70s. The 1950s model has very tight framespacing with
modern film, on the 1970s model it is OK. It seems as if the older one
is calibrated to older 120 film backing paper, while the newer one is
calibrated to the thickness of newer (western) film.

Winfried

humanoid wrote:
They're selling this stuff at the local camera shop for the introductory
price of $1.00. I ran a roll of it through my Kiev 60 last week. I like
the results. It seems to be a bit more contrasty (?) than Ilford.


The contrast may be nice, but did your negs curl up like dead bugs? I
bought a lot of 10 (400) last year, ran one roll through one of my 120
cameras and after processing it found that the negatives refused to lie
flat. After almost six months they still curl up when released. I gave
the remaining 9 to a friend of mine who is more up on the more obscure
aspects of film cameras, and he got the same result. No, I can't say *I*
like the results at all.

humanoid wrote:
They're selling this stuff at the local camera shop for the introductory
price of $1.00. I ran a roll of it through my Kiev 60 last week. I like
the results. It seems to be a bit more contrasty (?) than Ilford.


The contrast may be nice, but did your negs curl up like dead bugs? I
bought a lot of 10 (400) last year, ran one roll through one of my 120
cameras and after processing it found that the negatives refused to lie
flat. After almost six months they still curl up when released. I gave
the remaining 9 to a friend of mine who is more up on the more obscure
aspects of film cameras, and he got the same result. No, I can't say *I*
like the results at all.

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 14:28:57 -0600, William Earl Haskell wrote:

humanoid wrote:
They're selling this stuff at the local camera shop for the introductory
price of $1.00. I ran a roll of it through my Kiev 60 last week. I like
the results. It seems to be a bit more contrasty (?) than Ilford.


The contrast may be nice, but did your negs curl up like dead bugs? I
bought a lot of 10 (400) last year, ran one roll through one of my 120
cameras and after processing it found that the negatives refused to lie
flat. After almost six months they still curl up when released. I gave
the remaining 9 to a friend of mine who is more up on the more obscure
aspects of film cameras, and he got the same result. No, I can't say *I*
like the results at all.

I haven't had a problem with curling. I keep my negative strips in the
protective plastic sleeves used by my processor. Are you cutting your negs
into individual frames?

Winfried's theory on paper backing thickness is interesting. I thought a
Soviet bloc camera would do well with film from a former Soviet bloc
country. So much for that theory! I'll try it in my K88 soon.

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 14:28:57 -0600, William Earl Haskell wrote:

humanoid wrote:
They're selling this stuff at the local camera shop for the introductory
price of $1.00. I ran a roll of it through my Kiev 60 last week. I like
the results. It seems to be a bit more contrasty (?) than Ilford.


The contrast may be nice, but did your negs curl up like dead bugs? I
bought a lot of 10 (400) last year, ran one roll through one of my 120
cameras and after processing it found that the negatives refused to lie
flat. After almost six months they still curl up when released. I gave
the remaining 9 to a friend of mine who is more up on the more obscure
aspects of film cameras, and he got the same result. No, I can't say *I*
like the results at all.

I haven't had a problem with curling. I keep my negative strips in the
protective plastic sleeves used by my processor. Are you cutting your negs
into individual frames?

Winfried's theory on paper backing thickness is interesting. I thought a
Soviet bloc camera would do well with film from a former Soviet bloc
country. So much for that theory! I'll try it in my K88 soon.