Fortepan

[nealjpage]

I bought a few rolls of Fortepan in 120 from Freestyle a few weeks ago since it was on sale. I say 'Holy curly negatives, Batman!' I haven't had 120 film curl like this ever. Did I do something wrong?

 

[Jeff Canes]

More starch maybe? Not sure personally never used any rolls of Forte.

I hate asking really basic questions.
When you hang your negavies to dry do you but a weighted hook at the bottom end of the roll?

 

[nealjpage]

I hate asking really basic questions.
When you hang your negavies to dry do you but a weighted hook at the bottom end of the roll?

Sorry. I'm sure I didn't do anything wrong, as I weighted the film just as I do with any other roll.

Note to self: Shut up, Scott! :lmao:

 

[Jeff Canes]

No I mend “I hate asking really basic questions”, in a reply when tying to finger out what could be the issue. Sometime I’m little afraid of offending the original poster.

 

[nealjpage]

No I mend “I hate asking really basic questions”, in a reply when tying to finger out what could be the issue. Sometime I’m little afraid of offending the original poster.

:hug:: It's all, good, Jeff.

 

[Alpha]

No, you didn't do anything wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, Forte falls into a category with Foma, all of the Fotokemika films (ADOX/Efke/Maco/Rollei), and Arista. They're all less commonly known, smaller producers, and they re-brand their own and others' emulsions so frequently that even exhaustive attempts to develop emulsion/branding phylogenies have been pretty unsuccessful at keeping track of exactly which is which from year to year. (We can throw Agfa into the mix for technicality's sake). It's hard enough to keep track of which ones actually manufacture or coat film. Rollei, for example, is just a brand name tacked onto some of Fotokemika's films, whereas some of the other companies actually do have production plants.

Bergger I consider to be in its own category. Not only do they not re-brand others' emulsions or license their name out, but their film is fundamentally different from the others. The base is thicker (and the paper backing as well for some reason is really really thick in 120), and the emulsion is very very different. It's one of the only films around right now that displays really unique development characteristics. That is to say, it's really geared toward a staining developer (Pyro), at very least to more an extent than anything else, including TX.

But to get back to your original question, a lot of the films in that first category have very thin bases. Most of the Fotokemika films I've worked with, especially, (and I've noted this many times around the forum before) curl so heavily that I have to put them under a dictionary for a long time just to get them into my neg sleeves. A search of the web yields a lot of other people with the same experiences.

 

[Joxby]

I use a lot of Ilford B/W, curling becomes significant to me when I have to faff about with crappy neg carriers for scanning.
That said, I have no problems worth mentioning with any Ilford films except 3200 speed, it curls like a bugger the opposite direction along its length to any other and has reduced me to a gently sobbing mess on many occasions.