Agfa Photo 6A4360 APX Pan 400 135/36 Film

Product Information

Next, you may just want to use my numbers here for scannability. These are based on how flat these films were able to lie for me when I scanned them. This review was done with a Canon EOS Elan 7, the Sigma 85mm f1.4 and a Sigma 35mm f1.4 Ease of Use I'm not quite ready to proclaim it on par with APX 100 but it's far closer to its slower counterpart than TMY is to TMX. And I'm not certain it will replace Tri-X in my affections but I certainly like it. I have another roll to test, which I'll develop in ID-11 or Perceptol, about as different from Rodinal as I have available. As often as I can, I want to get into reviewing films. I’m not necessarily talking about the well known films like your Portra, your Tri-X, your Delta 400–but the lesser known and lesser talked about rolls of film. Upon going to the Lomography store here in NYC, a rep there who knows me told me about Agfa APX 400. It’s a rather interesting film–one that retains highlights well so you generally need to overexpose for the shadows.

Los Angeles with Anna - Part II - Day and Night with the Leica 21mm f/3.4 Super Elmar + APO 50mm f/2 Summicron

APX 100

Three Versions of the Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron - APO, Elcan, and Dual Range on the Leica M10 and FujiFilm Superia Venus 800 Highlights are an interesting subject for this film. Bright areas can have an interesting glow bleeding into the rest of the photo. I'm not sure whether the film is the cause of this or the lens. This is very noticeable on shots taken with an uncoated Leitz Summitar lens. The lens is clean, without haze and fungus but the uncoated nature of the lens could enhance this effect. When shot with a more "modern" lens the effect is less noticeable although the light conditions were different as well. I like the washed out look and would be interested to know what is the cause. We’ll start with the cheaper or what I would call the budget films. These are films typically used by students or the budget conscious photographer. And, weighing in at a pretty nine cents per frame (again, in USD), the cheapest of all of the films is Ultrafine Xtreme 400. I couldn’t find a lot of information on the history of this film. Though it is labeled as being produced in Europe, and many believe it to be another film simply rebranded, I can’t find any hard evidence to substantiate that claim. There are different ways to over expose film. A common way if you lab develop your film is to meter the film in camera at say ISO 200 and then ask you lab to develop the film as normal. For Kentmere 400 this would be at ISO 400 giving a +1 stop over exposure (as you metered at ISo 200)(thereby giving the camera +1 stops of extra light on each image).

Like Kentmere, Ilford HP5+ is a product of the Harman technology company. It is a lower contrast film. It has good shadow detail and well-separated mid-tones with sharp grain. Although the contrast is low, there is a great deal of latitude in this film, which makes it great for pushing or flavoring the curves and contrast to taste, after scanning. Selling for about 14 cents per frame, currently, it might be less sharp than some films, but it will provide predictable and reproducible results. Like Kentmere, there is a bit more bounce to this film after drying. As a side note, I’ve found HP5+ fans to be some of the most loyal and enthusiastic in the community, more so, than perhaps, any of the other films that I’m talking about. But how to recognize if it is the new or the old film? Both films (100 and 400) have the imprint “New Emulsion”. Also, the country of manufacture has changed, from “Made in Germany” to “Made in EU”. So what were your results? Does this test change anything for you? Has it sparked your interest in a new film? I’d love to hear about it in the comments? Once you’ve got a copy that you can edit, the first step is to rate your priorities when it comes to film in this second row here. Now keep in mind, I built this for myself and factors I consider when evaluating these films. You may have your own criteria and, as such, you may need to do some refactoring of this spreadsheet to get it to reflect this. But showing you to change the business rules on this spreadsheet is beyond the scope of this tutorial, so you’re on your own if you choose to go that route.

Film History and Characteristics

Phew! That was a lot of work. So with the blind test out of the way, now comes the big reveal. Here are the film names associated to their letters: For reference, I developed the roll of Kentmere 400 (and Ilford Pan 400) from this film test in my usual soup of Xtol and Rodinal film developers. I’ve used this developing mix for so long it is as much of a safety blanket for me when it comes to film developing. My results may look very similar to when using Xtol developer alone but I feel Rodinal can add increased sharpness. You may find these links of interest –

So I’ve given a lot of disclaimers so far, and I want to add yet one more, but this is probably the most important disclaimer. Except in the case of one film (which we’ll get to later), I used the same developer: Kodak HC 110. The biggest difference I saw was in shadow separation - Tri-X and HP-5 were clearly better than the others at drawing out shadow details, with AGFA APX 400 right behind them. Based on shadow detail, I’d have to rate TMax and Delta 400 at 200, Tri-X and HP5 at 400, and Agfa 400 at 320 using this developer/meter combination. First Kentmere 400 portraits from Poland! I’m really impressed with the detail captured but the film scan showed blemishes from the developing (I think that is the marks though it is not visible on the film itself). Pan 400 vs Kentmere 400 vs Ilford Pan 400?Los Angeles with Anna - Part I - Pairing the Leica M10 with the Leica 28mm f/1.4 Summilux + APO 50mm f/2 Summicron After the dissolution of IG Farben, Agfa emerged as its own independent company again before becoming a subsidiary of Bayer in 1952. In 1964, Agfa AG merged with Belgian photographic company Gevaert Photo-Producten N.V. to form Agfa-Gevaert N.V. which would remain under Bayer’s control until 1999. The company continued manufacturing film cameras until the early 1980s and then produced a series of unsuccessful entry-level digital cameras from the mid 1990s until the early 2000s. Keeping the above information in mind helps us to see why things can sometimes go all to hell...and for what seems to be no explainable reason.

Fact is, we don't even know for certain about every minor change made to our favorite films, papers and chemistry because the makers don't notify us. Generally we find out when the grapevine starts buzzing about different results, which leads to methodical tests that either confirm or disprove the rumors. When it comes to price, if you live in US and it’s still 2017 you could probably just trust my numbers. If you don’t, what you’ll want to do is figure out the price per frame, as some of these films come in 24 frames in a roll and others 36. Here are the prices per frame in the US as of the time of me filming this video:

Assuming both APX 400 and Kentmere 400 are the same emulsion I chose to buy Kentmere as it was slightly cheaper online. Kentmere 400 street photography Sensor Comparison of 5 Cameras - the Canon 5D Mark IV, Leica M10, Leica SL, Nikon D850, and Sony A9 Nikon 105mm f/1.4E - A Tale of Brand Loyalty and Superiority (or my excuse to post more sample images) FP4+ is another story, probably my favourite 35mm film, it has never let me down, you can’t really push it but you usually don’t need to when choosing an iso 125 film. Seeing photographs of FP4+ and APX400 side by side is like night and day. Everything is sharper, with better tonality and highlights like clouds for example, look great. On APX400 you don’t have to worry about clouds. Because they don’t exist. Thessaloniki, the “co-capital” of Greece. Nikon FM, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, Ilford FP4+, Rodinal 1+50 Light meteringPerhaps a good way to sum this up and compare this film against a more popular, well-known emulsion such as Tri-X would be to say; if you like the grit and texture of Tri-X (or HP5) but want a more extended tonality or softer contrast to your image then RPX 400 makes an excellent choice. Conclusion: At print sizes of 6x9 inches or 9x13 inches you will probably see very little difference in sharpness or grain among these five films. The best of these films with poor developing (especially overdevelopment) will look a lot worse than the worst of these films with good processing, especially with Xtol. Do You Really Need Modern Lenses for Film Photography? Featuring the 35 Lux AA + 50 Noct 1.2 compared to their current version