Agfa Photo 6A4360 APX Pan 400 135/36 Film

Product Information

But in conducting this comparison, I have made a couple of realization. First and foremost, my loyalty to Tri-X is deeply misplaced. In figuring out my change in heart, I recall in conversation that Kodak re-engineered Tri-X around the time when digital imaging was proliferating. Digging a little deeper, I read online that the current iteration of Tri-X has less silver - which doesn’t sound encouraging. Admittedly, I’m no engineer, but it’s safe to assume that the grain structure of the current version isn’t the same as the one I used to love. We’ll start with the cheaper or what I would call the budget films. These are films typically used by students or the budget conscious photographer. And, weighing in at a pretty nine cents per frame (again, in USD), the cheapest of all of the films is Ultrafine Xtreme 400. I couldn’t find a lot of information on the history of this film. Though it is labeled as being produced in Europe, and many believe it to be another film simply rebranded, I can’t find any hard evidence to substantiate that claim.

Phew! That was a lot of work. So with the blind test out of the way, now comes the big reveal. Here are the film names associated to their letters: Fact is, we don't even know for certain about every minor change made to our favorite films, papers and chemistry because the makers don't notify us. Generally we find out when the grapevine starts buzzing about different results, which leads to methodical tests that either confirm or disprove the rumors.

I can understand Tim's frustration but if we start boycotting every maker of traditional photo supplies just because they've discontinued a favorite product or changed it without our permission we won't be buying from any of 'em. We'll be coating glass plates and arguing about who makes the best glass and debating the merits of free range vs. captive hens for making albumen prints. For reference, I developed the roll of Kentmere 400 (and Ilford Pan 400) from this film test in my usual soup of Xtol and Rodinal film developers. I’ve used this developing mix for so long it is as much of a safety blanket for me when it comes to film developing. My results may look very similar to when using Xtol developer alone but I feel Rodinal can add increased sharpness. You may find these links of interest – And here are my results. These results are super surprising to me. For those who watched my first version of this test, these results are extremely different. Part of the reason for this is that this time, I am taking into account things like scannability and price into the equation. But even more than that, I just think I had a better process of development and scanning this time. Of the big three players in the U.S. market b&w film, paper and chemistry makers - Kodak, Ilford and Agfa - which one *hasn't* discontinued or altered a favorite product in the last decade? Three Versions of the Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron - APO, Elcan, and Dual Range on the Leica M10 and FujiFilm Superia Venus 800

This review was done with a Canon EOS Elan 7, the Sigma 85mm f1.4 and a Sigma 35mm f1.4 Ease of Use The next step was the development. There are not yet many development times for the new APX 100 from AgfaPhoto. Also a data sheet with development times does not exist to my knowledge. Rollei is one of the oldest and most famous film brands. Perhaps better known for their iconic cameras than their films, but nethertheless they do have a brilliant range of emulsions to choose from (view the full collection here). In this review we will be diving into the wonderful Rollei RPX 400 emulsion!

APX 400

Additionally, several of the films I’m going to cover, people will claim are not “true 400-speed film.” People will say “the box says ISO 400, but everyone knows it works better when exposed with at 200 exposure index or blah blah blah. Look, that may be true of several of these films. However, if the box says it’s a 400-speed film, we’re going to treat it like a 400-speed film. Any film can be developed at a different ASA to yield different results. Just because you may like Foma developed at 200, for instance, doesn’t mean it’s invalid to develop it at the marketed box speed of 400. And that’s exactly what we’re going to do. Landscapes that are mostly stunning. I dislike aerial views. No idea, but I do! Burnt out highlights is the scourge of modern films. I think the emulsion and often base too thin.. Tri-X with it’s curls another film i no longer use. Yes! I’ve done darkroom since a kid. I am 78. I would never carry so many different films. Confusion. Films though are better, in the 60’s 35mm was NOT recommended for landscapes. (Kodak). 120 film is a Big jump in quality. Big means better, 4x bigger. The first t-grain film we’ll discuss is Kodak T-MAX and Lady Gray (which is the same film). This film is very linear, tonally. It has very fine grain. The T-grain emulsion, as I mentioned, high sharpness and very high-edged detail. T-MAX is a great choice if you don’t like grain. The T-MAX base has a pink tint to it. Like Rollei Retro, T-MAX is also extremely curly upon drying but is also currently fairly affordable at .15 per frame.

But if you’re a beginner to film processing, I’d absolutely recommend starting with any of the films I’ve mentioned previously and not this one, as you’ll have an easier time of it. With that disclaimer out of the way, let’s talk about this film. Say you're out shooting; you miss-meter and underexpose your shot a stop. Then you unknowingly use a bad developer/film combination and loose another stop. Gets worse...while your developing your film you mis-measure your Rodinal by what seems like a drop; suddenly you're only using 2.5 mls. Agfa insists that little Rodinal will not work as the developer is exhausted before the process is complete. So the mis-measurement causes another stop or so loss in speed You�re three stops down, your prints are not going to love you...as a mater of fact they are going to be quite disappointing.

The TTArtisan Light Meter is a small average light meter that slips into the camera’s shoe. Since Bronica hasn’t one, I have attached neodymium magnets on the camera and the light meter, magnets form a sturdy connection and I can remove and reattach the light meter easily. Metering is easy and fast, you just press the only button, it takes the reading and keeps it, so you can afterwards see all the combinations of speed/ aperture that make for a proper exposure. All the photos I took with it came out as well metered. Highlights are an interesting subject for this film. Bright areas can have an interesting glow bleeding into the rest of the photo. I'm not sure whether the film is the cause of this or the lens. This is very noticeable on shots taken with an uncoated Leitz Summitar lens. The lens is clean, without haze and fungus but the uncoated nature of the lens could enhance this effect. When shot with a more "modern" lens the effect is less noticeable although the light conditions were different as well. I like the washed out look and would be interested to know what is the cause. If you buy your films on the Internet, now that the film is still new, you should ask the dealer beforehand if it is the old or new film. A version for medium format cameras of the two films is currently not planned.Agfa is a German brand best known for making film, photographic paper and cameras. It was established in 1867 in Berlin. Its name is derived from 'Actien-Gesellschaft für Anilin-Fabrication” (Corporation for Aniline Production) which was abbreviated down to AGFA in 1867. Agfa focused on developing chemicals and films for the photographic industry but began as a colour dye factory, producing photographic chemicals and film products until 1925 when they merged with a number of other German chemical manufacturers (including BASF and Bayer) to form the giant conglomerate IG Farben. They later absorbed Bayer’s Rietzschel camera factory in Munich at this time and began producing cameras. It seems safe to assume that Harmon (maker of Kentmere and Ilford films) does the coating/finishing of this film, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this emulsion is simply Kentmere or HP5 as many claim. Regardless, this film, to me, is surprisingly high quality for one so cheap. It has low contrast with good latitude (define latitude), and I’d say a medium to fine grain. It dries flat and is great for scanning. PAST BYLINES: Gear Patrol, PC Mag, Geek.com, Digital Photo Pro, Resource Magazine, Yahoo! News, Yahoo! Finance, IGN, PDN, and others. From how I developed this film I would say the film performed better under exposed vs. over exposed. You can decide for yourself from the images above. I don’t think I lost too much highlight detail but the shadow performance was particularly impressive. Film shot at box speed then pushed in developing?

Believe or not, after 170 photos I took I still missed the one I was aiming the most to get, the monumental “ Vikos Gorge“, due to very heavy fog on the day we were there. I think I will have to repeat this trip with even more film… Once again I'd like to comment as this does reinforce what several of us have said re; films being developer dependant...

Do You Really Need Modern Lenses for Film Photography? Featuring the 35 Lux AA + 50 Noct 1.2 compared to their current version Nikon 105mm f/1.4E - A Tale of Brand Loyalty and Superiority (or my excuse to post more sample images) This spreadsheet is based on the split 10 decision-making process, though simplified a bit and customized to fit, specifically, to our blind film test.After the dissolution of IG Farben, Agfa emerged as its own independent company again before becoming a subsidiary of Bayer in 1952. In 1964, Agfa AG merged with Belgian photographic company Gevaert Photo-Producten N.V. to form Agfa-Gevaert N.V. which would remain under Bayer’s control until 1999. The company continued manufacturing film cameras until the early 1980s and then produced a series of unsuccessful entry-level digital cameras from the mid 1990s until the early 2000s. Because of the overcast conditions and subject matter (Fort Worth's Modern Art Museum) I decided to process in Rodinal for approximately 50% longer than normal time. This proved to be a good guess - if anything the roll could have used a bit more development, tho' the roll is about right for a condenser head (I'm using a color head at the moment). The grain is as expected from an ISO 400 film. Not too "in your face" but noticeable without needing a magnifying glass. I've seen better and I've seen worse. The sharpness is also very acceptable and has the nice film softness whilst not actually being soft. Surprisingly, despite reports that the film is grainy and the prolonged development in 1:50 Rodinal I find the grain entirely acceptable for moderate enlargements. Far less gritty than TMY at 400, sharper than Tri-X. Just right for this shoot.