So why are you telling me this ↓? Misunderstanding on your part?
↑ Right. Well that makes things clearer. This discussion in this particular thread kicked off after you made the comment below. Surely, if you've got legitimate grievances, there's a better way to go about handling them than bitching on an internet forum? A way with a little more ikigai...?
Irrelevant to this conversation, but if you must know, the profile picture is my coffee mug coaster lol, and my username is not a Japanese name, its a *******ized English + Japanese name that a Japanese friend and colleague called me years ago. She didn't make it up though. American sailors coined in the 1800s. Look it up.
Mooshoepork
Established
Please don’t be upset manjiro san
No upset here, Peter. How the name jonmanjiro came about is quite an interesting historical event. Seriously, look it up. As someone who has more than a passing interest in Japan, I think you'll find the story interesting. Edit: I'll save you the trouble. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakahama_Manjirō and https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... named “John Mung,family in the United States.
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
Listen, it's quite likely that we all don't always come across as we intend, when we try to have a discussion in short, written form.
I am NOT saying that just because Bellamy does something good for photography, or because larger brands do worse things than lying, he's entitled to getting away with just about anything. But even if a court found him guilty of deceptive marketing, that's just not enough in my book to deserve hate or rage. I try to put things into perspective and be strict on myself and tolerant towards others, sorry if that goes on someone's nerves.
Do you want to do something constructive, and by you I mean all you who have evidence of what Street Pan is and isn't? Write a nice article on some popular photography site and factually enlighten our community. What's there to be afraid of, when you present the truth? Am not playing smart, I seriously think it would be a useful contribution, as long as it's factual and balanced.
As far I and many other photographers are concerned, the real origin of Street Pan film is just uninteresting. I have never bought a roll of it and never will, simply because I find it ridiculously priced - as long as there are alternatives that cost a third and give more than acceptable results. For the very same reason I no longer buy genuine Tri-X or HP5+. If one day Foma & other cheap film manufacturers are gone, I'll give Street Pan a chance and see how I like it compared to other film types in that price range.
Mooshoepork
Established
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
Mooshoepork
Established
You should be more tolerant
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
You're so right, and thanks for helping me work with it. Believe me, you ARE helping me
Mooshoepork
Established
You're so right, and thanks for helping me work with it. Believe me, you ARE helping me
And just like that we all became friends. Let’s all have a beer and hear about the history of sailors in japan from Jon someday
jukka
Established
You're moving the goal posts here by quite a bit. Clearly he didn't claim that it was a totally now emulsion. He stated that it was an old film by Agfa that he put back in production.
Now, I don't know what "put back in production" here means (the wiggle room). I assume you at least have to mark the film anew, so it can't just be "re-spooled", however you want to define that.
But this really is neither here nor there. Whining about it on a public forum comes across as petty at best. Hence, I too would encourage you guys – who have hard data on this – to put together a detailed analysis of the exact origins of street pan, and have it published on some reputable platform. Done correctly, it would be an interesting read. (Among others, I would like to know how long are we expecting this outdated stock to last – it's been sold now for how many years, four, five?)
Otherwise people might mistakenly think that some in the photography business are envious of other peoples success.
Mooshoepork
Established
I thought it was uninteresting
Honestly my issues are only the dishonesty and the fact that it isn’t anywhere close to being a true ISO 400 film.
If he was honest about what it was and the speed, and sold millions of rolls I’d say good on him. Good sign film is doing well.
What I can’t sanction is people taking advantage of beginners (in my eyes, that’s what this is) in a field I care deeply about.
Point taken though.
jukka
Established
Yeah, super uninteresting in the sh1t talking sense, and relatively interesting in the getting to know the ins and outs of an industry sense.
Mooshoepork
Established
There’s not a lot more to know to be honest. There’s no point me writing an article anyway with the truth because it will be seen as biased.
I find this kinda odd considering, if anything, I’d have more to gain from selling the film again than not selling the film.
Consider the fact that I used to sell it, wrote a positive review on a huge website and then stopped selling it because it goes against the principles of why I do what I do.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I'm not envious of anyone's success. I don't sell photo gear or film for a living; I'm a professional artist who uses photography as my medium.
I absolutely LOATHE dishonest people. Claiming that he put an old film back into production when he clearly did not is a lie. There's nothing petty about pointing out dishonesty on the part of merchants. In a free market economy, that's what keeps them honest; and it helps make the world a better place by discouraging dishonest business practices.
Skiff
Well-known
Yes, and that was a lie. Period. Because this film was definitely not "put back into production".
The film he used at that time (2016) was Agfa ASP 400s = Agfa Aviphot Pan 400 film. This film was offered under both names to two different customers groups in the B2B market: Surveillance (mainly traffic) and aerial photography.
Technically the same film, just two different names and different convertings and formats fitting the specialised cameras that are used for that purpose (35mm for traffic surveillance, and bigger widths for aerial cameras).
But the last coating run of this film was already in 2008. And in 2013, when the last stock was sold out by Agfa and left their warehouse, Agfa made the official "discontinued" statement on their homepage. I know for sure, because friends of mine have worked with this film in the surveillance business.
