If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Request time temp dilut. agit, data for Fortepan 400 in Pyrocat-HD | Mr. Natchul | In The Darkroom | 0 | February 6th 05 07:07 PM |
Fortepan -- disappointing results | UncaMikey | 35mm Photo Equipment | 37 | December 13th 04 02:50 PM |
Fortepan -- disappointing results | UncaMikey | Film & Labs | 37 | December 13th 04 02:50 PM |
Push Fortepan 400? | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 16 | November 6th 04 02:21 AM |
Fortepan 400 in D76 1+1 | Frank Pittel | In The Darkroom | 1 | June 28th 04 02:00 AM |