JCH Street Pan 400 Photos

A Walk in the Park

A Walk in the Park

Obviously, I am still learning how to use this film, not only in development but also in exposure. So far I have developed with Rodinal 1:25 and 1:50. I think I'll try 1:50 once more and adjust the agitation again. After that we will move on to another developer.

I have two more rolls to scan today so should have some more to show by tomorrow. I do have to be straight here. This is called Street Pan 400 but it seems so far that this film is quite sensitive to exposure, which may not be the best feature for street shooting. Maybe different developers will change this.
 
Although I have only had the chance to shoot/develop one roll, the variation of exposures present lead me to also believe its not as forgiving as one would hope for a "Street" film. Of course, I cant put my money where my mouth is after only one roll but my gut is steering me towards that assumption. I mentioned that I was eyeballing my exposures, and while that certainly gives a reason for variance, Im pretty versed in the exposures while shooting in the financial district, so when I saw such a wide range of exposures I was a bit shocked. We will see.
 
The Skate Park

The Skate Park

The other day I took the grandkids to the skate park to skateboard and ride their bicycles.

I took along the Leica and a roll of Street Pan 400 to test it out on some street style action shooting. Overall the results were pretty good but since there were no shadow areas with bright areas it really didn't mimic city street shooting too well.

I developed this batch in Kodak HC110 dilution B for 10:30. I agitated for the first 30 seconds and then three times per minute after that.

I didn't have a meter with me so I guessed the exposure. They are just a tad over exposed, maybe 2/3rds of a stop.
 
Some Thoughts

Some Thoughts

I will continue this series but I am beginning to develop some opinions of this film.
  • It is not very forgiving of over or under exposure. If you want to use a meter less camera like the Leica M-A, bring a good handheld meter with you and use it.
  • It is also sensitive to development. So far I have worked with Rodinal 1:25, Rodinal 1:50 and HC110 dilution B. Rodinal 1:50 and HC110 have worked out the best for me. I have not been able to get 1:25 to work well even though I have adjusted my agitation technique a couple of times.
  • So far the film is quite grainy. I really don't mind that but I will continue to work to reduce the grain.
Upcoming will be some exposure bracketing tests, some different developers and maybe some tests against other fast films if I can find some lying around.

I have quite a bit of Street Pan 400 so I hope I can put some of it to use here.

If anyone has any ideas feel free to let me know. If I don't think I can do it then I'll tell you. But if I can then we may be able to answer some questions.
 
I agree with your opinions regarding exposure. Its not very forgiving to an incorrect exposure. Honestly, Im on the fence still. Like you mentioned earlier (and I agreed with earlier) I still think that this might not be a very good "street" film. Its just doesnt like an improper exposure.
 
Here's some from my last roll. M6, 35mm Zeiss C-Biogon, Street Pan 400, HC-110B @ 5 minutes. One thing I noticed is that both rolls of Street Pan I have souped thus far turned the pee yellow HC-110 a dark orange color, almost like how HC-110 looks when its been sitting for too long. This was a fresh mixture.

28564399731_77b1b1e6c3_z.jpg

28564400501_5ef19c981e_c.jpg

28564401241_81bf51232d_z.jpg

28564402181_a10131fa5a_z.jpg
 
Yeah. The developer effluent turns all kinds of colors. Rodinal looks red, HC110 looks orange, D76 looks pee yellow.

Some nice photos by the way. It is nice to see someone else trying the film out.
 
Staying Busy

Staying Busy

So far, as long as I pay close attention to my exposures, most developers seem to work. Keep the agitation light and infrequent unless you are trying for more contrast. Rodinal 1:25 is the only one I still haven't quite tamed.

Another thing I have noted is the light piping. The first 5 to 10 frames with the Leica are suspect because of the light leaking into the film when you are loading it. I have notice this with other films as well. Rollei RPX 25 and Adox CMS 20 both have the same problem.

I have a couple more rolls ready to go into the developer. One was used in the Nikon F6 and the photos were all exposure bracketed. I hope to get those developed and scanned tomorrow so we can see the film's response to basically the same photo across three different exposure indexes.

The next roll was finished this evening using the Zeiss Ikon. I exposed the film at EI200 and I will reduce the developing time accordingly. Again, if all works out I should be able to get this roll developed tomorrow as well. This should give me a feel for how the film responds to pulling exposure.

God bless and thanks for following my blundering along.
 
Last edited:
Nice results Pioneer. Have some rolls on the way. I'm going to use them in the F100, but i'll have them developed "professionally".
 
Exposure Bracketing

Exposure Bracketing

With the Nikon F6 set to do some exposure bracketing I took a short tour around the yard and photographed a few things. These were not chosen for the artistic value, only because I hoped they would demonstrate differences in exposure.

