density of mfgrs markings on film

a lamp in the vestry

A
a lamp in the vestry

  • Tel
  • Jan 28, 2023
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Cyanotype landscape

A
Cyanotype landscape

  • 0
  • 0
  • 14
Breaking Storm

A
Breaking Storm

  • 4
  • 2
  • 122
Homecoming

A
Homecoming

  • 1
  • 2
  • 118
Centro Cultural San Pablo

A
Centro Cultural San Pablo

  • 1
  • 1
  • 154

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
181,777
Messages
2,514,817
Members
95,411
Latest member
Sh8n8h8n
Recent bookmarks
0

rexp

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
168
Location
Lincoln, Neb
Shooter
Med. Format RF
I usually shoot Ilford FP4 in 120 format and develop in Perceptol, but last weekend I developed a couple rolls of HP5. Same developer, close to recommended times for development, pretty normal process. There is a large difference in the density of the markings along the edges of these two films (exposure #, film type, etc.). The HP5 is much denser than the FP4. I can't complain about the results of either sets of negatives (I guess that is what matters, isn't it?) but surprised by the text.

I suppose it could be due to the film speed. If the machine that exposes this info is set up to expose at a constant light flux, then a slower film would appear to be exposed less than a faster film. I would think they would either overexpose enough to compensate for this, or adjust for consistent exposure.

I am trying to stick with one film until I feel I can utilize its potential (OK - SOME of its potential) as opposed to trying many types of film, therefore I don't know if this is the case with other types of film. Maybe some of you can take a peek at the markings on your films and let me know.

Interesting......
 

BradS

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,530
Location
Sonora, California
Shooter
35mm
Wierd coincidece...This morning, I was droping some B&W negs at my lab to have them make prints -- I don't have a darkroom. I had a mix of HP-5 and Plus-X. The guy at the counter noticed the same thing you mention. The frame numbers on the HP-5+ were very dense and those on the Plus-X were a little thin. I just chalked it up to my dev process....figured I shorted the dev on the Plus-X but I think your explanation is plausible too.

Need more data on this one.
 

pschauss

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2002
Messages
243
I have noticed something similar with Kodak bulk film (Tri-X and Plus-X). The frame numbers on the bulk film are much lighter than those on the corresponding pre-packaged version. I have never seen this problem with Ilford films.
 
OP
OP

rexp

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
168
Location
Lincoln, Neb
Shooter
Med. Format RF
It just dawned on me that I should post this on the Ilford forum. Maybe one of the Engineers will chime in...
 

ElrodCod

Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
139
Location
Florida
Shooter
Pinhole
pschauss said:
I have noticed something similar with Kodak bulk film (Tri-X and Plus-X). The frame numbers on the bulk film are much lighter than those on the corresponding pre-packaged version. I have never seen this problem with Ilford films.

That's probably because the film base of the bulk film is thicker.
 

titrisol

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
1,809
Location
RDU / UIO
Shooter
Multi Format
I have noticed that those marks are very variable from film to film... even between lots.
They are just used for identification so I wouldn;t even give them much thought.
 

rbarker

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
2,218
Location
Rio Rancho,
Shooter
Multi Format
rexp said:
It just dawned on me that I should post this on the Ilford forum. Maybe one of the Engineers will chime in...
Don't bother. None of the Ilford people monitor their forum at the present time. Those who did in the past were terminated several months back.
 

rogueish

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2004
Messages
876
Location
3rd Rock
Shooter
Multi Format
rbarker said:
Don't bother. None of the Ilford people monitor their forum at the present time. Those who did in the past were terminated several months back.
:sad:
I sad to hear that. I found they were helpful to me with my queries when I was visited the site regular.
 

pschauss

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2002
Messages
243
ElrodCod said:
That's probably because the film base of the bulk film is thicker.

Is this true of all bulk film or just Kodak? (The Ilford bulk film I have used does not have the lower density labels).

Does the thicker film base have any impact on EI rating or processing?
 

ElrodCod

Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
139
Location
Florida
Shooter
Pinhole
pschauss said:
Is this true of all bulk film or just Kodak? (The Ilford bulk film I have used does not have the lower density labels).

Does the thicker film base have any impact on EI rating or processing?

Kodak Tri-X is the only bulk film that I've ever used but it may be true of others as well. The only impact that I've experienced is that it's harder to get max black through the thicker film base when printing. Take a piece of processed unexposed negative of each; lay them side by side and make a test strip & you'll see what I mean.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom