2013 ULF Manufacture From ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

[ctsundevil]

I asked Simon last year about cutting some bulk film for 122. They have to cut one full pass off a parent roll. If I remember correctly, Simon said it was somewhere around 1600 feet long. If they could guarantee that that much film would sell. They would likely do it.

As a side note, I measured 122 verichrome pan at exactly 3 5/8" wide.

 

[StoneNYC]

I'd love some PAN-F in 4x5 and 5x7

I'm just a 4x5 guy but if you consider coating+cutting some Pan-F I'd be happy (I realise it's currently only on thin base for rolls). Or some Delta-100 in (perforated!) 70mm would rock.

I second (third) this request, PanF+ in 4x5 at least...

And 70mm in ANY type from ilford would be welcome but I prefer PanF+ in that as well if possible.

I don't even care about the thin base... If the Rollei IR people can handle the thin base of that, I'll deal with it for some PanF+ obviously a thicker base would be better but if that's the only obstacle I'll deal with the current base...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[removed account4]

Me too...

me three ..

 

[alarickc]

Here's another vote for PanF+ in 4x5!

Oh, and Ortho Plus in 135&120 would be lovely as well.

 

[wblynch]

...Simon said it was somewhere around 1600 feet long. If they could guarantee that that much film would sell. They would likely do it...

That's only 32 50ft rolls... Should sell

 

[viridari]

Pan F+ in 4x5 ... I'm wondering why it's not already there? I've had some fun with Pan F+ in 135 and, to a lesser extent, in 120. I noticed its absence from the 4x5 lineup at Freestyle when I bought my first box of film last summer for my Crown Graphic (first LF camera).

 

[steven_e007]

I thought there were technical reasons why they can't coat pan F on sheet film?

Maybe Delta 100 in sheet is the best compromise? It can be downrated in something like perceptol to give a similar effect to a true low speed film at maybe an EI of 50. Maybe some of the gurus on here can get it to behave even more like an old slow emulsion with a pyro developer...

 

[Ian Grant]

I thought there were technical reasons why they can't coat pan F on sheet film?

Maybe Delta 100 in sheet is the best compromise? It can be downrated in something like perceptol to give a similar effect to a true low speed film at maybe an EI of 50. Maybe some of the gurus on here can get it to behave even more like an old slow emulsion with a pyro developer...

There are technical issues but then . . . . . . .

Pan F+ in 4x5 ... I'm wondering why it's not already there? I've had some fun with Pan F+ in 135 and, to a lesser extent, in 120. I noticed its absence from the 4x5 lineup at Freestyle when I bought my first box of film last summer for my Crown Graphic (first LF camera).

Do we really need Pan F in LF sizes ?

I've used EFKE (Adox) Pl25 and Kb25 since the 1970's and it's similar in speed to Tmax100 - 50EI in Daylight, if I used FP4 it was at 64 EI - so close.

Last few years I've been shooting HP5 for 5x4 hand held work with my Crown and more recently Super Graphics and the quality in terms of grain, sharpness and tonality is outstanding, Delta 100 is now my main film. The quality of all the Ilford LF films is so high I couldn't think why I'd need PanF in LF sizes, however if my main work was on 120 or 35mm with a tripod I would use Pan F exclusively.

Ian

 

[StoneNYC]

There are technical issues but then . . . . . . .



Do we really need Pan F in LF sizes ?

I've used EFKE (Adox) Pl25 and Kb25 since the 1970's and it's similar in speed to Tmax100 - 50EI in Daylight, if I used FP4 it was at 64 EI - so close.

Last few years I've been shooting HP5 for 5x4 hand held work with my Crown and more recently Super Graphics and the quality in terms of grain, sharpness and tonality is outstanding, Delta 100 is now my main film. The quality of all the Ilford LF films is so high I couldn't think why I'd need PanF in LF sizes, however if my main work was on 120 or 35mm with a tripod I would use Pan F exclusively.