The base exposure index was set at EI250 and the bracket was set to normal, -1 stop and +1 stop. So, the first shot is taken at EI250 with a shutter speed of 1/250. The second with a shutter speed of 1/500 and the last at a shutter speed of 1/125.

These were all developed in D76 1:1 for 16 minutes and 30 seconds. Continual agitation for the first 30 seconds followed by 3 agitations every minute thereafter. This has been my normal routine for any Street Pan 400 photos exposed at box speed.

Nothing has been done in post with the exception of some mild sharpening and reduction to the required 500kb file size.

It would seem that EI250 and EI500 photos are ok. Obviously, unless a different development scheme is used, EI125 is not going to work.

With this in mind I took the Nikon out again this afternoon and did some more bracketing but I tightened up the exposure indexes so they came out to EI320, EI500 and EI200. I just finished developing this roll and will not be able to scan them until tomorrow.

Hope you all enjoy the upcoming week and find some time to use your cameras.
 

PCK:400S D923 #1.jpg by T&T and Mr B Abrahamsson, on Flickr

If the JCP 400 is the old Agfa Traffic camera film, it is most likely the Agfa 400 S emulsion. I had some - years ago and found it OK - but in developers like the Rodinal/HC 110 - too contrasty. I mainly used a home-made developer PCK, Vitamin E based (google the developer). It was concocted by Patrick Gainer. The PCK has a D76 look to it - not excessive contrast. This shot was with M2 and a C Sonnar 50mm f1.5 and "souped in PCK for 9 minutes, agitation every 60 sec.
It would be a good contender for two bath D23 (stock D23 with continuous agitation for 4 min and the Borax, 20 gram/1000 ml as stand (no agitation) for 3 min. Tames the contrast quite a bit.
 
I was going to mix up some D23 and try it but I have never used it as a two bath developer. Will have to check that out. Thanks Tom.

I also have some Diafine lying about the place somewhere that I may try eventually as well.
 
How Does the MA Compare?

How Does the MA Compare?

raytoei@gmail.com said:
Pioneer,

* i am more interested in how do you find your M-A as compared to your other film Ms ?

thanks !
Click to expand...

Tough question. It is a very nice camera.

I really don't miss the meter. I already owned one anyway. Of course, operation is very smooth and getting better as time passes. The shutter is very quiet, sometimes I can't hear it myself. The rangefinder has great contrast. I have had no problems with viewfinder flare and the build quality has been impeccable.

The MA is not that much different from my M3 or M6. It is a bunch of small things that add up to a great experience and most of them are probably because she is new. My M3 is now over 60 and my M6 will turn 19 this October so neither are this new. They probably felt this nice when they first landed in some user's hands.

I don't think you buy an MA because it is a better M camera. You buy it because it was what you wanted in the first place and you already know it. If you need to be talked into it then you may not like it all that much.

I wanted one and I am very glad I was able to buy it.
 
Stand Developing in Rodinal

Stand Developing in Rodinal

Stand developing is always a popular, and sometimes contentious, subject. Some seem to love it, others think it is a complete waste of an hour.

However, just to get a sense of how Street Pan 400 responds to stand developing I took a roll that I used in the Leica MA and souped it for 60 minutes in Rodinal 1:100. I agitated gently for the first 30 minutes and put the tank in the cooler along with some 20C water to keep it company. And I left it there for an hour with no further agitation.

Once it was all fixed, rinsed, dried and scanned, this is a few of the photos. Almost all of the photos were low contrast so these were given a small boost in curves, sharpened and then reduced to below 500kb for displaying here.

I'll leave you to make your own decisions. For me, it seemed to work all right but no better than other methods I have tried. I doubt I'll use it again unless I just can't drag myself away from the 21st rerun of my favorite X-Files episode.
 
Interesting Developing Result

Interesting Developing Result

I have not been doing this for as long as some of our esteemed contributors on this forum so I am sure I have not seen everything. But I was somewhat surprised when I pulled a roll of film from the soup the other day.

To set the stage, I had done some more bracketing using the JCH Street Pan 400 film at normal box speed in a couple of different cameras. I had decided to use some D76 Stock this time instead of diluting it, further I had decided to run both films in my Jobo 2521 tank. Because I was using the Jobo I decided to do continuous agitation on the rollers since I hadn't tried this with the Street Pan 400 before.

So, I have two rolls of Street Pan 400, shot at box speed, in the Jobo tank with 300 mliters of straight stock D76, no dilution. The solution is 20C and since the normal recommendation on the box the film came in was to develop for 12 minutes and 30 seconds, I deducted 15% from that for the continuous agitation and came up with a development time of 10minutes and 38 seconds. I rounded that up to 10 minutes and 40 seconds and developed the film.

The first roll I pulled out of the tank was shot with the Pentax SV, which I hadn't exercised in a while. These next three photos are from that roll. The first was a normal exposure as recommended by my Weston Master IV meter. The second was given one stop plus exposure and the 3rd was given one stop minus exposure.

- Normal

- Plus One Stop

- Minus 1 Stop

Holy smokes Batman! What has happened here? All three of these exposures look overexposed. Could the shutter be that far out of whack on the SV? I haven't used it in a few months but this is crazy. Every photo looked like this. I wasn't sure what to think.

Fortunately, I had a second roll that had been developed exactly the same way. The camera used was the Zeiss Ikon with the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5. Fortunately I had exposed some of the same photos with the ZI as I had the SV. But I hadn't photographed the large format camera. There were several similar ones to choose from but the example I choose to display here is a photo of my old wheelbarrow using the camera meter's recommended exposure. The second is the SV using the Weston Master IV's recommended exposure.

- Normal exposure with ZI

- Normal exposure with SV

The photo metered using the Weston handheld meter looks a little closer to correct but both photos look vastly overexposed. But at least I was starting to settle down a bit. Maybe the Pentax SV shutter was working correctly after all and something had happened in development. Maybe these photos were overdeveloped, not overexposed?

So, I went out with the MA and, using the Weston, exposed the LF camera again. (It was in my garage and the light had not changed as it had in my front yard.)

I proceeded to develop this roll of film in D76 stock at 20C using my smaller Jobo 1510 tank. I agitated continuously for the first 30 seconds and the twice every 60 seconds after that. When I pulled the roll out of the tank everything looked normal.

- Normal exposure using Leica MA and Weston Master IV meter.

Now, I have never had this happen before. I have used continuous agitation with my Jobo tanks for several years with numerous different developers and have never seen this before.

I just finished developing two rolls of Street Pan 400 using my Jobo 2521 tank on the rollers with D76 diluted 1:1. I haven't scanned anything yet but the negatives look pretty normal.

Does anyone have any idea what may have happened?

EDIT - Ooops. If I had thought about that one for a few moments I could have answered it myself. I can be such a dunce sometimes. I would blame it on age but I have been this way all my life.
 
Last edited:
Continuous Agitation Part Deux

Continuous Agitation Part Deux

I had previously developed some film by agitating continuously in D76 Stock and found that the results were quite overdeveloped. So, being me, I immediately set about to see if diluting the D76 would make any difference. I immediately diluted some D76 to 1:1 and developed two rolls of film in my Jobo at 20C continuously agitating it on the rollers as before.

In the previous post I had indicated that these negatives had looked better with the 1:1 dilution. In part that is true, but I should have kept my big mouth shut until I had looked closer at the results. Particularly since I know that I am terrible at reading little negatives.

So, how did things really turn out. I have scanned the negatives so lets take a look.

The flower in this photograph was in the sun and it is dark orange with black stamens coming out of the dark red disk in the center. The surrounding foliage is green. In this photo it is not easy to tell the various tones that make up the colors in the flower. It is overdeveloped enough that the tonal range seems to be disappearing.

In this photo the garden statue is a dirty white color and it is in the shade. Again, though the exposure was actually good, the photo is overdeveloped so that there is very little differentiation in parts of the white. Along the wing it isn't bad so I suspect that there is information that can be pulled out of this negative in the areas that currently appear blown.

Here the white flower is fully in the sun. Knowing this I actually tried to underexpose the photo by about a stop but, as you can see, the flower is pretty much blown out. There seems to be a little detail around the edges so it may be salvageable but it is still overdeveloped.

This photo actually turned out pretty well. The snowblower is in the shade, all the tones are pretty similar from grey concrete to dark tan building to red and orange in the snowblower and then to black in the engine, tires and handle. It still looks a tad overdeveloped but all the detail is there and it is very usable, if not terribly artistic.

In conclusion I think I was wrong the other day. I may fiddle around with this some more later but, for now, I don't think that I can recommend using continuous development with this film. Of course, you are quite welcome to experiment some more with your film but I will leave it be for now.

Hope you are enjoying the weekend. I know that I am.
 
Pioneer said:
Kodak, etc. Who, btw, haven't seemed a bit shy about raising costs as fast as they can for everyone but the movie industry.
Click to expand...

That's why I shoot 5222 (Double-X). It's cheaper than Tri-X if you roll-your-own and I'm really pleased with the way it renders, especially with old Nikkor glass (LTM and F mount). It's movie film, but it soups nicely in either D-76 or HC-110. And I love the tonal range.

Best,
-Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom