Bad Pan F ??

ath said:

NB23, pretty stong words from
Unless you know exactly how the edge markings you compare have been generated the only conclusion you can draw from their appearance is wether you mixed up developer and fixer or not.

Click to expand...

When I visited the Ilford factory in 2008, I understood that their cuurent packaging machine which spooled the lengths of film and printed the edge markings had come from Agfa when they closed.
This would be around 2005/6, so film packed before then would have its edge markings put on by a different machine. So the density and the design of the markings could obviously be completely different. Simple explanation?

NB23 said:

some Fresh pan-f go bad on me while some other 8 years expired pan-f films look incredibly good.

Click to expand...

Pictures of the films that have 'gone bad' might help?

Are those the edge markings you would expect to see on a bulk roll? The bulk rolls I have seen often have different edge markings than the pre-filled casettes.

Why won't you just send a sample of each "version" of the film with different markings and let Ilford give you AND US an answer...

I just don't understand why you're so stubborn about this going on and on about it but not getting an answer, are you too poor to mail the package?

Send it to me POD and ill ship it to ilford...

And I'm super broke but this is worth the double shipping cost just to get an answer.

Please just grab an example from each type of density, include any other info you can give them like type of developer used etc and send or, please...


~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

Stonenyc,

You maybe need help. They say that the Vitamin B complex helps somewhat the intelligence. I have proven Black on White (!!) that the theory about latent image theory is BS.

I am not poor. But someone should pay me for parting with negatives. They are that valuable.
If you send me the money, I'll send them to you. And then you can send them to Ilford.
As for me, I don't need them to analyze my negs. I know what I see.
And besides, the codes on the boxes that I photographed are plenty enough for an internal investigation. They know their codes.

I'm not sure you have the capacity to understand, though.

brianmquinn said:

Are those the edge markings you would expect to see on a bulk roll? The bulk rolls I have seen often have different edge markings than the pre-filled casettes.

Click to expand...

This is so irrelevant (and so easy to understand!!).

Pan-f is supposed to have poor latent image properties according to the "experts" and therefore the markings should have disappeared by 2013.
Some peoe say that 1 month is enough to wash out expised images significantly. Do you understand now?

Now if you were implying that bulk film and rolled films are two different films with different standards, then that also proves my point of a manufacturing or a QC problem.

Bulk film and spooled films are identical in their quality. They are cut off from the same long roll (pancake).
In some cases perforation and the type of edge marking may be different. But not the exposure of the edge-markings itself.

Michael R 1974 said:

Which "experts" said Pan F+ has poor latent image keeping properties? I still haven't seen any objective, controlled data presented by anyone, and Ilford does not indicate this is a problem. ......

Click to expand...

I agree with Michael. This claim has been repeated in this thread alone many times, yet Ilford says otherwise.

NB23 said:

Stonenyc,

You maybe need help. They say that the Vitamin B complex helps somewhat the intelligence. I have proven Black on White (!!) that the theory about latent image theory is BS.

I am not poor. But someone should pay me for parting with negatives. They are that valuable.
If you send me the money, I'll send them to you. And then you can send them to Ilford.
As for me, I don't need them to analyze my negs. I know what I see.
And besides, the codes on the boxes that I photographed are plenty enough for an internal investigation. They know their codes.

I'm not sure you have the capacity to understand, though.

Click to expand...

Haha I don't know what drug you might take to get over your ego...

Your images can't be that amazing that you can't send off 1 clipping image from each roll... There's always one bad image on a roll and don't claim otherwise I saw your images they aren't good enough to be afraid of letting go, and you'll get them back.

You can send it COD (charge on delivery) meaning when the package arrives at my house I pay the postage. I'm not sending you money though.

Michael R 1974 said:

Which "experts" said Pan F+ has poor latent image keeping properties? I still haven't seen any objective, controlled data presented by anyone, and Ilford does not indicate this is a problem.

As for manufacturing/QC issues, I really don't see how an individual can be as certain as NB23 about something like this, particularly when he has admitted to completely ignoring manufacturer handling recommendations. There are so many variables involved in processing film, from temperature shifts to chemistry mixing practices. Which is more likely: an undetected QC screw-up at Ilford, or an undetected inconsistency, control error etc. in one of our home darkrooms?

Click to expand...

Actually I did see Simon mention it, I just can't recall what thread but within the last year he said that they recommend processing within 3 months. The thread was about a guy who left his roll of 120 on his desk at work for a year and over the summer it was hot in the office and after he processed it was faint or something, I think that's where he said it.


~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

NB23 said:

Simon,
What explains, for instance, that the 2005 expired pan-f I shot recently is perfectly well developed and even has the manufactured markings bright and clear while fresh Pan-F often comes out washed out?

Under the above circumstances, the "latent image" theory just doesn't stand.

Click to expand...

I wonder if you might have the two films confused with each other??

And in any case some images comparing the two could lend some credence to your claims.

I certainly do not consider this a QC issue, it is a slow film issue. Efke 25 behaves similarly. I have seen that if it sits around and isn't developed promptly the images are less dense. I suppose it could be my storage conditions, (cool but not frozen - I don't have those special thermostatic hands) but what I see for myself I tend to believe more.

It might be interesting to note that I have never had any problems with Pan F, or HP5. It is probably not a coincidence of epic proportions that I handle my film very carefully. In other words, it's pretty obvious where the fault likely lies, and the supposed victim here doesn't seem to want to really get to the bottom of it, so I don't see much of a need to bicker about it. Some people you cant help. Surfers credo; acknowledge, and move on.