I haven't used Arista or shanghai film, but I have had a cross-country trip ruined by coating chatter on so called 'second-tier' emulsions, which is impossible to correct in printing or retouching. I would say just be careful, but even testing the top and bottom sheet of each box didn't catch the problem before my trip. That sucked bad enough, but I was even more disappointed because I really liked the film...
If you are JUST STARTING out and want to practice loading the holder and experiment with camera movements, then use photo paper as your film. Much, much cheaper per sheet. Cut up one 8x10 into 4 pieces of 4x5 (yes, they may be a little bit on the large side or whopperjawed if you aren't careful about keeping the edges straight) but they will work fine for loading practice in the daylight, then under safelight, then in 100% dark.
If you want to expose them in the camera, try and ISO between 6 and 12 for the average piece of RC multigrade or grade 2 stuff. And develop in your standard paper developer (D72 1+2 or 1+4 is always good).
The next least expensive option is something like Freestyle's APHS ortho lith film. Slow, maybe ISO 4 or ISO 6 and a developer like LC-1 or Jim Galli's Rodinal dilution. Works very well but film is a bit on the thin side. You have the benefit of working under safelight with this stuff so good loading practice and you can get it pre-cut for 4x5.
A while back I bought some Shanghai GP3 120 film off eBay.
I shot a roll of it and processed it in D-76 (stock strength)
for 7½ minutes at 20° C. It was shot at the ISO on the box.
I was VERY pleased with the results. The ONLY issue I have
with the roll film is it's curliness. I later bought some 4x5 but
I have not shot any of it yet. I expect to get the same
results from it though.
See attach pic. It's scanned from the negative. The ONLY
thing I adjusted on it was the histogram. I used VueScan
with my HP scanner.
Steve
I have tried much of the product referred to as an "inexpensive" alternative and I have arrived at the conclusion that if a photograph is worth making, it should be made with the best product possible for a number of critical reasons.
First is the obvious. Quality control. I cannot tell you how many times I have made what should have been a marvelous photograph only to be disappointed in the darkroom. Splotchy sections, pin holes, uneven densities within the emulsion, piss poor and completely unpredictable reciprocity characteristics and a host of other problems pop up completely unannounced. I was so frustrated with this crap I threw 3 boxes of 4x5 8x10 and 5x7 in the trash.
Second is using the best technology and coating operations available. When you are coating with a circa 1950/1960 machine, your emulsion tolerances are +/- 5% and possibly greater. Modern electronic coating machines are +/- a fraction of a percent. Plus, old school emulsion formulas relative to the prints that they can produce cannot hold a candle to modern emulsions including the T grain emulsions. If you are not serious about the photographs that you want to make that is great. Have at it. You get what you pay for. I know several people that use some of this inexpensive stuff and the irony is that most of the time he makes two and sometimes three exposures to make sure that he has something that will be printable. What sense does this make?
There are times and places to cut costs. IMHO serious photography is never one of them. They could give me this film for free and I would not waste the time putting it in my film holders. When you support companies that produce inferior materials, you promote inferior materials. Think about it.....
Cheers!
You should have told to kertesz, Weston, Atget, Brassai, Rodcenko, Adams, Penn, Avedon, Capa, Bresson, Sella, and many more that they were using a technology that was faulty.
I think it boils down to this. You get what you pay for.
I happen to like the ERA 4x5 film emulsion. It has a look to it that i find very nice. I like the look better than Tri x and Tmax. But as Michael said, the quality control is a huge problem. I bought 5 boxes about 2 years ago. Half of the first box was a total loss. More hair in it than a cat. There are also tons of scratches on the base side.
It did get better through the box. The subsequent boxes are better but the base size looks like someone took sand paper to it. I drum scan most of my film on Howtek so the Kami fills in most of the scratches. Its annoying but manageable.
I have also used the Lucky SHD 100 120 film. Its nice but its no Tmax 100. The QC is much better than the ERA. The same with the ShangHai GP3 120. They both had very little defects if any.
All of the ebay films are a great deal if you dont count shipping. At that point, its to close in price to films by the big 3.
There are some that can take half-fogged, expired film, stick in a coffee can with a nail hole in it and float it across a cesspool and make better prints than some can with all the best gear, equipment and circumstance. Sorry, but I dont see the point in trotting out statements like " old school emulsion formulas relative to the prints that they can produce cannot hold a candle to modern emulsions including the T grain emulsions."
Most people are aware of what they need, and what they will pay for it, and what it is worth to them- but thanks all the same. FWIW, I've had qc issues, very limited, but still qc issues with every major brand of film I've tried.
I've been trying out the ARISTA edu ultra 200 (Foma 200) and I find it to be great. Tonally it's not too different from the FP4+ I'd been using as my primary 4x5 film and it's less than half the price.
As far as QC goes, the first box I bought was cut too big and didn't fit in the holders. Freestyle exchanged it and I've had no problems since, knock on wood. Those boxes with the splotchy brown stains on 'em don't exactly inspire confidence.
Erich Hoeber
Erich Hoeber Photography
You missed my point.Originally Posted by domenico Foschi
The reason that the film produced by these maunfactures is so wrought with problems is because the coating machines are just plain worn out and should have been scrapped 20 years ago. The people that are running them are inexperienced and do not have any ownership of the product produced. I heard that at times defects are as high as 50% and they do not even bat an eyelash. They keep pumping it out. Cheap buys as much loyalty to the product in manufacturing as it does in the consuming segment. These manufacturers are taking advantage of the fact that there are a lot of tight wads in the film consuming arena that want film and are obviously not very concerned about what they are getting.
When the masters you mentioned above acquired the state of the art film technology during ther era the coating machines used were virtually brand new and the companies that produced this product were dedicated 100% to producing the best quality film possible and all was quite well. And yes, the results proved it. That is NOT the case as we speak. Much of the stuff many people are acquiring is wrought with a myriad of defects that is simply unacceptable to me. Others may not have such a descriminating mindset. If it is worth my time to make a photograph, I want to make the best one possible. I will not take any chance with the film I chose to make it with - period.
Just my $0.02.
Cheers!
I have never had even a hint of any quality control issues with T Max 400 sheet film in the four years I have used it exclusively. It is always cut to perfect proportions. Their $75 million dollar state of the art coating machine and the technology they use to evaluate the coated emulsion and avoid even a hint of a section is as good as it gets. It lets me sleep at night knowing that there are no surprises each time I pull the dark slide. You get what you pay for....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks