"New" ISO400 BW film from Japan Camera Hunter!

I'm glad Bellamy provided an update, and showed how many people in this thread were talking complete bollocks.

Thanks, Proviafan, for bring some real info to the table!
 
I don't want to sound too negative but if I read about people saying that this film is introducing "more choices" on the market then I'm really having a hard time to understand how this could be.

New emulsion, old emulsion, new stock, old stock...I really don't care.

I read the tech specs of this film, the recommended dev times and it matches 100% aviphot 400S and Rollei 400S. But this film is selling for 2X the money of these films.

So WHY is anyone supposed to buy it when the same stuff is available for half the money?
THIS is what is unclear to me: is it superior? Is it different? Or is it the same?
As a potential buyer, why should I fork out more money for it?

MORE choices on the market are given by 1) NEW products with NEW characteristics that other products don't have or 2) The SAME product as others already available but at a significantly lower price.
This is what "more choices" means for me.
Food for thoughts.
 
I guess this is a new emulsion??? I love the idea because it sounds like a film that was dumped years ago by Kodak. Verichrome and Verichrome Pan were multi layer films that were designed for box cameras. With just one shutter speed and one aperture these film were able to handle full sun scenes and open shade (or cloudy) scenes. The Verichromes were not 'sharp' emulsions so when everybody decided they wanted sharpness they were lost. But the dynamic range was a sexy smooth photo.

Try this shot with Plus X or Tmax 400 (down rated) in your Brownie Hawkeye Flash (not my photo):

found foto by John Carter, on Flickr
 
Now thats a fun idea; bring back a dual layer verichrome type mid speed. In 220!
Don't get me started like over on APUG!
 
Why all that hatred? Towards Bellamy and towards each other here?

Bellamy has started a venture which I highly appreciate.

You don't like it? Don't order it then.

I am seriously tempted. 10 rolls are a few too many for me, so as soon as I find one who shares a pack (5/5) with me, I will pre-order, I guess. If not for anything else then just to support Bellamy and his brave fight for film.
 
Muju79 said:
I don't want to sound too negative but if I read about people saying that this film is introducing "more choices" on the market then I'm really having a hard time to understand how this could be.

New emulsion, old emulsion, new stock, old stock...I really don't care.

I read the tech specs of this film, the recommended dev times and it matches 100% aviphot 400S and Rollei 400S. But this film is selling for 2X the money of these films.

So WHY is anyone supposed to buy it when the same stuff is available for half the money?
THIS is what is unclear to me: is it superior? Is it different? Or is it the same?
As a potential buyer, why should I fork out more money for it?

MORE choices on the market are given by 1) NEW products with NEW characteristics that other products don't have or 2) The SAME product as others already available but at a significantly lower price.
This is what "more choices" means for me.
Food for thoughts.
Click to expand...

Except those films are not SFAIK an "old discontinued surveillance film that was original made by AGFA"

Test the films side by side if you really want to know how they compare, instead of making guesses and accusations off dev times and tech sheets.

Or not -- no doubt those tests will be done and on the net in the not too distant future.

Stephen
 
ProviaFan said:
I had previously wrote a post questioning the benefit of this film under the assumption it was old stock. However Bellamy has updated his article on this film and included the following:

"This is also not an ‘old stock’ film or a ‘pancake’ that was kicking around a ‘dusty warehouse’. This is a freshly produced emulsion with an expiry date of 2020. The film was no longer being produced and I had it put back into production. And for the record, this is not re-spooled Rollei Retro 400s."
Click to expand...

Fresh production means only finishing, not coating! Finishing means the raw film, which was made some years ago, is now cut, perforated and spooled into cassettes.
It is well-known that Agfa cannot make such extremely small coating runs. Agfa is on the same scale like Kodak and Fuji. And if you want to have a real new coating, you have to put money on the table first. That he is asking for money from his customers with preorders is another proof that this film is, as he himself said first, an old, discontinued film. Which will now be finished for 35mm shooters.
 
Skiff he wrote "freshly produced Emulsion" this to me means coating and not cutting to size and spooling into casettes. Also nobody really knows how much film JCH has ordered one master roll or more. Agfa could also have used their Pilot coating machine which is able to make much smaller runs than the big machine.

to Quote them "We also offer our small, economic pilot coaters for optimizing custom-made formulas. . ."

Pilot coaters
coating on a short loop with small amounts of coating solution and base (web width 24 cm) and with controlled drying conditions
coating on a continuous base for larger amounts of prototype material under controlled drying conditions

http://www.agfa.com/sp/global/en/internet/main/solutions/coating_facilities/index.jsp
 
CameraQuest said:
Test the films side by side if you really want to know how they compare, instead of making guesses and accusations off dev times and tech sheets.

Or not -- no doubt those tests will be done and on the net in the not too distant future.
Click to expand...

Well, B. Hunt has given the tech data for his film: identical to Aviphot Pan 400S.
And lots of photographers know this film very well, because they have used it in the past.
To quote one of my postings above:

"Looking at the description Bellamy Hunt gives, this film is the discontinued Agfa Aviphot Pan 400S. This film was used both as aerial and traffic surveillance film. Same is valid for Aviphot Pan 200 and the old Kodak Hawkeye, all used both as aerial and surveillance films.
I've used the Aviphot Pan 400S (at that time it was also available as Rollei Retro 400S, first version).
But I got the result that the Aviphot Pan 400 was only 1° DIN = 1/3 stop faster than the cheaper Aviphot Pan 200 (Rollei Superpan 200). Therefore I stayed with Aviphot Pan 200 / Superpan 200.
After the discontinuation of Aviphot Pan 400 Rollei put the Aviphot Pan 200 in the Rollei Retro 400S boxes.
Therefore now Aviphot Pan 200 = Superpan 200 = Retro 400S = Rollei IR.
That is fresh film, current production. And almost identical to the former Aviphot Pan 400 = JCH film."

Mr Hunt is a very young guy. With no experience so far in the film distributing business.

And there are hundred of thousands of photographers out there with decades of experience in shooting dozens of different film types.
And there are ten-thousands of photographers out there who have shot much much more of this Agfa film then he did in his testing.
He should respect that.

Therefore he should not be surprised that experienced photographers have a critical view concerning marketing statements.

And, by the way: These aerial - surveillance films have a quite limited dynamic range. So for street photography they are a worse choice compared to conventional films.
But he is advertising this film for street photography.
That makes experienced photographers sceptical, too.
 
DominikDUK said:
Skiff he wrote "freshly produced Emulsion" this to me means coating and not cutting to size and spooling into casettes. .....
Click to expand...

Dream on.
In the next months we will see more and more evidence that is not a new coating.
In his original introduction of this film there was no single word about a new coating. Only about an old, discontinued film.
Then people showed critical opinions, and now he is talking about a new coating.
Sorry, not convincing for me, only suspicious.
A run on the pilot coater is very expensive. Then the film probably would be even more expensive.
As to the ordered volume:
So far he has not a number, because the pre-ordering is running. Therefore an exact calculation is not possible. No manufacturer would do a run on such a basis!!
That is again another evidence that it is a finishing run, not a coating run.
 
If he writes that it is a new coating and it isn't it's fraud so I doubt that he is lying.

Regarding enhanced red sensitivity in theory you have less haze (not lens haze) as the film will cut trough it to some extent, lighter skintones, etc...
 
Skiff said:
[/I]

Mr Hunt is a very young guy. With no experience so far in the film distributing business.

And there are hundred of thousands of photographers out there with decades of experience....
Click to expand...

So are you speaking on behalf of the "hundreds of thousands of photographers?"

Honestly, you couldn't make this up. Someone with minimal posting history, accusing an established retailer of lying, and claiming "hundreds of thousands" of people support him.

We've had a response from the manufacturer. Please don't bother to attack him again unless you can actually post some real evidence, not assertions and personal attacks on somebody for being "young".
 
I agree with Paul T.. Some of these comments about Bellamy Hunt are un-warrented. I have ordered many things from Mr Hunt. He has always been a very honest and forthcoming individual to deal with.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. But quit attacking this guy. I think what he has done is interesting. And I applaud him for doing so.
 
I've had nothing but good experiences dealing with Bellamy - he's a stand up guy.

He's not Kodak or Fuji or Agfa - cut him some slack, he's just one guy, doing things that he enjoys and working as a trusted agent for photographers and collectors.

If you don't want to use the film, don't.
 
Why are some people so annoyed at having someone offer a film?
I am not concerned at all.
Go out and create images instead.
 
To the naysayers: while this may be discontinued emulsion with no future, Bellamy is still paying a live manufacturer money for this product. It's not as if this is diverting potential buyers form supporting continuing manufacturing; Bellamy did not get this emulsion for free, money is still being paid to Agfa which at least potentially will support their ongoing production of other films.

To the yaysayers: Bellamy isn't being upfront about what this emulsion actually is and seems reluctant to be honest about this, even deliberately obfuscatory, probably because it will diminish his branding and show the film isn't worth the significant premium over similar films. His lack of transparency has added to the controversy over all of this, and IMO was a mistake.

He would do more favors to both manufacturers, the film community, and potentially his bottom line, by acting as international distributor/online retailer for European companies (Agfa, Foma, Ferrania, etc.) who made the emulsion he's trying to sell anyway. But of course this won't give the same "feel good" factor that bringing a film "back from the dead" will - or the ego boost.
 
And thus JCH StreetPan was born! So this is a re-born film, not a re-spooled film that is still being sold. This is also not an ‘old stock’ film or a ‘pancake’ that was kicking around a ‘dusty warehouse’. This is a freshly produced emulsion with an expiry date of 2020. The film was no longer being produced and I had it put back into production. And for the record, this is not re-spooled Rollei Retro 400s.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure where people think that he isn't being specific here
 
CameraQuest said:
Except those films are not SFAIK an "old discontinued surveillance film that was original made by AGFA"

Test the films side by side if you really want to know how they compare, instead of making guesses and accusations off dev times and tech sheets.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Dear Stephen, I honestly don't understand what accusations are you referring to. My comments were only fair, based on objective facts and pointed at honestly trying to understand why one should invest money on this product: something that has not been made very clear by the seller himself.

Tech specs and developing times for this film have been provided by Agfa and JCH. They are facts, made available by others, not by me. The fact that they match 100% other available products is again objective and not something made up by me.

Fair enough, of course, that the film will have to be tested because tech specs by themselves don't mean everything. Whether it performs worse, same or better as cheaper similar films from other producers with similar characteristics will have to be verified.

Regards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom