Good development in image, no frame numbers. Ilford Pan F+

pentaxuser · Feb 8, 2022

Well can those who conclude it is a problem of bulk film, cite the source of their unequivocal statement that bulk roll comes from a different process than that of cassette film. Do Ilford and Kodak make two films in each case that have the distinct difference in terms of their edge markings and if so why? It doesn't seem particularly sensible to me from a production aspect and why do they make it different to the extent of edge markings?

It didn't seem that way on my 2 tours of Ilford and absolutely no mention was made of their being long strips of film cut for cassettes and other, different long strips made specifically for bulk rolls.

Others here suggest that it is the same film made in exactly the same way and would appear to have experiences with bulk rolls that contradicts the assertion that it is 2 separate films

So any source for this assertion would be welcome. If you have such a source I give a promise that I will write to Ilford citing the source and asking it to confirm or deny the truth of said source

All I ask is that someone in the U.S. do likewise with Kodak.

Thanks

pentaxuser

Vaughn · Feb 8, 2022

All this is interesting but relatively unimportant information.
Which is why I 'guessed' instead of concluded.

snusmumriken · Feb 8, 2022

This rings a bell: I noticed and wondered about very faint edge markings on my last two HP5+ films, loaded from a new bulk roll this month. Sounds like it may be a real issue. A question for Harman? Of course I threw the box away......but it's not a big deal for me.

snusmumriken · Feb 8, 2022

SchwinnParamount said:
This is an image from the roll. By the way, this is Barry Young (APUG original gangster). He builds cameras, grinds glass, wrote a book on bellows making... etc.

Very nice image!

Andrew O'Neill · Feb 8, 2022

Pan F is indeed weird as far latent image keeping quality goes, but it sure is a lovely film when combined with D23 1+3. I've never noticed faded numbers... I don't care, as long as the images don't fade... I've got quite a bit of 120 rolls in the freezer that I aim to shoot real soon!

flavio81 · Feb 8, 2022

MattKing said:
Pan F+ is weird. Latent images fade far faster than most other modern films.
People find that their exposed but not developed images fade in months, rather than years.
And it doesn't seem to have a lot to do with storage conditions.

Interesting.

On the plus side (no pun intended), this might mean that Pan F+ will have a very long shelf life!!

Nitroplait · Feb 8, 2022

Andrew O'Neill said:
I've never noticed faded numbers... I don't care, as long as the images don't fade...

They will, unless you develop the film quickly after exposure.

MattKing · Feb 8, 2022

The reason that bulk film edge numbers seem more faded than ready-loads is that, at least with part of the 100 feet of film, bulk film tends to be older than ready-loads.
Except for those who shoot all 100 feet quickly.
I have some "develop before 2010" T-Max 100 on a bulk roll where the edge numbers remain readable, if somewhat lighter than on fresh film. The film has been stored at room temperature.

Vaughn · Feb 8, 2022

Nitroplait said:
They will, unless you develop the film quickly after exposure.

It can be difficult to build up contrast as the exposed PanF gets older -- just not enough latent image left to develop to a high degree. But generally, I am talking about densities greater than needed for silver printing.

If planned for, I suppose the fading of the latent image could be used to control high contrast situations. Not a great way to do it

pentaxuser · Feb 8, 2022

Vaughn said:
All this is interesting but relatively unimportant information.
Which is why I 'guessed' instead of concluded.

Not sure if this reply is addressed to my post about the difference between bulk roll edge marking fading and cassette edge marking but if it was then thanks for the reply. A guess is somewhat different to a "known" and I was concerned in this respect, namely a few posters saying the same or similar things that may have no basis in fact tend to lead to such matters being cast in stone

Maybe your point was a variation on Matt's point that while bulk roll of 100' is likely to be from the same massive roll as that turned into individual cassettes, it tends to last longer before being used up by the consumers so the end of the roll may be several months older and in that way may have faded more.

However to be honest, Vaughn, my search for the source of the info on bulk rolls was aimed at NB23 who made actual assertions in post 10,18 and 20 or that is the way his statements looked to me and it was from him that I was hoping for sources for such assertions

Hopefully he will respond with his sources. Assertions or indeed simple opinions said emphatically enough when they concern a question of fact need to explored and resolved if possible. Otherwise we introduce unsubstantiated "facts" as incontrovertible evidence which isn't helpful, in my opinion to resolving problems

pentaxuser

Juan Valdenebro · Feb 8, 2022

SchwinnParamount said:
Ilford Pan F+, Xtol stock 68 degrees. 7 minutes. 10 sec agitation every 60 seconds.

This combo resulted in good negatives. The problem is, the frame numbers and film type labeling that you normally see on the film edges was NOT there. That usually means that I developed with exhausted developer, water, or fixer. But the images would be blank too.

What's up?

It was Xtol. Stop using it.
Just kidding!
As Matt, Adrian and others told you, it was PanF!
I've seen the same, exactly, even with single rolls.
Ilford recommend developing it before a month after exposure, and frame numbers' exposure happened a much longer time ago.
It's only happened to me with PanF.
Barry's portrait seem very slightly underexposed.
Have a good night!

SchwinnParamount · Feb 8, 2022

Yep, it is possible that his portrait was slightly underexposed. The Leica did an average reading, including the very bright background. If I had a more modern camera, a hand held meter, or the wits to over-expose for the current reading, you'd see a better Barry.

Vaughn · Feb 8, 2022

pentaxuser said:
Not sure if this reply is addressed to my post about the difference between bulk roll edge marking fading and cassette edge marking but if it was then thanks for the reply. ...pentaxuser

It was, generally. Unless the numbers are somehow super important to an individual (perhaps relates the numbers to the image, and prints the whole neg) all this is just interesting but unimportant info. Numbering is done after the master sheet is cut...on the tour at Ilford, did they mention burning in the numbers at all? I image it might easily be done on separate machine...one for 100' rolls, and one for short rolls that need unnumbered leaders and end bit, and makes that shaped bit one feeds into the take-up reel of a 35mm camera.

NB23 has a habit of announcing his opinion as solid fact -- I'm use to it. His comment about fading of the late image on Pan F because people underexpose it is just his opinion. Over exposed negs on a faded roll are just as badly faded as ones 'properly' exposed. And as I mentioned, in my use of Pan F, faded latent highlights will not expand like those on freshly exposed Pan F.

removedacct3 · Feb 9, 2022

flavio81 said:
... this might mean that Pan F+ will have a very long shelf life!! ...

It seems to have a long shelf life. Have a look at this YT link. And if you're not into Pan F you can still click on this link and be amused ... the intro is hilarious!

tezzasmall · Feb 9, 2022

As it happens, I developed a 120 roll of Pan F+ yesterday. Fresh film, no more than a year old, but overlooked and left in the camera until yesterday. There were no film or exposure number markings, although the three exposures yesterday came out, but the rest of it was a totally blank film.

I've barely used this film over the years, with HP5+ being my standard in both 35mm and 120 format and have never had any trouble with that. After reading more about Pan F+ film, HP5+ is what I think that I will stick with.

Terry S

AgX said:
How many exposures were done with this film? Just those 3 from yesterday, or did you make exposures in the months before?

The full film was exposed with 12 exposures, with the final three just being 'anything' shots, just so that I could develop the mystery film. I'll never know what the other shots were...

Terry S

AgX · Feb 9, 2022

This now is the crucial point, photographs vanishing before processing!

I agree that any vanishing of edgemarking may be an annoyance, but not crucial.

bedrof · Feb 9, 2022

AgX said:
This now is the crucial point, photographs vanishing before processing!

I agree that any vanishing of edgemarking may be an annoyance, but not crucial.

I can see here an opportunity for sort of a project.

pentaxuser · Feb 9, 2022

MrclSchprs said:
It seems to have a long shelf life. Have a look at this YT link. And if you're not into Pan F you can still click on this link and be amused ... the intro is hilarious!

Yes his intros are usually hilarious and I agree about shelf life. Mind you the Ilford announcement about Pan F concerned latent image fade only and provided you haven't exposed the film I have heard of no reason why we should not assume it's longevity isn't an equal to other slow films

Incidentally this presenter has gone from strength to strength in the last 18 months - 2 years based on the fact that (a) he is a natural showman in the best sense of the word and (b) he is the "bloke next door" as they say in the U.K. to whom you can relate

He has a very large following and now gets sent stuff from Ilford and other retailers to try out because he reaches a market that most others who may have superior knowledge of photography do not. He relates to his audience which a lot of others do not

pentaxuser

tezzasmall · Feb 9, 2022

pentaxuser said:
Incidentally this presenter has gone from strength to strength in the last 18 months - 2 years based on the fact that (a) he is a natural showman in the best sense of the word and (b) he is the "bloke next door" as they say in the U.K. to whom you can relate

He has a very large following and now gets sent stuff from Ilford and other retailers to try out because he reaches a market that most others who may have superior knowledge of photography do not. He relates to his audience which a lot of others do not

pentaxuser

Regrettably, he is not my cup of tea at all! And what that intro has to do with the film, would have to be explained to me...? Each to their own, the saying goes.

Terry S

Anon Ymous · Feb 9, 2022

tezzasmall said:
Regrettably, he is not my cup of tea at all! And what that intro has to do with the film, would have to be explained to me...? Each to their own, the saying goes.

Terry S

The film he shot had expired back in 1988 and he shows some videos of major sports events from this year, Olympics, Euro 1988... Even uses a video tape, which was very common back then.

pentaxuser · Feb 9, 2022

Anon Ymous said:
The film he shot had expired back in 1988 and he shows some videos of major sports events from this year, Olympics, Euro 1988... Even uses a video tape, which was very common back then.

I am straying now from the subject at hand but we may have largely exhausted useful discussion pertinent to the thread but I agree his intros are usually clever enough to raise at least a smile from me and that's his key attribute to get people watching. He "starts a conversation" with his viewer Not every viewer of course as no-one can appeal to everyone but, boy, he has a talent for gathering more followers than most others do

On the other hand if you are looking for a short video of concentrated information then there are better presenters but brevity and instruction are not his strengths. He is not the equivalent of a technical lecturer and he knows this so doesn't try to do what I suspect he knows is not his strength.

pentaxuser

flavio81 · Feb 11, 2022

MrclSchprs said:
It seems to have a long shelf life. Have a look at this YT link. And if you're not into Pan F you can still click on this link and be amused ... the intro is hilarious!

Nice intro!! The rest... well i don't like watching YT photography video bloggers. Photrio gives me better quality information and at a far higher speed.

bdial · Feb 11, 2022

It's interesting to note that when he shows the two films side by side, the new roll has edge markings, and the old one does not, but the exposures look pretty consistent between the two.

tokam · Feb 11, 2022

tezzasmall said:
Regrettably, he is not my cup of tea at all! And what that intro has to do with the film, would have to be explained to me...? Each to their own, the saying goes.

Terry S

If I have too much time on my hands I check his channel to see what's new but I don't take him too seriously. For example, his video on the effects of dust on negatives before producing the final image. He abuses the heck out of a strip of negs in attempt to get dust on them and then prints the results. There is obvious dust on his prints but he declares 'No Problems'. So much for print spotting. If you attempted to scan his dusty negs it would be disastrous in my eyes.

SchwinnParamount · Feb 11, 2022

bdial said:
It's interesting to note that when he shows the two films side by side, the new roll has edge markings, and the old one does not, but the exposures look pretty consistent between the two.

That was the first thing I noticed too.

Good development in image, no frame numbers. Ilford Pan F+

pentaxuser

Vaughn

snusmumriken

snusmumriken

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

flavio81

Nitroplait

MattKing

Moderator

Vaughn

pentaxuser

Juan Valdenebro

SchwinnParamount

Vaughn

removedacct3

tezzasmall

AgX

bedrof

pentaxuser

tezzasmall

Anon Ymous

pentaxuser

flavio81

bdial

tokam

SchwinnParamount

Good development in image, no frame numbers. Ilford Pan F+

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency