Pseudo XP2 from Europe / China

[Dave S.]

I like to shoot Kodak BW400CN. I really like the way it looks, that I can get it developed at Costco for inexpensively, and that it excels in the all to common grey days we have here in the Pacific North-West.

So I stumble on a listing for a lot of 50 rolls of black and white C41 film on the big auction site that claims to be:

"MADE TO REPLICATE ILFORD XP2 AND HAS BEEN TESTED TO GIVE EQUIVALENT RESULTS"

and

"HAS BEEN USED BY NUMEROUS PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS AND THE REVIEWS WERE EXCELLENT!"

It's late, I'm out of BW400CN, I've shot XP2 and like it (not as much as BW400CN mind you), and the price works out to $1.60 a roll(!). In a momentary lapse of reason and irrational exuberance I click though on the Buy It Now option.

Mistake! :bang:

I just got back my first roll and was really disappointed. The film appears to have a history of being accidentally exposed to light and/or damage. The problems appear intermittently throughout the roll. I feel confident this was not due to a camera malfunction (i.e. a light leak in my Bessa R3a) or an error in processing (I've been very happy with the Costco lab I have used for the past couple of years).

I have contacted the seller and asked to return the unused film for a full refund.

You get what you pay for… Silly me.

Below are some examples of the defects + some shots of the film in question.

Similar information on this topic is posted here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101745

 

[pvdhaar]

You get what you pay for… Silly me.

Yeah, but still it's a bummer.

But look on the bright side; at least you found out before you left on that once in a lifetime holiday with only a crate of pseudo XP2..

 

[Joe Vitessa]

I just bought a couple rolls of that from Ultrafine. We'll see what happens. I also purchased some of their generic XP2 that comes in 24 count cartridges. That is supposedly a different film. It's also more expensive -- $2.69/roll. Will hopefully post results soon. I know others have had some success with it.

 

[sig]

The light leak is on th same place in the photos, does than not indicate shutter error? As in if it was a film issue it would be more random?

 

[Sparrow]

... yep I'd look at the camera first myself

 

[Dave S.]

UPDATE: The seller has agreed to a return of the unused film with full refund.

Joe: Thanks for the info. Yes, please post your results / experience with the film from Ultrafine.

Sig & Sparrow: Thanks for your input. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions? That said, I've never had any problems with my Bessa R3a. My hunch is that it is a film problem. I'll shoot a fresh roll of Kodak BW400CN in the Bessa and update after development.

 

[bobby_novatron]

I bought 10 rolls of that stuff last year. I didn't have the strange white bands across the image that you encountered -- but generally I really didn't like this film. Not nearly as good sharpness, grain, or tonality as BW400CN or XP2.

Like you said, you get what you pay for. This cheap c41 stuff is crap.

 

[Dave S.]

bobby_novatron: Even if the film didn't have the problems mentioned above I still didn't like it. It has significant grain and a high volume of dirt and dust.

On a side note: I was surprised to discover that some of the rolls of film in my lot had an orange mask - as on the roll pictured above (like BW400CN) while others did not have this mask.

 

[farlymac]

Very strange looking markings on that film. Not only does it look like a leak, but that it is scratched also. Don't know how you get vertical scratches in a camera unless a vertical travelling curtain is hitting the film. Don't the Voigtlanders have horizontal travel? And as far as Costco being absolved of all wrong, anything can happen with their machines. The CVS I use has to fix theirs at least three times a month.

PF

 

[Dave S.]

farlymac: Thanks for the input. Regarding the Bessa R3a shutter:

"Metal Vertically Traveling Mechanical or Electronic Modified Copal shutter"

-source: cameraquest.com

It's certainly worthy of consideration....

 

[Joe Vitessa]

Well, I had some of my generic XP2 C-41 developed and it's AWFUL. This is the 24-count from Ultrafine, not the 27-count stuff. Lots of scratches, dirt and some fogging. Won't be using that again.

I also picked up some Kodak Gold 400 from Ultrafine for snapshots. It was sold as fresh, but it's clearly expired as it printed with an off-cast. That's the second time I've purchased film from Ultrafine that's been sold as new, but have had poor results. Get what you pay for, I suppose. I'll be sticking with Freestyle from now on.

 

[raid]

I would drop Ultrafine for their not-so-ultra-fine film.

 

[raid]

I am glad that I have not trusted this cheap film even though I have taken long looks at it.

 

[Graham Line]

What are the edge markings on the developed negatives? Do they indicate the manufacturer?

 

[Russ]

I've gotten excellent results with Neopan 400CN (similar to XP-2 and made by Ilford for Fuji). And I've always been happy with XP-2. However, I've always gotten flat, lifeless results with Kodak B/W 400CN. And, I'm always very suspicious of any photographic or automotive products that come out of China. The quality control over there, is dubious at best. The attached snaps were shot on Neopan 400CN. Straight scans from the neg's. No post processing.

 

[jb17kx]

That DX barcode is from a block assigned to Ferrania...

Could just be canister re-use though.

 

[Joe Vitessa]

What are the edge markings on the developed negatives? Do they indicate the manufacturer?

There are actually NO edge markings on the fake XP2 stuff from Ultrafine except for the frame number and an ISO 400. That's it. It also has a clear base, not orange-y like Kodak BW400CN. I'll try to post some of my horrible results when I get home.

 

[btgc]

Film is popular! It gets faked just like designer bags and expensive cosmetics! Wooohooo!

Thanks for telling this so people know what they can expect from bargain substitute.

 

[tomalophicon]

I think, regardless of the banding, that your pictures look nice. Sure they might be grainy, but they're still sharp and have a nice vintage look that I'm diggin'.

 

[Russ]

I think, regardless of the banding, that your pictures look nice. Sure they might be grainy, but they're still sharp and have a nice vintage look that I'm diggin'.

Indeed. Not every snap has to be fine grained. Sometimes medium to large grain actually adds to the feel and mood of the image.