Basic review of JCH Streetpan 400
Old 01-02-2017   #1
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,769
Basic review of JCH Streetpan 400

So the Streepan 400 film was available as a boxing day sale item at one of our local shops. I figured I'd give it a try and make a video review about the film.

You can find the video here:

https://youtu.be/ENdW1RzUmcg

I just go over the most major of all observations I have with this film. Also a selection of images from the roll.











__________________
TumblrYoutube
  Reply With Quote

Honest review
Old 01-02-2017   #2
Muju79
http://muju.tumblr.com/
 
Muju79's Avatar
 
Muju79 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 88
Honest review

Nice work: seems to me like a very honest review, not a biased one.

My money is not going on this film for 2 reasons:

1. I print my b&w work in my darkroom so I prefer to control contrast by myself and I prefer to have as much exposure latitude as possible and as much details kept in shadows and highlights as possible.

2. More importantly, my money for film is going to companies that are investing in producing fresh film and emulsions, not to someone who is leading a sketchy commercial operation, not even giving clear details about the source of the thing that he's selling. To someone who asked directly about the source of this film Mr. Bellamy himself on his IG avoided giving details and replied "it's complicated". In my experience, when someone tells you it's complicated, it never is. Quite the opposite.

Personal opinions, other people here may or may not agree.
__________________
Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!
(F.W. Nietzsche, “Thus spoke Zarathustra”)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #3
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,769
I'm with you muju. Its really deceiving because this film is described as a good low light film and apart from high contrast. But I can't see how it is. The 5th shot from the too was shot f11 1/500 in bright sunlight and still came out thinner than I would like.

This film isn't printable. I could maybe try to print a couple more well exposed images but the majority would be an absolute nightmare to print.

Another thing to note is the base isn't clear but looks like it has fog. It doesn't have a colored tint like ilford or kodak films. I'm not super familiar with Agfa films and can't remember if this is a characteristic or not.

The film itself is very thin. Almost like it has a poly base or something like that. The thickness of the film is physically different from traditional bw films. The feeling reminds me of the old ilford hp4 72exposure films.
__________________
TumblrYoutube
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #4
SyPat
Registered User
 
SyPat is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 54
underexposed by about 1 stop, I would say.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2017   #5
Uncle Bill
Registered User
 
Uncle Bill's Avatar
 
Uncle Bill is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Oakville (somewhere west of Toronto) Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,052
A few observations from my experiences with JCH Streetpan 400. I picked up three rolls at Downtown Camera in Toronto and over the course of three months shot through Nikon FM2n, Nikkormat FTn and Nikon FM last week.

First off this is not leftover film spooled up and flogged for $15 per roll (Canadian dollars), this is FRESH resurrected traffic surveillance film from Agfa on a PET (polyester base), don't be fooled it's a lot tougher than you think. The thing is, this film has near infrared sensitivity, so if you're planning to shoot it in July it's going to be almost too contrasty but from, say the end of October to April, it's the perfect film for gloomy days which Toronto and surrounding areas have plenty of.

Two the other thing I learned with JCH 400 after loading the first roll in my FM2n too close to the window at Prohibition Gastro Pub, with a pet base and near IR sensitive film the first three frames will get fogged a bit, lesson learned on my part. Other than that, I like this film, ok, not the price, if it were to drop say $5-6 per roll I would be shooting it a lot more often.

From my FM2n wtih Ais 50 f1.8 lens.
Georgette_ by Bill Smith, on Flickr

Nikkormat FTn with Nikkor H 50 f2 lens.
Cedar Texture_ by Bill Smith, on Flickr

Nikon FM with Ai 50 f2 lens.

Slushy Chester by Bill Smith, on Flickr

All three rolls were rated at 320 ISO and processed in HC110 B. five min flat at 20c and scanned into TIFF file via Epson V600. I have not darkroom printed with any of three rolls yet.

I found this film fun to use and perfect for capturing Toronto and surrounding areas during the endless grey season from fall to spring. I would not use it from say mid-April to late October, Rollei RPX 400 can handle that nicely
__________________
Leica M3 and M4-2, Canon P. Medium Format: Rolleicord IV, Rolleicord Vb, Mamiya C220f kit, Rolleiflex Series E 3.5 Planar version 1, Type 3 Rolleiflex 3.5 Planar F TLR<a
http://flickr.com/photos/funwithcameras
http://funwithcameras.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2017   #6
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,286
I like them in OP a lot. Contrast which I can't achieve and nice content with effect of been close but not intrusive. My respect for support of film manufacturer and local shop.
#5 post photos shows quality of this film as well.

I'm not sure about printing comment. I have printed from negatives which are not looking easy. It just looks different on prints, not bad, but different. I could try to print from it. I'll be walking by location on Queen later on tomorrow (Thursday).
Fog on the back might be form under fixing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2017   #7
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,769
I should reiterate, the negatives I shot are barely printable. It's entirely possible that with a different developer, or rated speed you'd get something with some density worth printing.

Kofe if you want to have a strip to try your luck I wouldn't mind.
__________________
TumblrYoutube
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2017   #8
znapper
Registered User
 
znapper's Avatar
 
znapper is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 404
Too high contrast and thin negatives would indicate that you shot the film at a too great rated speed (it may be slower than expected) and sort of pushed-develop it.

If you shoot it at EI 100-200 and then try and reduce your development by 40-50%, you may be more lucky regarding the contrast and thickness.
IE, shoot for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

I must stress that I haven't tried the film myself, my experience stems from shooting Rollei 400IR (sunlight, hard contrast).
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2017   #9
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,769
As noted, with adjustment I'm sure that the film can produce good images. The review was based off of the recommended speeds and times provided by JCH
__________________
TumblrYoutube
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2017   #10
bucs
Registered User
 
bucs's Avatar
 
bucs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manila, PH
Age: 28
Posts: 389
The results i've seen online seems to be consistent in that the images lack shadow detail. Apart from that I just think the price is too expensive.

Imagine naming your film STREETpan. A bit gimmicky imo
__________________
Nathan
7107
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2017   #11
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
I'm with you muju. Its really deceiving because this film is described as a good low light film and apart from high contrast. But I can't see how it is. The 5th shot from the too was shot f11 1/500 in bright sunlight and still came out thinner than I would like.
Looks like the correct ISO rating should be closer to 200 than 400.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2017   #12
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,769
Agreed. If I was to shoot it again I would likely expose at 200. But I won't shoot it again. Far too expensive, and I know what to expect from tri-x and tmax. I like consistency.
__________________
TumblrYoutube
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2017   #13
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,860
It seems like very expensive film when compared to the competition.

I would go with the usual standard if I had to pay the full T.O. rip off camera store price and have no technical surprises after development at home.

http://www.henrys.com/9404-ILFORD-HP...SO-574616.aspx
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2017   #14
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 377
It is gaining fans in Portland, OR.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2017   #15
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,584
it's a ripoff. just get a 100ft roll of maco ts eagle for 55 euros!

https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/tr...-30.5m-on-core
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-24-2017   #16
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,112
Glad to see you had a chance to take this film for a spin around the block Blkrcat. Nice job with your review by the way.

I used up quite a lot of this and have worked with several different developers but I did not have any Xtol around. Based on your results I have to agree with your conclusions but I do feel you could have made a better point of trying other developers. At least I now know to avoid Xtol.

I have recently been having good luck developing this film in Beutler at 1:1:8 and 11 minutes as suggested by Tom Abrams. D23 at 1:1 seems to be useful as well. Gentle, infrequent agitation seems to help as well.

I do agree that this film is not really a good choice for a film newbie since to actually get the best out of it takes a little more time and effort than just shooting a single roll. I have no argument that TriX is certainly a good choice for someone just starting out with film.

I can't agree that it isn't really a good street film since jonmanjiro seems to have been successful with it in the street.

Overall a good job, but I do feel saddened that you continue to insist on spreading the rumor that this isn't a newly produced film. While I do not disagree that the film is probably based on a previously available street surveillance film that doesn't change the fact that it is a newly produced film as Bellamy has stated on more than one occasion. Since you insist on this I can only assume some bad blood between you and Bellamy must underlie your insistence that Bellamy is not being truthful.

Finally, though the cost is high, this film is worth using from my perspective, and does have a reason for being on the market. Thankfully we do not all have to work with the same four films from Kodak or Ilford.

Keep up the good work.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2017   #17
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Honest review. Thanks.
I can agree with the results. I've tested the film as well: Result: This film is identical to the former Agfa Aviphot Pan 400 / Agfa ASP 400s I used in the past. This film was also sold in the past under several different brand names like Rollei IR or Compard GP 27. Most of these house brands were offered in Europe, so lots of European photographers know this film very well from the past.
By the way:
Agfa discontinued this film already in 2008 (in that year the last coating run was done). From that time on Agfa only sold the remaining stock to aerial photographers.
I know that for sure because at that time a friend of mine worked in the aerial photo business and was a big customer of Agfa aerial film. And he got this discontinuation information in 2008 directly from Agfa.
For that reason all the house brands switched from Aviphot Pan 400 to Aviphot Pan 200.
Current Rollei Superpan 200, Rollei Retro 400S and Rollei IR are all the same film: Agfa Aviphot Pan 200.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
I'm with you muju. Its really deceiving because this film is described as a good low light film and apart from high contrast. But I can't see how it is. The 5th shot from the too was shot f11 1/500 in bright sunlight and still came out thinner than I would like.
This film of course cannot be a good low light film because it is not at all a real ISO 400/27° film.
Because the speed of aerial films is tested and defined in a different way:
In aerial photography you take your shots from above directly down: The lighting conditions are completely different compared to photography on the ground: You almost have no shadows, and not so bright lights.
That is why characteristic curves of aerial films are completely different compared to normal photographic films: Lack of shadow detail (= lack of speed) Zone I - III, then very steep in the midtones Zone IV to VII, and quite flat in the light zones VIII to X.

The speed of aerial films is generally tested at Zone III, and not at Zone I ! Because Zone I is irrelevant in aerial photography. That is the reason why you get underexposed shots with huge lack of shadow detail if you use aerial films at their aerial speed rating in normal photography on the ground.
Using the old Aviphot Pan 400 / JCH Street Pan as an ISO 400/27° speed film on the ground means strong pushing, massive lack of shadow detail and heavy contrasts.
Is that the way to go for optimal results in street photography?
I don't think so.
To advertize this film as a film for street photography is therefore very problematic.

So the ISO / speed data of the re-labelled aerial-film based Rollei films and this JCH film is misleading.
If you want normal results with sufficient shadow detail and normal contrast you have to lower the ISO rating in most developers by about 2 stops at least (and adjust the developing time; the developing times of Rollei and JCH are push processing times).

With this Aviphot Pan 400 / JCH Street Pan you also have another problem: This film only has about 1/3 stop more effective speed than the current Aviphot Pan 200 (which was improved at the time the Aviphot Pan 400 was discontinued).
That was also one reason why Agfa had discontinued it. The real difference to the (in relative terms) better Aviphot Pan 200 is tiny.

You will see that immediately if you compare the current Aviphot Pan 200 (Rollei Superpan 200) with the JCH Street Pan:
Test the films, evaluate the real effective speed with a densitometer to get the characteristic curve and your result will be only a tiny difference in speed of about 1/3 stop. I've done these tests with different developers.

Conclusion:
If you really want such an aerial film and its specific look, currently by far the best deal is using Rollei Superpan 200 (= Agfa Aviphot Pan 200). Almost identical characteristics and effective speed compared to the old Aviphot Pan 400 / JCH Street Pan, but at less than half the price (!!). And it is fresh film (current coating), not 9 year old film as the older 400 version.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2017   #18
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,769
Skiff AMAZING information. It was very hard to track down exactly when Agfa discontinued this film or find any inside information about the testing and characteristics of the film.

The reason I say that the film was discontinued in 2015 was because looking at the agfa site from the wayback machine it looks like the site was updated in 2015 to add
"(discontinued)" to the Aviphot Pan 400.

I find all of the information very interesting though. It does give good reasons to stick with conventional photo films dedicated to their intended task.

Pioneer, I don't have anything against Bellamy per se. We've actually never had any interactions. Actually, I use his JCH cases in my bag and I really like them a lot.

My only gripe is that there seems to be a lot of here-say about Bellamy's claims about this film. We have two camps usually. One camp has people saying "Bellamy says its new produced film" then the others like Skiff has fact. I've found the data sheets on Aviphot Pan 400s and the characteristics are directly copy and pasted on camerafilmphoto's site just with the names changed to JCH streepan. If the film is Aviphot pan 400 (which most evidence proves that it is) why is he hiding it so carefully? Raso at FPP openly states he respools all sorts of stuff.

I agree with you that it would have been beneficial to use other developers. For those of us who soup at home and develop our own stuff it's important information to know. I bought the streetpan film with my own cash because a local camera shop had it on boxing day sale so I only had the one roll.

Xtol is my main developer, usually gives the flattest neg for scanning. In hindsight my thinking being it's probably best scenario for dynamic range. Another thing is the pro lab I go to for color uses Xtol for all of its black and white. I'm not sure how many other labs use Xtol but I don't think a pro lab would end up developing with something exotic like we can at home. I think the chances of them souping with xtol, d76, hc110 are quite high.

I did mention that I think that the exposure, dev information wasn't optimal for this film and could be improved with the understanding that some more exotic developers could yield better results.

All in all thanks for taking the time to watch it. It's really my first "real" review. After having some time to reflect on it there's a lot of information I would like to include but I always have this conflict between information and content. Majority of people just want to see shots and results. Talking head videos haven't really worked out for me in the past.
__________________
TumblrYoutube
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2017   #19
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
Skiff AMAZING information.
You are welcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
The reason I say that the film was discontinued in 2015 was because looking at the agfa site from the wayback machine it looks like the site was updated in 2015 to add
"(discontinued)" to the Aviphot Pan 400.
About that time the remaining stock in their film warehouse was depleted, and all film was sold.
As mentioned above, the production (coating) was already stopped in 2008. At the time when they improved the Aviphot Pan 200 a bit.

The Agfa film warehouse in Mortsel is huge, by the way (in former times they published pictures of it on their homepage).
The Aviphot Chrome 200 film for example was produced in 2005 at the former Agfa plant in Germany. The stock was so big that it lasted more than 10 years. But that stock is now depleted as well.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2017   #20
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
But I won't shoot it again. Far too expensive, and I know what to expect from tri-x and tmax. I like consistency.
So why shoot it at all?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2017   #21
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,769
If you're asking me its because I didn't know what to expect, purchased my single roll on discount, and thought it would be an interesting video to make.

If you're asking anyone else, your guess is as good as mine.
__________________
TumblrYoutube
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2017   #22
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 377
I wish someone from Blue Moon would weigh in because whatever they are using to develop is doing beautifully. 9 minutes developing time. My prints coming back look much like FP4.

One roll of mine had some fuzz/threads in it that made advancing the roll difficult and I had some spacing/rewinding issues. But apart from that, we are seeing lovely results in Portland.

Camera: M4.
Lens: 1.5/50mm Zeiss C Sonnar
Exposures: Sunny 16 and a Mark One Eyeball. Box speed.
Renderings: slightly more contrasty thanFP4

If I had the capability, I'd scan an upload with no post for people to examine/critique.

Thanks for the tip on Rollei Superpan 200. I'll try that too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2017   #23
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl J. View Post
I wish someone from Blue Moon would weigh in because whatever they are using to develop is doing beautifully. 9 minutes developing time. My prints coming back look much like FP4.

One roll of mine had some fuzz/threads in it that made advancing the roll difficult and I had some spacing/rewinding issues. But apart from that, we are seeing lovely results in Portland.

Camera: M4.
Lens: 1.5/50mm Zeiss C Sonnar
Exposures: Sunny 16 and a Mark One Eyeball. Box speed.
Renderings: slightly more contrasty thanFP4

If I had the capability, I'd scan an upload with no post for people to examine/critique.

Thanks for the tip on Rollei Superpan 200. I'll try that too.
Thanks DarylJ, I will have to pack up a roll or two and ship it off to Blue Moon to see how it works out. This is at least the 2nd time I have read that others in Portland are having great results. I do buy some LF film from them but haven't tried their developing services yet.

BLKRCAT I will have to give some of Rollei's Superpan 200 a try, always interested in experimenting with new things. However, though I really wasn't specifically trying to prove that JCH Streetpan was better rated at EI200 than its box speed, I did try several rolls at EI200. Unfortunately it didn't work out very well. On the flip side I did notice better response when I bumped the exposure index to EI500.

Not sure that really means anything beyond the fact that there seems to be a lot of unknown around this film waiting for us to explore. Some are perfectly happy with TriX or HP5+, and that is fine. But others like to play around with other alternatives and this film still has potential for learning.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2017   #24
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
So why shoot it at all?
Why not? Some of us enjoy playing around a bit. Of course if people reject the film and it doesn't sell well then I doubt Bellamy will want to produce more of it. The more that is coated and sold the further the price can drop.

For myself there are lots of positives to somewhat offset the per roll cost. The first is that it does seem to work very well and consistently if you have some time to dial in your exposure indexes and your developing regime. Kind of like what people used to do when a new film came on the market. But, not everyone any longer has time for this, nor the patience I think.

Another positive is how flat it dries which makes it perfect for scanning. No bowing in the middle to throw off the scanner focus so you get a sharp scan without having to do wet scanning or use other scanning techniques to compensate. Of course, if you print enlarge and print then this may not be an issue, though I have much better luck printing flat negs myself.

Obviously this is all a personal decision, as most film choices are. I actually like this film and will be buying 100 more rolls in a couple more months as I am starting to run a little low. Of course, that assumes Bellamy will have more when I am ready to buy.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2017   #25
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
Why not? Some of us enjoy playing around a bit. Of course if people reject the film and it doesn't sell well then I doubt Bellamy will want to produce more of it. The more that is coated and sold the further the price can drop.
Again:
The last coating run of this film was in 2008. Agfa discontinued it long ago. And they will never make this film again. Agfa is step by step reducing their activities in aerial film production.
There is no "production" (= emulsion making and coating) of this film anymore. All what is done is converting old warehouse stock to 35mm cassettes printing the JCH label on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
Obviously this is all a personal decision, as most film choices are. I actually like this film and will be buying 100 more rolls in a couple more months as I am starting to run a little low. Of course, that assumes Bellamy will have more when I am ready to buy.
Of course nothing is wrong if you like the look of Agfa aerial film. As said above, I am using them as well for many many years for certain projects.
The characteristics you like you will also have with the Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 (= Rollei Superpan 200 = Rollei Retro 400S = Rollei Infrared). At less than half the price.
And if you want to support the industry, supporting real current production, then the Aviphot Pan 200 (and Aviphot Pan 80) is the only way to go. Because they are still in production (= fresh coatings).
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2017   #26
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 377
Aviphot Pan 80 is available under what brand names please?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2017   #27
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl J. View Post
Aviphot Pan 80 is available under what brand names please?
Rollei Retro 80S.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2017   #28
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
Again:
The last coating run of this film was in 2008. Agfa discontinued it long ago. And they will never make this film again. Agfa is step by step reducing their activities in aerial film production.
There is no "production" (= emulsion making and coating) of this film anymore. All what is done is converting old warehouse stock to 35mm cassettes printing the JCH label on it.
Bellamy notes it as a new coating so one of you seems to be getting your information from different sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
Of course nothing is wrong if you like the look of Agfa aerial film. As said above, I am using them as well for many many years for certain projects.
The characteristics you like you will also have with the Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 (= Rollei Superpan 200 = Rollei Retro 400S = Rollei Infrared). At less than half the price.
And if you want to support the industry, supporting real current production, then the Aviphot Pan 200 (and Aviphot Pan 80) is the only way to go. Because they are still in production (= fresh coatings).
Thanks for the heads up on the film Skiff. I will give the Rollei Superpan 200 a try but I have tried Rollei Retro 400S and my results with that film didn't look anything like JCH Streetpan when developed with the same material and techniques. I still have some on ice and if I can find the right box in the freezer I will try it once more but I don't expect my results to be any different.

As for supporting the "real current" production of film I certainly have done my part, and continue to do so. This includes not only JCH Streetpan but many, many other brands as well.

While I respect your opinions, I really don't think that who I support and what film I decide to purchase is yours to decide. There are many of us who have widely differing tastes and enjoy working with different emulsions. In this case the film is great and the results are consistent, showing excellent quality control through my first 50 rolls. What your own results look like will be a result of your choice of subject matter, exposure, developing and printing results. We all know how many variables there are in those few choices. Some films are easier to use than others, we all know that. I think that BLKRCAT hit it on the head in his review when he said that this film probably is not the best choice for beginners.

I know I enjoy my choices and I am sure you enjoy using your own choices. Let others decide their own choices for themselves. You and others have decided that this film is not your cup of tea. Great! I would never assume to tell you to go against your own choice in this matter.

The results of my own exploration with this film were a little different than BLKRCAT's and can be found in this thread. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156859
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2017   #29
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,769
Just out of curiosity, where does bellamy say that its a new coating?

The only reason why I find it hard to believe is that the characteristics of the film are identical to the Aviphot Pan 400s as per the data sheets.

How could one guy convince agfa to start up their machines for a single run with machines that previously supplied governments and industry? I've read multiple times and its my understanding that most of these machines are designed for high capacity not specialty short runs. This is at least what ferrania has communicated with their factory and fuji and kodaks excuse to discontinue films because the demand high enough to support their large factories.

Just seems a bit odd that one guy can get a film made start to finish. I don't consider Bellamy to be a rich man so what makes him so special? It just sounds very unbelievable. Don't you think that if it was that easy there would be other investors trying to do the same while film is coming back?

But if he can acquire some sort of master roll or large bulk rolls from storage from previous coatings it's a theroy that totally makes sense. He could have a contact at agfa that could sell him a roll that would otherwise sit in storage and become unusable, even package it up for him and ship to his doorstep.
__________________
TumblrYoutube
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2017   #30
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
Just out of curiosity, where does bellamy say that its a new coating?

The only reason why I find it hard to believe is that the characteristics of the film are identical to the Aviphot Pan 400s as per the data sheets.

How could one guy convince agfa to start up their machines for a single run with machines that previously supplied governments and industry? I've read multiple times and its my understanding that most of these machines are designed for high capacity not specialty short runs. This is at least what ferrania has communicated with their factory and fuji and kodaks excuse to discontinue films because the demand high enough to support their large factories.

Just seems a bit odd that one guy can get a film made start to finish. I don't consider Bellamy to be a rich man so what makes him so special? It just sounds very unbelievable. Don't you think that if it was that easy there would be other investors trying to do the same while film is coming back?

But if he can acquire some sort of master roll or large bulk rolls from storage from previous coatings it's a theroy that totally makes sense. He could have a contact at agfa that could sell him a roll that would otherwise sit in storage and become unusable, even package it up for him and ship to his doorstep.
You are absolutely right!

If someone is telling you JCH Street Pan is a freshly coated film, he is lying. Period.
Everyone can look at the Agfa homepage where the Aviphot Pan 400 is described as discontinued for quite some time.

Agfa's coating machine is one of the biggest in the whole industry, designed for huge mass production. Agfa is mainly producing PCB films on it, about 1 million m˛ (!!) p.a.
The absolute minimum for a coating run is about 10,000 m˛ at Agfa, that are more than 170,000 135 films!
That is a really huge investment for a customer who wants that.
Even much much bigger companies than this one-man show Mr. Hunt, like Maco / Rollei-Film, don't have enough capital to finance a production run at Agfa.
That is the reason why Maco / Rollei film is only offering Agfa films from the current Agfa film programme. Films, which Agfa has already produced for other, much bigger industrial segments of the market.
The demand from photographers is much too low to keep such a production running.

This film is most probably converted from pancakes or larger bulk rolls (an Agfa Jumbo roll is too big). As explained above, it was used not only in arial photo applications, but also in traffic surveillance and as infrared film. And several house brands like Rollei and Compard had used it too in the past. As the Compard owner unfortunately died recently and Compard then focussed its activities, that could be a possible source of the raw, not converted bulk rolls.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2017   #31
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,112
This may all be a moot point since the film is sold out and may not be continued.

Anyway, you guys could be right in your assessment since this is what Bellamy says on his website.

"The is not a re-spooled film. This is a discontinued film that has been given a second chance."

I hope more of it makes it to the market as I do enjoy it quite a bit. I still have a couple of months based on current use but may have to try some of these other options if not.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2017   #32
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 377
I just got a roll back from processing/printing. The lighting was a bit tricky. Then lens tricky too.

I got exactly what I wanted.

Would it have been better to use FP4? (Hesitatingly) Maybe.......
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2017   #33
ProSimex
Registered User
 
ProSimex is offline
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Smiths Falls, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 35
If someone wants to re-spool discontinued film and sell it- Great
If he has managed to have an old emulsion remade and hes selling it- Even Better
Why knock it, the more available films the better. This bitterness only emboldens the "film is dead" crowd. My (unasked for) two cents
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2017   #34
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProSimex View Post
If someone wants to re-spool discontinued film and sell it- Great
If he has managed to have an old emulsion remade and hes selling it- Even Better
Why knock it, the more available films the better. This bitterness only emboldens the "film is dead" crowd. My (unasked for) two cents

Its not bitterness, its a respect for truth and honesty. For some of us, personal integrity still means something and its clear that this film is not being marketed honestly.
  Reply With Quote

well ok then
Old 02-01-2017   #35
ProSimex
Registered User
 
ProSimex is offline
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Smiths Falls, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 35
well ok then

I guess if someone uses it they must lack moral fiber due to its ambiguous origins. I'll just sit here with my RolleiRetro80s and let the adults talk.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2017   #36
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProSimex View Post
I guess if someone uses it they must lack moral fiber due to its ambiguous origins. I'll just sit here with my RolleiRetro80s and let the adults talk.

Go back and read what I said. Read slowly, if need be. I did not say people who use the film are immoral. The guy marketing it is, but not the users.

They are probably dumb to pay him twice what the film costs from other vendors who are honest about its origins, but many of those here who bought it did so before the truth finally came out about what, exactly this film is; so they can't be blamed for not knowing any better.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2017   #37
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
I hope more of it makes it to the market as I do enjoy it quite a bit. I still have a couple of months based on current use but may have to try some of these other options if not.
I feel you you pioneer. I think it's really disappointing that since the supply is so limited, if you really fall in love with the look of the film you will get that "discontinued film" feeling when the well dries up!
__________________
TumblrYoutube
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 23:17.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.