Thanks for the info, Mark. I'll keep your exposure recommendations in mind. I'm going to agree with Shel for the time being, and hold off on buying Classic Pan in 120 roll until I see the results from the 35mm film.
BTW - wonderful photos. Did I see some infrared in there as well? On 5/31/05, Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Classic Pan 200 was my standard film for most of last summer - I shot > somewhere around 50 rolls, 120 format. A few shots taken with it: > > http://www.markcassino.com/feature.htm > > http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga00.htm > > http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga03.htm > > http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga04.htm > > http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga13.htm > > http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/asga/asga21.htm > > I switched over to APX 100 when JandC ran out of CP200 late last year. > Ordered up another 20 rolls of the new CP200, but it seems to be subtly > different than the old (not surprising to see batch to batch variation in a > film like this.) > > With proper treatment you can produce a beautiful negative with this film. > Personally, I exposed at ISO 100 (there was virtually no shadow detail at > ISO 200), developed in HC 110 Dil H for 17 minutes, with agitation only once > every 3 minutes. It brought out beautiful shadow detail while preventing > the highlights from blocking up. (Dil H is an 'unofficial dilution, 1:64 - > double the dilution of Dil B.) > > I would rinse the film with water and then apply the acid stop bath - I had > a few cases of pin holes when I just dropped the acid bath in. I also used a > hardening fixer. The folks at JandC said you could go either way on > hardening it or not. > > This is a very low contrast film - it's hard to factor in the agitation and > dilution aspects of the developer, but I basically was over exposing it by a > full stop and pushing the development to some degree at least. I also found > that it needed additional adjustment with filters - I got very poor shadow > detail with a #25 red filter and 3 stop exposure adjustment. With the green > filter I went to a 3 stop adjustment, more than the 2.5 stops I'd usually > do. > > With the new batch of CP200 I've cut development time by 3 minutes and the > negs still look a little dense, so YMMV, as they say. > > I only tried a couple of rolls of CP400 so never really got to know it. It > seemed to be comparable in many ways to CP200 (except faster.) > > The biggest PITA about CP200 in 120 format is that the film is not rolled > onto the spools as well as modern films. This is the only 120 film I've used > where I would find light leaks along the edges pretty consistently. I > finally wound up bringing a black T-Shirt along with me in the field and > using it as a covering cloth when changing film - and then promptly > transferring the exposed rolls into a dark bag. Even then, a slight squeeze > to the center of the roll could result in light leaks, even in the subdued > indoor light of my basement. > > And if you do use 120 film - note that JandC often neglects to put glue on > the end of the roll tag (most of the CP200 I bought this year has no glue, > last years stock did.) So you need to bring tape to tape the roll shut (a > rubber band will compress the center of the roll, push the ends out, and > cause light leaks.) > > At the end of the day - with the right development of APX 100 (I'm using a > more dilute version of HC100) I find that the results are every bit as good > as CP200, and the AGFA product is much easier to handle and is a cheaper as > well... except for them going bankrupt I'd plan on using it indefinitely. > > - MCC > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Mark Cassino Photography > Kalamazoo, MI > www.markcassino.com > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
