Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Polypan F50 Review
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:48 pm    Post subject: Polypan F50 Review Reply with quote

Ian made a nice review on this film.

http://www.mflenses.com/polypan-f50-review.html


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doesn't surprise really; it's a film for older traffic speed cameras, I think, and quality isn't as important as being able to read the registration plate.
Makes me glad I didn't get any.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Farside wrote:
Doesn't surprise really; it's a film for older traffic speed cameras, I think, and quality isn't as important as being able to read the registration plate.
Makes me glad I didn't get any.

+1 have to look many samples on Flickr for a while once you get a good result.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think it's for speed cameras, it's too slow, it is rated at 50, but I suspect it's actually 25. Speed camera film was rated at 400 (Ilford P4, Maco Eagle etc). I've no idea who made this film or what it was originally used for, I doubt strongly it was a copy film like Tech Pan as it lacks the sharpness and fine grain needed for that. You can tell by looking at it in it's unexposed state that it's a thinner emulsion than Fomapan, Ilford FP4 and HP5, and even comparing it to Tech Pan, which is also on a thin polyester base, you can see the polypan has much thinner emulsion.

So it's a thin emulsion on a clear polyester base, slow speed, probably 25 ISO, grainy and low resolution, I can't see what it was used for, I would think a speed camera film needed to be sharp to read numberplates.

Who made it is anyone's guess, there's some speculation if you search the net.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.flickr.com/groups/44223278@N00/discuss/72157594528127396/
There are some decent results on that group, but I also see plenty evidence of scratching and grain, as you said.
Seems as if it's a film you wouldn't want large blowups from, but the acuity itself would be good enough for reading regy plates, for instance Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suppose it depends on what you're happy with. I found that with Microdol-X 1:3 I got almost no grain and the tonality was okay, but it still wasn't that sharp. I far prefer the results I get with FP4 and Fomapan so it's not for me.

It can make nice pics but it can never match the quality of other films that I have plenty of (I've got about 500ft of FP4 in the fridge) so it's sub-standard for me.



I had to pick that example, it has a clearly legible numberplate Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't think it's for speed cameras, it's too slow, it is rated at 50, but I suspect it's actually 25. Speed camera film was rated at 400 (Ilford P4, Maco Eagle etc). I've no idea who made this film or what it was originally used for, I doubt strongly it was a copy film like Tech Pan as it lacks the sharpness and fine grain needed for that. You can tell by looking at it in it's unexposed state that it's a thinner emulsion than Fomapan, Ilford FP4 and HP5, and even comparing it to Tech Pan, which is also on a thin polyester base, you can see the polypan has much thinner emulsion.

So it's a thin emulsion on a clear polyester base, slow speed, probably 25 ISO, grainy and low resolution, I can't see what it was used for, I would think a speed camera film needed to be sharp to read numberplates.

Who made it is anyone's guess, there's some speculation if you search the net.


May an unsuccessful Chinese batch Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I might get some after all and use it with Caffenol - x as some of those results aren't bad at all. I'll store it with the thousand feet of Kodak dupe film I haven't even touched yet Smile
Really must get around to using some of this.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Farside wrote:
I might get some after all and use it with Caffenol - x as some of those results aren't bad at all. I'll store it with the thousand feet of Kodak dupe film I haven't even touched yet Smile
Really must get around to using some of this.


Laughing Laughing look forward it !!


PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remember you're looking at web size samples, which does a lot to hide it's softness and grain. The lack of resolution makes it limited to closer range shots, when you shoot at infinity, you really see the softness. Also, remember you're looking at cherry picked examples, I shot hundreds of images with it and I'd say maximum 25% were any good, in a lot of circumstances it just produces bad results with bad tonality, and you have to avoid high contrast light as it lacks the dynamic range to cope with it, you also have to avoid bright highlights as it lacks any halation and doesn't hold onto highlight details ((or shadow detail either). It's crap, basically, grain is like Tri-X pushed to 1600 when developed in RO9, it needs a metol developer like microphen or perceptol used at high dilution to control the grain.


PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2013 10:53 am    Post subject: Promicrol Reply with quote

I would try Promicrol. didnt develop B+W for decades. but that was THE developper for me. i was using replenisher.
It was gone from the market for some time since the producer could not get a certain ingredience anymore. seems to be back again.
Have seen it on the net.
I have a roll of polypan 90m to use.
There is another blog which has a review-showing its wonderful halo- its a blog with informations about new55(not the official one i suspect, maybe i err. search for new55 and polypan50 together.