Dear NB23,
I have discussed the latent image properties of PAN F and PAN F + before.
PAN F+ is NOT unstable and your theory regarding date stamping an 'old' roll is laughable.
We coat each of our films on a regular basis, some monthly, some bi-monthly and some tri-monthly
and one of our film products ( not PAN F+ ) twice per annum, remember 35mm, 120 film and sheet film are all separate coating events. This ensures that we do not hold too many rolls of extremely expensive coated parent roll material in stock, that would be very bad business, it also ensures that we have extremely fresh film leaving the factory. Every coated parent roll is date registered, and when it is finished into cassettes the coated batch has to have the exact same expirey date on it, its all computer controlled, sequentially finished and called TQM ( total quality management ). Whilst waiting to be finished it is stored under controlled conditions. If a scan of the individual bar code on the parent roll that is to be finished is taken and its not sequential with the last roll ( of the same type ) the process control system cannot be initiated.
Please do not get me wrong, I'm not miffed, you are entitled to whatever opinion you hold and I do not doubt for second they are geniunely held, my issue is that I know the massive amount of hard work and systems that have been put in place to ensure the ultimate in quality control and the money we have spent ( and continue to spend ) to ensure 100% customer satisfaction. I know every single week how much 'waste' we have, that is coated product both film and paper that never finds its way into a box due to our no compromise QC systems, its one of our key KPI monitors.
And the secret is, the better your QC from start to finish the lower the waste will actually be.
Kindest Regards
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology LImited :
I have never found the relative density of the edge printing on film to be a reliable indicator of anything.
Latent images degrade over time. The rate of degradation is complex and hard to predict.
...since they are exposed at the manufacturing stage they shall, logically, tell us a thing or two on the latent image stability.
Simon,
I am a very regular HP5 user and lover and I print on Ilford papers almost exclusively. I've really only had unpredictable results with Pan-F from time to time.
My scratched FP-4 film issues date from 1994.
Also, my HP5 films behave differently from time to time.
So Ned, just so you know what we're talking about here are frames from three rolls of PanF+, all shot at iso 40 and all run in DD-X 1:4. This has been my normal way of shooting and developing Pan F+ for about four years now. (Pardon my iPhone through the loupe shots here)
-----
I would completely expect that a roll from this 2016 batch will have equally thin edgeprinting should any of it be left here in May of 2014. When exposed and developed promptly the image area develops normally. The edge printing changes in intensity depending on the age of the film. I first came across this with a roll of PanF+ I let sit for a long while - several months waiting till I had more rolls to fill up a developing tank. The "old" film was markedly thinner overall despite being processed in the same tank, and noticeably thinner than films exposed during the same period but developed promptly.
Well, your excellent test throws my theory right out the window. I'm glad I was wrong.
It would be interesting to see a test where a roll of film is kept in the same camera, and the exact same picture (studio, obviously) taken once per week on the same roll, meaning 36 weeks to finish it, and then process to see the results.
Bob,
Very interessant.
But why, then, does my "expired in 2005 but shot in March and developed in April" Pan-F look like your "Expiration date 2015, exposed & Developed March 2012"? If the "poor latent image" theory was true my negs should show no markings at all. But yet they do and they are very contrasty. This clearly contradicts the theory.
And yet, I've also had very faint images shot on fresh pan-f.
Bob,
Very interessant.
But why, then, does my "expired in 2005 but shot in March and developed in April" Pan-F look like your "Expiration date 2015, exposed & Developed March 2012"?
If the "poor latent image" theory was true my negs should show no markings at all. But yet they do and they are very contrasty. This clearly contradicts the theory. And yet, I've also had very faint images shot on fresh pan-f.
From what I see the images are as expected but the concern is about the edge markings?
Who gives a shoot about the markings? As long as there are pictures...
Dear Stone,
I will never look at a roll of PAN F + in the same light again....forgive me if I decide not to use that image in the 2014 calender....
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
Dear Stone,
I will never look at a roll of PAN F + in the same light again....forgive me if I decide not to use that image in the 2014 calender....
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
The first shot of the Ilord pan F+ film box is really eye catching! The second shot is less so for me, but I'm 63 yrs old and not into nose rings, tattoo's, big holes in earlobes or spiker haircuts anymore. I'm still concentrating on the first shot and whether or not the film box would be better on the right cheek or the left cheek? No matter what, PanF+ is great stuff. JohnW
Dear Stone,
I will never look at a roll of PAN F + in the same light again....forgive me if I decide not to use that image in the 2014 calender....
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?