Worst film that you have ever used?

Without a doubt--Tmax 400 and Tmax 100. The worst because I expected so much and got such consistently terrible results I gave away the remains of a brick of each rather than continue to be frustrated. Tri-X, HP-5, Plus-X and FP-4 always works.

Runners-up? GAF-500 and Agfachrome CT-50 for color films. The Agfa looked good initially but the slides faded into oblivion within a decade. The GAF film was awful from the beginning.
 
sidenote:

Runners-up? GAF-500 and Agfachrome CT-50 for color films.
Click to expand...

GAF (General Aniline & Film) was Ansco, which was at one time Agfa/Ansco. The two films probably used similar patents.

With the eventual publication of some of these technologies Kodak was able to develop a color negative film, which it had been struggling to do unsuccessfully during the 1930's. (Kodachrome had been formulated by two nonstaff freelancers, itinerant members of a string quartet.) Kodacolor's negs had an orange mask but Agfacolor's didn't.

There are two sort of charming GAF commercials on YouTube with Henry Fonda as the GAF spokesman.
 
Last edited:
Worse than Lucky 100?

Worse than Forte 400?

If you want more swizz, try Rollei R3.

This is probably the film with the greatest discrepancy between marketing bushwah and reality and the smallest correlation between a very high price and outstanding flimsiness.
 
For me it would have to be Konica b/w film - Konicapan 400 (?) I think it was called - will stand to be corrected on the name.
This was about 18 years ago.
Too contrasty, grainy.
I processed it in ID-11 @ 1:1.

Regards
Peter
 
A bunch mentioned already have been disappointing for me, but the top of the list would be Seattle Film Works and every 3M film I used. Bergger 200 is the curliest cuss I've ever had the displeasure of trying to sleeve- even without any hardener in the fix!

Agfapan 100 is a universal favorite that never seemed work for me- always ended up too flat, and TMax 100 is another I avoid for empty shadows.
 
Last edited:
HP5. Without doubt.

It was a subsidised film at college making it far cheaper than anything else but I've never been able to get the best from it.

FP4 is quite nice but I'm a confirmed Delta 100 and TMAX 400 user. Slightly concerned to see someone mention Pan F 50...I've just purchased a load as I've never used it before.
 
Pan F takes some time to 'tame' but is well worth the effort. Keep the contrast from taking over and it is a beautiful film. Nothing like HP5+.
 
Kirkland signature 100. this has more grain than 800 film. The colour rendition is bery basic. and harsh.
 
I shot & processed a roll of Fomapan 200 B&W in 120. It came out really curly & with a blue tinge to the base. apparently that is normal. I kept it in a thick book for 6 months & when i took it out it immediately curled again.

I've had good results with Fuji superia & Kodak gold over the past 5 years or so. I think that a lot of what people are blaming on the film is more likely to be bad lab work.

I like Agfachrom 1,000 & the Scotch chrome films. They are very grainy with muddy colours but it's an interesting look to explore.

Agfa Precisa is great for cross processing. I once tried it straight in E6 & it had dull murky colour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom