BLKRCAT
75% Film
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.
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.
Muju79
http://muju.tumblr.com/
Honest review
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.
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.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
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.
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.
SyPat
Established
underexposed by about 1 stop, I would say.
Uncle Bill
Well-known
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
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 FlickrNikkormat FTn with Nikkor H 50 f2 lens.
Cedar Texture_ by Bill Smith, on FlickrNikon FM with Ai 50 f2 lens.
Slushy Chester by Bill Smith, on FlickrAll 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
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
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.
#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.
______
Well-known
If you want a high contrast film, why not shoot regular film and give it N+1 or N+2 development?
BLKRCAT
75% Film
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.
Kofe if you want to have a strip to try your luck I wouldn't mind.
znapper
Well-known
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).
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).
BLKRCAT
75% Film
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
bucs
Well-known
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
Imagine naming your film STREETpan. A bit gimmicky imo
Huss
Veteran
Looks like the correct ISO rating should be closer to 200 than 400.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
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.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
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-HP5-PLUS-135-36-400-ISO-574616.aspx
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-HP5-PLUS-135-36-400-ISO-574616.aspx
Daryl J.
Well-known
It is gaining fans in Portland, OR.
aizan
Veteran
it's a ripoff. just get a 100ft roll of maco ts eagle for 55 euros!
https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/t...s/1517/maco-ts-eagle-aqs-35mm-x-30.5m-on-core
https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/t...s/1517/maco-ts-eagle-aqs-35mm-x-30.5m-on-core
Pioneer
Veteran
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.
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.
Skiff
Well-known
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.
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.
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.
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.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
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.
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.
Skiff
Well-known
You are welcome.
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.