And this film was also used at that time by amateur photographers in Europe, because it was repackaged as 35mm film by some smaller companies (e.g. Maco, Compard). Therefore quite a lot of European photographers have known that film for years.
And they tested JCH Street Pan in comparison and immediately realized by their test results that it has been their known film Agfa Avipahot Pan 400 / Agfa ASP 400s. But with higher base fog and a bit lower sensitivity, because the film was expired. As it was old leftover warehouse stock probably from European surveillance companies who had used that film and wanted to get rid of their leftover stock (because almost all of them had switched to fresh Agfa Aviphot Pan 200).
So customers were cheated in three ways:
1. Old expired film instead of new, freshly produced film.
2. For aerial films a different ISO rating is used: The density of 0.1 logD is measured at Zone III, not at Zone I. That means that for normal photography on the ground you have to expose the film with two stops more light to get reasonable shadow detail.
An aerial film with ISO 400 has only a real speed of ISO 100 on the ground in standard pictorial photography.
But Hunt is selling this film as ISO 400 film, but it hasn't that speed at all. Maco (Rollei-Film brand) is cheating their customers the same way (they are selling Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 as Rollei Infrared 400, Rollei Retro 400S and Rollei Superpan 200).
3. The film is extremely expensive. You can get the same look with the much much cheaper and fresh Aviphot Pan 200.
jukka
Established
Oh dear, the vanguard of righteousness!
So, are you implying that different emulsion is now used for street pan? I don’t have any idea how much Agfa´s surveillance film was produced at the time and how much street pan has been sold since, but surely it couldn’t last forever.
And yet, this is still third-party gossip and trash talk type of stuff. Nothing in my mind that would warrant negativity and hate.
My final question, I guess, to you guys is this: do you think that most people lack the knowhow themselves to evaluate the qualities of different films and are therefore in need of rescue (from predatory film re-branding operations)?
In my view, the way free markets function is that people keep buying stuff they are happy with.
If I now buy street pan – and let’s assume I am a functioning adult who comprehends the value of money – what is the worst-case scenario here? The film gets pushed one stop without me knowing? You do realize that many assigned box speeds are not what some would consider nominal?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Skiff
Well-known
Last year film prof. lab owner Adrian Bacon reported on photrio that he got different results with the last batch of Street Pan. He also reported a different color after processing of the dissolved anti-halation layer. The new color was yellow, which is the same color as with Agfa Aviphot Pan 200.
I have heard from other trustworthy photographers recently who tested 'latest-batch' / 'current' Street Pan and Aviphot Pan 200 side-by-side and evaluated the characteristic curve of both films. And they found both films being identical.
I have planned doing such direct comparison tests by my own in the coming weeks.
Of course not. And all experienced photographers who have used these films have expected that Hunt will replace the Aviphot Pan 400 by Aviphot Pan 200 as soon as his old expired stock is depleted. Looks that this has happened now.
And all his cheating and dishonesty continues (and makes it even worse), as he has not informed his customers about that at all!. And he is selling now a film as ISO 400 which has effectively only a real speed of 40/50 if you want reasonable shaodow detail. I have tested Aviphot Pan 200 in several different developers over the years, and if you want a more normal, reasonable characteristic curve with usable shadow detail, you have to expose this film with EI 40-50 dependend on the developer.
No, not at all. When Street Pan was introduced lots of very experienced photographers with decades of experience tested the film and published their results. And as they have also used the original Aviphot Pan 400 / ASP 400s film, they immediately knew the origin of the Street Pan. And have reported their results. And many of them were then attacked and bashed by Hunt! That was in 2016.
And this same Bellamy Hunt published an article on his own blog that in spring 2017 he learned for the first time how to develop a BW film by himself. He said he has never done it before!
But in 2016 he bashed all the experts with decades of experience who have developed and tested his Street Pan film !!!
This really demonstrates his lack of character and criminal energy.
Consumers have a right to get correct information by the supplier. Period.
If you are buying a car which is advertized with 100 PS you don't want to be cheated with a car which has only 40 PS.
And you don't want to pay 40.000€ for a car when you can get technically the same car for only 20.000€.
That are simply the basics of honest human behaviour and basics of honest business practices. Period.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
I agree, a seller should be honest about the real ISO. If you watch JCH's own video about the film, it clearly looks better shot at 200. Skip to about 8 minutes in:
JCH Film Report: Streetpan 400
I have five rolls of the stuff and I'm trying it at 400 and 200. Like any new film, I certainly won't use it for anything important. Not that anything I shoot is important.
Skiff
Well-known
I have five rolls of the stuff and I'm trying it at 400 and 200. Like any new film, I certainly won't use it for anything important. Not that anything I shoot is important.
If you have the latest batch then you should better expose it @ISO 50 with reduced development time. Only then you will get good shadow detail and reasonable contrast.
The Agfa aerial films all have a very strong and problematic S-shaped characteristic curve.
The original Agfa Aviphot Pan 400 was more a 250 speed film than a 400 film, when tested with ISO norm for aerial photography.
But as explained above, this norm is much different and worthless for us enthusiast photographers on the ground. We have to use the ISO norm for pictorial photography, which means to expose an aerial film with two stops more light!
But as also said already above, you can buy Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 for half the price compared to the completely overpriced Street Pan.