Fortepan -- disappointing results

I haven't shot B&W in decades, so I bought some Fortepan from B&H,
just to play around. I shot a roll of 100 using my Pentax *ist and
various lenses. I had the film processed at Sam's Club, the off-site
service that takes 2 weeks, since it was so cheap and I was simply
curious as to what I would get.

I was not expecting much, but even so I was disappointed. The film
seems to have extraordinarily limited range -- single photos had both
blown white highlights and pitch black shadows, not much gray tones.
Besides the extreme contrast, some images seemed blurred and
indistinct. The shots were in a wide variety of situations, indoor
and outdoor, low light and full sunlight, etc. I don't think it was
the camera, since all the other rolls I've shot with the Pentax *ist
have come out remarkably well; the camera seems to have quite accurate
and sophisticated metering and focusing systems.

There is a slight chance it was the lab, but I know very little about
the mechanics and chemistry of photo processing. Are the poor results
likely the result of using poor film, as I suspect, or was it
partially the cheap processing? Or was it operator error, a lazy
amateur accustomed to today's high quality color films? Larf!

I still have a roll of Fortepan 400 but I wonder whether it's even
worth the trouble to use. What sort of results have others had with
this film? Do I need to stick to reputable brand films?

Thanks for suggestions and comments.

*UncaMikey

UncaMikey wrote:

I haven't shot B&W in decades, so I bought some Fortepan from B&H,
just to play around. I shot a roll of 100 using my Pentax *ist and
various lenses. I had the film processed at Sam's Club, the off-site
service that takes 2 weeks, since it was so cheap and I was simply
curious as to what I would get.

You've had cheap film processed by a cheap lab.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated April 29, 2004
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

UncaMikey wrote:

I haven't shot B&W in decades, so I bought some Fortepan from B&H,
just to play around. I shot a roll of 100 using my Pentax *ist and
various lenses. I had the film processed at Sam's Club, the off-site
service that takes 2 weeks, since it was so cheap and I was simply
curious as to what I would get.

You've had cheap film processed by a cheap lab.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated April 29, 2004
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

In article ,
(Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote:

UncaMikey wrote:

I haven't shot B&W in decades, so I bought some Fortepan from B&H,
just to play around. I shot a roll of 100 using my Pentax *ist and
various lenses. I had the film processed at Sam's Club, the off-site
service that takes 2 weeks, since it was so cheap and I was simply
curious as to what I would get.

You've had cheap film processed by a cheap lab.

Ralf

Well stated,... although decidedly better results would have
been achieved "IF" he would have processed the film
himself,....at least if he would have processed it like you
or me ;-)
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
(Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote:

UncaMikey wrote:

I haven't shot B&W in decades, so I bought some Fortepan from B&H,
just to play around. I shot a roll of 100 using my Pentax *ist and
various lenses. I had the film processed at Sam's Club, the off-site
service that takes 2 weeks, since it was so cheap and I was simply
curious as to what I would get.

You've had cheap film processed by a cheap lab.

Ralf

Well stated,... although decidedly better results would have
been achieved "IF" he would have processed the film
himself,....at least if he would have processed it like you
or me ;-)
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
UncaMikey wrote:


I haven't shot B&W in decades, so I bought some Fortepan from B&H,
just to play around. I shot a roll of 100 using my Pentax *ist and
various lenses. I had the film processed at Sam's Club, the off-site
service that takes 2 weeks, since it was so cheap and I was simply
curious as to what I would get.


You've had cheap film processed by a cheap lab.

Ralf


I'd put more emphasis on the cheap lab.
B&W MUST be processed by one's self (or else use an EXCELLENT lab) for
decent results: Developing is easy to learn and doesn't require much
eqipment.
Ask if you want to know more...

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
UncaMikey wrote:


I haven't shot B&W in decades, so I bought some Fortepan from B&H,
just to play around. I shot a roll of 100 using my Pentax *ist and
various lenses. I had the film processed at Sam's Club, the off-site
service that takes 2 weeks, since it was so cheap and I was simply
curious as to what I would get.


You've had cheap film processed by a cheap lab.

Ralf


I'd put more emphasis on the cheap lab.
B&W MUST be processed by one's self (or else use an EXCELLENT lab) for
decent results: Developing is easy to learn and doesn't require much
eqipment.
Ask if you want to know more...

(UncaMikey) writes:

I haven't shot B&W in decades, so I bought some Fortepan from B&H,
just to play around. I shot a roll of 100 using my Pentax *ist and
various lenses. I had the film processed at Sam's Club, the off-site
service that takes 2 weeks, since it was so cheap and I was simply
curious as to what I would get.

I was not expecting much, but even so I was disappointed. The film
seems to have extraordinarily limited range -- single photos had both
blown white highlights and pitch black shadows, not much gray tones.
Besides the extreme contrast, some images seemed blurred and
indistinct. The shots were in a wide variety of situations, indoor
and outdoor, low light and full sunlight, etc. I don't think it was
the camera, since all the other rolls I've shot with the Pentax *ist
have come out remarkably well; the camera seems to have quite accurate
and sophisticated metering and focusing systems.

There is a slight chance it was the lab, but I know very little about
the mechanics and chemistry of photo processing. Are the poor results
likely the result of using poor film, as I suspect, or was it
partially the cheap processing? Or was it operator error, a lazy
amateur accustomed to today's high quality color films? Larf!

Are you talking about the prints, or about the negatives?

It's possible that you have good (or at least acceptable) negatives,
but that they were printed badly. I'm afraid that scanning black and
white can be a pain in these days of Digital ICE, but it might be
worth a try just to assess negative quality.

snip

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

(UncaMikey) writes:

I haven't shot B&W in decades, so I bought some Fortepan from B&H,
just to play around. I shot a roll of 100 using my Pentax *ist and
various lenses. I had the film processed at Sam's Club, the off-site
service that takes 2 weeks, since it was so cheap and I was simply
curious as to what I would get.

I was not expecting much, but even so I was disappointed. The film
seems to have extraordinarily limited range -- single photos had both
blown white highlights and pitch black shadows, not much gray tones.
Besides the extreme contrast, some images seemed blurred and
indistinct. The shots were in a wide variety of situations, indoor
and outdoor, low light and full sunlight, etc. I don't think it was
the camera, since all the other rolls I've shot with the Pentax *ist
have come out remarkably well; the camera seems to have quite accurate
and sophisticated metering and focusing systems.

There is a slight chance it was the lab, but I know very little about
the mechanics and chemistry of photo processing. Are the poor results
likely the result of using poor film, as I suspect, or was it
partially the cheap processing? Or was it operator error, a lazy
amateur accustomed to today's high quality color films? Larf!

Are you talking about the prints, or about the negatives?

It's possible that you have good (or at least acceptable) negatives,
but that they were printed badly. I'm afraid that scanning black and
white can be a pain in these days of Digital ICE, but it might be
worth a try just to assess negative quality.

snip

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

(UncaMikey) writes:

I haven't shot B&W in decades, so I bought some Fortepan from B&H,
just to play around. I shot a roll of 100 using my Pentax *ist and
various lenses. I had the film processed at Sam's Club, the off-site
service that takes 2 weeks, since it was so cheap and I was simply
curious as to what I would get.

I was not expecting much, but even so I was disappointed. The film
seems to have extraordinarily limited range -- single photos had both
blown white highlights and pitch black shadows, not much gray tones.
Besides the extreme contrast, some images seemed blurred and
indistinct. The shots were in a wide variety of situations, indoor
and outdoor, low light and full sunlight, etc. I don't think it was
the camera, since all the other rolls I've shot with the Pentax *ist
have come out remarkably well; the camera seems to have quite accurate
and sophisticated metering and focusing systems.

There is a slight chance it was the lab, but I know very little about
the mechanics and chemistry of photo processing. Are the poor results
likely the result of using poor film, as I suspect, or was it
partially the cheap processing? Or was it operator error, a lazy
amateur accustomed to today's high quality color films? Larf!

Are you talking about the prints, or about the negatives?

It's possible that you have good (or at least acceptable) negatives,
but that they were printed badly. I'm afraid that scanning black and
white can be a pain in these days of Digital ICE, but it might be
worth a try just to assess negative quality.

snip

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.