Testing Classicpan 200 & 400

[Peter S]

In my search for something a little bit cheaper than Tri-x I stumbled across Classicpan. Sold by Fotoimpex in Europe and J and C in the USA. Just shot 3 testrolls each of Classicpan 200 and 400. Will develop them in Diafine, Rodinal 1+50 and stock Xtol (I also ordered some Pyrocat HD from the States, but that is still stuck in Miami and being checked whether it is hazardous or not, or so DHL tells me). What I have seen online this seems a rather contrasty film so I am not so sure whether it will be well scannable (I discovered that Trix on the thin side scans a lot better than when it is punchy). Anyway following are my plans:

Rodinal
Classicpan 200 :Rodinal 1 +50 for 10 minutes at 20C
Classicpan 400 :Rodinal 1+ 50 for 12 minutes at 20C

These are starting times I took from the Fotoimpex website and on the web at various places I found similar times.

Diafine of course the easiest of the bunch I only need to find out which neg looks best and determine EI.

Now for Xtol, I am thinking stock, because I want to keep development time as short as possible in order to keep contrast on the low side. Is that a correct assumption? Times I am thinking of for Classicpan 200, 10 minutes in stock Xtol at 20C; Classicpan 400, 12 minutes in stock Xtol at 20C (times from Massive Development Chart). Other Xtol stock times I found on the Fotoimpex site is 10 minutes for Classicpan 400 and 9.5 for Classicpan 200.

Anybody out there have any times for XTol and Classicpan??

Will start with Diafine and Rodinal and publish the results and in the meantime hope I can figure out Xtol times and dilution.

Any ideas/comments are more than welcome.

Regards

Peter

 

[Bill58]

Check out the times at: http://www.jandcphotography.com/efke_foma_jandc_developing_times.htm.

I think it's the same film.

 

[Peter S]

Bill

Thanks. I also think it is the same film. J and C (Fotoimpex's US partner for Classicpan if I am not mistaken) gives 9.5 minutes for Classicpan 200 and 8 minutes for Classicpan 400 for Xtol 1+1.

I dug a little deeper on the Fotoimpex site and now have following times for Xtol

Classicpan 200
stock Xtol 7.5 minutes
Xtol 1+1 9.5 minutes

Classicpan 400
stock Xtol 8 minutes
Xtol 1+1 10 minutes

Do you have any experience with Xtol ? I am looking for negatives on the thin side so what would be better stock or diluted Xtol ? Time/agitation remain important as well, but at the moment I am very interested to hear what people think about the effects of diluted Xtol.

Regards

 

[Bill58]

Peter:

I have zero experience w/ my own developing, but am familiar w/ the times because I gotta take my 1st rolls and the developing specs to the lab in Seoul, Korea.

 

[Peter S]

initial results

initial results

Well, finally found some time to scan my testrolls. Initial results:

+ Diafine, does not do anything for the film. I had expected a 1 stop increase in speed or so, but that did not happen and I just did not like the overall result. Grainy, murky, unsharp

+ Rodinal (1+50) was better, but it did give flat results. As I scan my film that is not necessarily a bad thing. In Photoshop the levels histogram was rather narrow, not a very broad tonal range.

+ Xtol 1+1. By far the best results. Broadest level histograms in Photoshop which to me means that I have a lot more room to play with/interpret the negative. Times used for Classicpan 200 9.5 minutes and for Classicpan 400 10 minutes. In both cases the negatives shot at boxspeed had an overall sharper look, but the negatives that were pulled one stop had a slightly better tonal range (broader levels histogram).

The experiment will continue. I think I will pull them 0.5 stop and see what I think about the negs then; or maybe shoot at boxspeed and develop a little bit longer ? Also time to start playing outside with the film.

Today my Pyrocat HD and WD2D+ developers arrived from JanC Photo. Staining developers are said to produce very nice and scannable results with this emulsion. I will keep you posted on the results with the pyro stuff.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I didn't know J&C had Pyro. APUG seems to be very happy with that developer. Perhaps I should get some, too. I believe that it will work with both films I have coming for my medium format cameras: some ACROS and some Plus-X. It may not be too bad of an idea to check it out.

 

[Rolleijoe]

Well, in case nobody has heard, J&C is closed indefinitely, Classicpan was nothing more than Fortepan, who also has gone belly up, as Agfa did.

I found Forte to be grainy, but Freestyle is selling Fomapan which is miles better (IMHO), and also their new house brand at very good prices for those bargain hunters.