Ian

PanF+ is WAY different than D100, it reacts to pushing very different, the tones an style of the effect on skin tones for me is very different and it's a traditional grain, it shouldn't be the same as a T grain, it more than just about the fine grain nature, it's a whole different animal.

If they had PanF+ in 4x5 I doubt I would even buy another film for daylight work.

If they could make a film with the characteristics of PanF+ and the reciprocity failure rates of Acros 100 I would never buy any other B&W film but Ilford.

But I digress. Point is I'm not the only one, and I doubt that delta rated at EI 50 dev in Rodinal pushed 2 stops would give anything like PanF+ because its only a 1 stop push in reality, which doesn't push the highlights enough, and I think the ability to not burn out the highlights in a push is another PanF+ behavior I like, at least on my system.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LJH]

Do we really need Pan F in LF sizes ?

I think that outdoor portrait shooters using wide open barrel lenses would argue "yes".

As, too, would those who have been put out by the demise of the slow Efke films (25 & 50).

Now, if there was an Acros 50...

 

[steven_e007]

PanF+ is WAY different than D100, it reacts to pushing very different, the tones an style of the effect on skin tones for me is very different and it's a traditional grain, it shouldn't be the same as a T grain, it more than just about the fine grain nature, it's a whole different animal.

If they had PanF+ in 4x5 I doubt I would even buy another film for daylight work.

If they could make a film with the characteristics of PanF+ and the reciprocity failure rates of Acros 100 I would never buy any other B&W film but Ilford.

But I digress. Point is I'm not the only one, and I doubt that delta rated at EI 50 dev in Rodinal pushed 2 stops would give anything like PanF+ because its only a 1 stop push in reality, which doesn't push the highlights enough, and I think the ability to not burn out the highlights in a push is another PanF+ behavior I like, at least on my system.



~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course, Delta 100 is a completely different film to Pan F+ and will behave quite differently. But maybe the relevent question should be: if you have a particular 'look' or characteristic that you are after, is there a way, with the right techniques, that you couldn get it with Delta?

I mean, if you like the ultra grain free, razor sharp images in your Hasselblad then maybe only T max 100 or Across ot Delta 100 will do. But if you like the grainy, contasty, 1950s style of emulsion but all you have is T Max, surely you have a chance of getting a similar effect, because you can control contrast, colour sensitivity (with filters), the curve shape ( to some degree at least) and the grain. Boil T-max up in concentrated print developer and it looks very different! With sufficient experimentation I bet you could emulate something from years ago or something of lesser technological development.

In the case of 'pushed' pan F+ effect you were describing (something I've not done very much as I have always found it very contrasty and easy to make unprintable) - could Delta 100 with an ND filter over the lens and pushed in a compensating developer give a similar effect? I don't know, I've never tried it, but since sheet Delta 100 is available and sheet pan F+ isn't, I would humbly suggest it is worth trying.

 

[Roger Cole]

The easiest solution would simply be to get a 6x7 or 6x9 rollfilm back for your view camera. Of course you still get a MF sized negative (my 6x6 ones from Pan F+ print beautifully at 15x15, with invisible grain, so I'm sure a 6x7 would go to 16x20 without issue) and you may run into short lens issues when you need wide angle, but for many shots it will give you the movements and workflow of the viewcamera with Pan F+. I use a 6x7 back for color myself. LF color is simply too expensive and too hard, and expensive, to get processed, and I don't do enough color of any kind to bother with it myself again yet.

 

[StoneNYC]

Of course, Delta 100 is a completely different film to Pan F+ and will behave quite differently. But maybe the relevent question should be: if you have a particular 'look' or characteristic that you are after, is there a way, with the right techniques, that you couldn get it with Delta?

I mean, if you like the ultra grain free, razor sharp images in your Hasselblad then maybe only T max 100 or Across ot Delta 100 will do. But if you like the grainy, contasty, 1950s style of emulsion but all you have is T Max, surely you have a chance of getting a similar effect, because you can control contrast, colour sensitivity (with filters), the curve shape ( to some degree at least) and the grain. Boil T-max up in concentrated print developer and it looks very different! With sufficient experimentation I bet you could emulate something from years ago or something of lesser technological development.

In the case of 'pushed' pan F+ effect you were describing (something I've not done very much as I have always found it very contrasty and easy to make unprintable) - could Delta 100 with an ND filter over the lens and pushed in a compensating developer give a similar effect? I don't know, I've never tried it, but since sheet Delta 100 is available and sheet pan F+ isn't, I would humbly suggest it is worth trying.

Look at my gallery's or examples, at least within the first page a woman's chest is a good example. Also a girl with a guitar I think as well.

I don't want to learn a new system, and I want to support Ilford. I dislike Tmax, I have 3 rolls left and if I can get one image I'm happy with I'll be surprised. I'll try rating the 400 at 320, maybe that will help, but I might need to go as low as 200, and then what's the point lol.

Thanks, this is a request forum, please respect that this is about us asking Ilford to make this for those that want it, stop trying to put the idea down, it's not polite, some of us want it, let us ask and stop trying to tell me how to do something different when I already know what I want.

EDIT: sorry the examples are on page 2 of my gallery...

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wblynch]

Wouldn't FP4+ be a better candidate than Delta 100?

I believe FP4+ is readily available in 4x5 and other sheets.

 

[StoneNYC]

Wouldn't FP4+ be a better candidate than Delta 100?

I believe FP4+ is readily available in 4x5 and other sheets.

Yes, however I would still prefer PanF+ to FP4+

 

[Neanderman]

I asked Simon last year about cutting some bulk film for 122. They have to cut one full pass off a parent roll. If I remember correctly, Simon said it was somewhere around 1600 feet long. If they could guarantee that that much film would sell. They would likely do it.

What do you say, Simon? Give us a Cat number and lets see if we can scare up 1600' worth of orders!

Ed

 

[viridari]

I didn't expect quite so much hooplah over my inquiry about Pan F+ in 4x5 sheets.

No, I really don't want Delta 100. It's a fine film for those who prefer the look that it provides. I haven't seen much in the way of Delta 100 images that bowl me over so I'm interested in the traditional emulsions.

 

[Ian Grant]

I didn't expect quite so much hooplah over my inquiry about Pan F+ in 4x5 sheets.

No, I really don't want Delta 100. It's a fine film for those who prefer the look that it provides. I haven't seen much in the way of Delta 100 images that bowl me over so I'm interested in the traditional emulsions.

There's nothing wrong with asking. However if I put a bunch of prints in front of you from LF negatives there's no way you'd be able to tell me what film they were shot on (leaving aside Infra red) and they range from EFKE/Adox PL25. APX100, Tmax100, Fomapan 100 & 200, Delta 100 & HP5.

There's already threads where Ilford have said there's no chance of Pan F as sheet film, Ilford offer a choice of FP4 or Delta 100 in sheet film sizes, economically there's no way they could make Pan F as the demand just wouldn't be large enough.

If Ilford made a slower film than FP4 or Delat 100 yes I'd use it in LF sizes where I prefer to use a tripod but Ilford have said it's just not possible for technical and even if thise were solved economic reasons. That's the reality we need to accept.

Ian

 

[StoneNYC]

There's nothing wrong with asking. However if I put a bunch of prints in front of you from LF negatives there's no way you'd be able to tell me what film they were shot on (leaving aside Infra red) and they range from EFKE/Adox PL25. APX100, Tmax100, Fomapan 100 & 200, Delta 100 & HP5.

There's already threads where Ilford have said there's no chance of Pan F as sheet film, Ilford offer a choice of FP4 or Delta 100 in sheet film sizes, economically there's no way they could make Pan F as the demand just wouldn't be large enough.

If Ilford made a slower film than FP4 or Delat 100 yes I'd use it in LF sizes where I prefer to use a tripod but Ilford have said it's just not possible for technical and even if thise were solved economic reasons. That's the reality we need to accept.

Ian

Every year he accepts request, so that's my request, I'll keep requesting it anyway, he's never said no to me personally and as I understand the only issue is that the base is thin and he perceives that people wouldn't be happy with that, and I've said and a few others agree they would deal with having a thin base for a trial run, it's the same as Rollei IR film in thin-ness and people buy that, so if that's the only issue, he may do a run if he gets enough requests and he can use the feedback from that to see if it's worth making with the current base, anyway, please can we move on, it's just a request, I'm not trying to fight, but let me make my request and hear from Simon if he doesn't like it

 

[steven_e007]

Thanks, this is a request forum, please respect that this is about us asking Ilford to make this for those that want it, stop trying to put the idea down, it's not polite, some of us want it, let us ask and stop trying to tell me how to do something different when I already know what I want.

Harman have already made it clear several times that Pan F+ on sheet isn't viable for technical reasons.

I wasn't trying to put the idea down, only deal with the reality of the situation..

I did not try to tell you how to do anything. I asked a question:

could Delta 100 with an ND filter over the lens and pushed in a compensating developer give a similar effect? I don't know, I've never tried it

Please tell me, how is asking a question, one that I have said that I do not have the answer to, telling you how to do anything at all?

And you thing that me asking, since Harman have already said 'no', if there could maybe be another way to acheive the required effect, is showing a lack of respect and politeness?

Very sorry. I will take great care never to risk offending you again.

 

[StoneNYC]

Harman have already made it clear several times that Pan F+ on sheet isn't viable for technical reasons.

I wasn't trying to put the idea down, only deal with the reality of the situation..

I did not try to tell you how to do anything. I asked a question:


Please tell me, how is asking a question, one that I have said that I do not have the answer to, telling you how to do anything at all?

And you thing that me asking, since Harman have already said 'no', if there could maybe be another way to acheive the required effect, is showing a lack of respect and politeness?

Very sorry. I will take great care never to risk offending you again.

Sorry man, it was late and I was just annoyed at how many people were poopoo-ing the idea, I don't care what others say that's what I want PanF+ in 4x5 and I'll just keep asking and hoping Sorry if I was a jerk earlier.

 

[LJH]

Sorry man, ... I don't care what others say that's what I want PanF+ in 4x5 and I'll just keep asking and hoping Sorry if I was a jerk earlier.

Nothing wrong with having a wish list, StoneNYC. If that was the criteria for being a jerk, there would be quite a few of us here!!

I wish they'd bring it out in ULF, as well as wishing for Acros 50 and Velvia 50 in 7x17".

 

[Ian Grant]

Every year he accepts request, so that's my request, I'll keep requesting it anyway, he's never said no to me personally and as I understand the only issue is that the base is thin and he perceives that people wouldn't be happy with that, and I've said and a few others agree they would deal with having a thin base for a trial run, it's the same as Rollei IR film in thin-ness and people buy that, so if that's the only issue, he may do a run if he gets enough requests and he can use the feedback from that to see if it's worth making with the current base, anyway, please can we move on, it's just a request, I'm not trying to fight, but let me make my request and hear from Simon if he doesn't like it

Realism is needed nothing is is going to change. Mirco of Fotoimpex has said similar that a slow film isn't economic so no new APX25 - key chemicals have gone.

Word in the trade is Kodak have stopped making film, they have master rolls to last 3-4 years, then it's over, just like they did with Kodachrome.

Ian

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Word in the trade is Kodak have stopped making film, they have master rolls to last 3-4 years, then it's over, just like they did with Kodachrome.

Which, if true, would be the final realization of EXACTLY what Kodak management has been saying now for years and years and years was their ultimate strategic direction.

Ken

 

[Ian Grant]

Which, if true, would be the final realization of EXACTLY what Kodak management has been saying now for years and years and years was their ultimate strategic direction.

Ken

Well Peres is on record saying this. His wishes are coming true.

Ian