New Ilford Large Format Film?

[JensH]

BW117. I want to say the difference is in the base tint perhaps? BW117 is clean white.

Nice. Portrait studios used that 117 surface a lot...
The difference is BW being grade 1 (W=weich=soft) and BS grade 2 (S=spezial=between soft and normal).

 

[tcolgate]

Apropos of not much... Ilford also coated FP4 on glass plates and were still selling them in the first years of the 1970s. I've gone through one box of sixth plate and have two left.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'd rather go to the other end of the spectrum and have Delta 400 in sheets again (like they did in the early 1990's) than Pan F. I'd much rather shoot Delta 400 than HP5.

I'm with you Graig!

 

[cirwin2010]

I won't ever complain about having more choices, but personally this feels like an odd choice and mixed some "why now?" questions. This is something I would have expected to see years ago, I wonder what changed that make them decide to finally release this in large format.


Well, maybe there is hope they release Fuji Across II in sheet sizes one day.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

lford also coated FP4 on glass plates and were still selling them in the first years of the 1970s. I've gone through one box of sixth plate and have two left.

Enjoyed reading your blog post on the same subject. Though the effective speed was dismally low, the images turned out to be very decent.

 

[pentaxuser]

If it is about the annual ULF order, then there is too much fuss about nothing...

I am not an LF user but these are my sentiments exactly. If its the annual LF film sheets announcement then why all the "new" rigmarole of such meaningless announcements

pentaxuser

 

[GregY]

I'm with you Graig!

I'd rather go to the other end of the spectrum and have Delta 400 in sheets again (like they did in the early 1990's) than Pan F. I'd much rather shoot Delta 400 than HP5.

Exactly my preference as well!

 

[pentaxuser]

Is the message from Ilford or Harman? Maybe it's Red,

So possibly from Putin ?

pentaxuser

 

[GregY]

There can be problems with dust when enlarging! It's really hard to keep that much film clean ( and glass in a glass carrier).

While that is true Craig, I don't think it has any relation to the film itself.
Personally I'd never buy Pan F in any sheet film size.

 

[Agulliver]

It has absolutely nothing to do with the ULF, which is an annual event and has already been announced & promoted.

I wish people would stop spreading confusing posts.

It's already leaked via B&H....it's PanF+ in sheets. It was always going to be something new.

 

[DREW WILEY]

AZD - "Wire sharpness" was an expression certain PanF aficionados gave it regarding its particularly crisp edge effect, which significantly boosted its impression of sharpness with enlargement. It seems this is most pronounced using certain pyro developers like PMK. One of these days I should probably test Perceptol 1:3 as well, which successfully enhances TMX100 edge acutance. But with 4x5 film, we're on new territory with respect to PanF, since the degree of enlargement is typically going to be less than with 120 roll film.

So to answer your question - it is really both. The "wire sharpness" is both inherent to Pan F and should be apparent with any number of common developers. Yet, on the other hand, PMK pyro renders it particularly well, while, at the same time, improving highlight reproduction.

But dropping a hundred dollar bill for a box of 4x5 Pan F isn't on my list of priorities right now. That's two tanks of gas on a wished-for photo trip up the coast, or more likely, just one round of 8X10 C41 processing.

 

[Milpool]

I am not an LF user but these are my sentiments exactly. If its the annual LF film sheets announcement then why all the "new" rigmarole of such meaningless announcements

pentaxuser

I think you might have missed it. The new product appears to be Pan F+ in 4x5/8x10.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think you might have missed it. The new product appears to be Pan F+ in 4x5/8x10.

Sorry the sentiments I expressed still stand. What's wrong with making a full and proper announcement instead of the kind of thing that smacks of "Santa will be here soon, so have you been good and what sort of a present are you hoping for?"

pentaxuser

 

[Milpool]

Sorry the sentiments I expressed still stand. What's wrong with making a full and proper announcement instead of the kind of thing that smacks of "Santa will be here soon, so have you been good and what sort of a present are you hoping for?"

pentaxuser

On a personal level I completely agree. Unfortunately this irritating kind of "teaser campaign" is how a lot of consumer products are marketed now.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I won't ever complain about having more choices, but personally this feels like an odd choice and mixed some "why now?" questions. This is something I would have expected to see years ago, I wonder what changed that make them decide to finally release this in large format.


Well, maybe there is hope they release Fuji Across II in sheet sizes one day.

How many ISO 50 rated large format films are out there today? I can't think of any...

 

[armadsen]

How many ISO 50 rated large format films are out there today? I can't think of any...

I don't know of any. There's 25 ISO (Rollei RPX 25), and 80 ISO (Ilford Ortho Plus, Catlabs 80), but no nominally 50 ISO film. Velvia 50 would count, but it was discontinued in sheet film a few years ago.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, if you remove the rather overoptimistic marketing factor, Pan F is a 25 speed film, and FP4 and Delta 100 a lot closer to 50 than the stated box speed of 100. Color films are a different story, because they are centerpoint-out in terms of proper hue saturation, and not bottom of the usable curve up to the top like b&w films. One never says, "exposure for the shadows / develop for the highlights" with color film - just b&w.

Then you have really exaggerated marketing speeds with Fomapan films. Only TMax films seem to be realistically box speed labeled.

 

[Milpool]

That's not correct regarding the Ilford films. Pan F has an ISO speed of 50. Delta 100 has an ISO speed of 100. What you rate them at is a personal choice of exposure index, not emulsion speed.

Foma, I agree with you. Those should be EI 100, 200 etc. as opposed to ISO.

Well, if you remove the rather overoptimistic marketing factor, Pan F is a 25 speed film, and FP4 and Delta 100 a lot closer to 50 than the stated box speed of 100. Color films are a different story, because they are centerpoint-out in terms of proper hue saturation, and not bottom of the usable curve up to the top like b&w films. One never says, "exposure for the shadows / develop for the highlights" with color film - just b&w.

Then you have really exaggerated marketing speeds with Fomapan films. Only TMax films seem to be realistically box speed labeled.

 

[mshchem]

So possibly from Putin ?

pentaxuser

Ai won't care about our national affiliation.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I rate them according to what they do - not some generic speed point formula. I expect enough exposure to lift the shadow gradation off the toe. The most egregious case of label misrepresentation would be Delta 3200. Sure, you can expose it for that and partially get "something" down there in the shadows. But even their own fine print admits it's really closer to 1000 speed.

 

[AZD]

AZD - "Wire sharpness" was an expression certain PanF aficionados gave it regarding its particularly crisp edge effect, which significantly boosted its impression of sharpness with enlargement. It seems this is most pronounced using certain pyro developers like PMK. One of these days I should probably test Perceptol 1:3 as well, which successfully enhances TMX100 edge acutance. But with 4x5 film, we're on new territory with respect to PanF, since the degree of enlargement is typically going to be less than with 120 roll film.

So to answer your question - it is really both. The "wire sharpness" is both inherent to Pan F and should be apparent with any number of common developers. Yet, on the other hand, PMK pyro renders it particularly well, while, at the same time, improving highlight reproduction.

But dropping a hundred dollar bill for a box of 4x5 Pan F isn't on my list of priorities right now. That's two tanks of gas on a wished-for photo trip up the coast, or more likely, just one round of 8X10 C41 processing.

Thank you for your detailed response. I think I will try to achieve something like this with the 35mm roll I’ve had stashed for years, and maybe some 120. I would like to combine that sharpness with some Foma paper from a batch which has a certain “defect” where the dark areas dry with less gloss than the light areas, giving something of an etched look. Images with a lot of fine detail jump off the paper at you, not quite like a hologram, but reminiscent. Strange but interesting.

 

[GregY]

How many ISO 50 rated large format films are out there today? I can't think of any...

& to be honest....how many do we need? In 8x10 what advantage is there over the tonality of FP4+, or the sharpness of Delta 100 or Tmax 100 ??

 

[Milpool]

There’s nothing egregious. It is clearly described as EI 3200 as opposed to ISO 3200. It is designed for pushing.

I rate them according to what they do - not some generic speed point formula. I expect enough exposure to lift the shadow gradation off the toe. The most egregious case of label misrepresentation would be Delta 3200. Sure, you can expose it for that and partially get "something" down there in the shadows. But even their own fine print admits it's really closer to 1000 speed.

 

[gbroadbridge]

There’s nothing egregious. It is clearly described as EI 3200 as opposed to ISO 3200. It is designed for pushing.

If the box states 3200 you should be able to expose correctly at 3200 and have shadow detail.

You can't, so it is completely misleading.

The consumer who relies on box labelling does not give a hoot about EI vs ISO, and should not even need to know about it.

 

[Milpool]

The consumer relying on the box labelling can expose it at 3200 and follow Ilford’s directions and get good results. The film is designed differently than other general purpose films. Highly sophisticated shooters like Drew Wiley might not like what it delivers at 3200, but then again someone that sophisticated should also probably know, at least roughly, what an ISO speed is rather than saying things like Pan F is “a 25 speed film” or “Delta 100 a lot closer to 50 than the stated box speed of 100”, so all bets are off.