HP5 8x10 film is really staring to annoy me.

kjsphoto · Jan 11, 2007

Has anything changed with HP5 emulsion since run with dates of 2007?

I had 2 OCT 2007 boxes and 2 boxes of Dec 2007. I tested all the film when I shot it with a densitometer and it was rated at 200 and the dev time of the different emulsion were within 10 seconds different in dev time.

Now I opened a Sept 2008 box and figured looks like they fixed the problems with inconsistent batches. So I went out and shot using the same index as stated above and dev as normal from the other two emulsions. Then a problem happened. The negs were no where near close. So I started testing using the densitometer.

The film speed is sitting around 100 ISO and this is supposed to be a 400 speed film. What the heck is going on? I have only had this problem with one other film and I found out that it was miss packaged film. Has any one had any problem with HP5 that is emulsion September 2008?

With shooting 8x10 this is really unacceptable especially with the cost of the stuff and I only have 25 sheets in a box to test with. They can raise their price but at this point I am gone I cannot afford to have to test every single different emulsion. a 1/3 stop here or there fine but this is over a stop and at $3 a sheet no one can afford it.

What changed?

I have shot hundreds of negs in HP5 in both 4x5 and 8x10 and I always test the exact same way and NEVER seen anything this bad before.

I really hate 100 speed film but at this rate Efke is looking better every day. 50 sheets for $105 bucks is much better than $80 for 25 for the film that will be close. Well 50 ISO for Efke to 100 for HP5 I will deal with Efke.

Geez....

Roger Hicks · Jan 11, 2007

kjsphoto said:
Has anything changed with HP5 emulsion since run with dates of 2007?

I had 2 OCT 2007 boxes and 2 boxes of Dec 2007. I tested all the film when I shot it with a densitometer and it was rated at 200 and the dev time of the different emulsion were within 10 seconds different in dev time.

Now I opened a Sept 2008 box and figured looks like they fixed the problems with inconsistent batches. So I went out and shot using the same index as stated above and dev as normal from the other two emulsions. Then a problem happened. The negs were no where near close. So I started testing using the densitometer.

The film speed is sitting around 100 ISO and this is supposed to be a 400 speed film. What the heck is going on? I have only had this problem with one other film and I found out that it was miss packaged film. Has any one had any problem with HP5 that is emulsion September 2008?

With shooting 8x10 this is really unacceptable especially with the cost of the stuff and I only have 25 sheets in a box to test with. They can raise their price but at this point I am gone I cannot afford to have to test every single different emulsion. a 1/3 stop here or there fine but this is over a stop and at $3 a sheet no one can afford it.

What changed?

I have shot hundreds of negs in HP5 in both 4x5 and 8x10 and I always test the exact same way and NEVER seen anything this bad before.

I really hate 100 speed film but at this rate Efke is looking better every day. 50 sheets for $105 bucks is much better than $80 for 25 for the film that will be close. Well 50 ISO for Efke to 100 for HP5 I will deal with Efke.

Geez....

Dear Kevin,

Don't take this amiss, but is is possible that your testing program is at fault? Are there other variables than the film which could affect the result? Are you shooting step wedges, or what?

I too shoot a LOT of HP5 in many formats. I seldom test it formally because I have never seen any need -- the exposures speak for themselves -- but on the rare occasions I have plotted D/log E curves it has come out very consistent.

Have you considered contacting Ilford? Or even sending them sheets of this 'defective' film? If the true ISO speed is below 320 in any normal (i.e. not speed reducing) developer I'm sure they'd be very interested.

Cheers,

R.

Simon R Galley · Jan 11, 2007

Dear Kevin,

Firstly, I am sorry you are having difficulties, when I saw your post I went to the quality department and checked, we have no outstanding Q uality C omplaints or issues on any HP5+ sheet film outstanding, so I am obviously concerned re your problem. Please pack up the unexposed sheets in the original box and send it to me at our address in the UK, marked for my personal attention and I will have it checked out and send back a report to you asap.

Simon Galley, ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Jim Noel · Jan 11, 2007

YOu can't ask for a better response than that.

My experience is similar to that of Roger. I expose quite a bit of both HP5+ and FP4+ and have not had the types of problems you mention, nor have my students who use HP5+ exclusively because of its spee, sharpness and consistency.

If you are concerned with the speed of HP5+ wait until you experience the true speed of Efke.

Robert Hall · Jan 11, 2007

Talk about customer service!

noseoil · Jan 11, 2007

Could be something as simple as a sticky shutter or aperture during the test. Is your film test done with identical lens, light, aperture, etc. etc. etc? Just curious about the film test methods you employ. Any one variable could be at fault and not the film. On the other hand, it could be the film. Best, tim

wfe · Jan 11, 2007

Have you tested any films other than Ilford Kevin to discount your testing, camera, etc.. as the cause? I use Delta 400 not HP5 and have had nothing but good consistent results.

Cheers,
Bill

vanspaendonck · Jan 11, 2007

Simon R Galley said:
Dear Kevin,

Firstly, I am sorry you are having difficulties, when I saw your post I went to the quality department and checked, we have no outstanding Q uality C omplaints or issues on any HP5+ sheet film outstanding, so I am obviously concerned re your problem. Please pack up the unexposed sheets in the original box and send it to me at our address in the UK, marked for my personal attention and I will have it checked out and send back a report to you asap.

Simon Galley, ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

My regards to Simon and Ilford. In these days of "customer service" through call centers or pressing buttons on your phone to be connected to someone who can't help you either, this is really amazing. Try to get this kind of response from Kodak or Polaroid....
Ilford for me. Period.

kjsphoto · Jan 11, 2007

Roger,

Trust me it wasn't the testing. I also have a box of 4x5 from Dec 2007 emulsion and I ran a test of that film just to make sure I didn't make a mistake. The 2007 emulsion was fine and came back as usual with a 200 index with a z8 density sitting at 1.25 and a zone 1 of .11 above base fog using my established dev time of 5 min 45 sec at 20C for normal.

I have been using HP5 for a few years now and I have never had an index of 320 at least not with the developer I use.

Simon thank you very much and I greatly appreciate the support Ilford has shown. From this one gesture I will not be leaving Ilford. Wow... Completely blown away...

Kev

kjsphoto · Jan 12, 2007

Simon I PM you but never heard anything back?

Here is the deal guys. HP5+ is rated at 125 according to densitometry with the Sept 2008 batch. This is really unacceptable. Just to make sure the test were accurate I also tested a sheet from 2007 OCT and 2007 DEC and both of those came right on target at z1 .11 z8 1.25. The 2008 film is screwed up.

Oh and for the 2007 emulsion film I used the exact same lens, chemicals and method. The variables are all the same.

Since I have heard noting back from Simon I will just shoot it at 125 and switch over to something else when I am done with the box.

P C Headland · Jan 12, 2007

Kevin

He's offered to take the film back. His reply was only yesterday, just give him a day or two to respond. Remember he is in a different time zone too.

Patience.

Petzi · Jan 12, 2007

He responded in the forum. The next thing to do is to send the film in.

kjsphoto · Jan 12, 2007

yeah and I replied via PM and got no response. If you want to pay for the shipping for me via FedEx to the UK then fine but I cant afford it.

Petzi · Jan 12, 2007

kjsphoto said:
yeah and I replied via PM and got no response. If you want to pay for the shipping for me via FedEx to the UK then fine but I cant afford it.

Mail it with USPS. Works fine for me when I get deliveries from the USA. Costs about half the FedEx price. You don't need to send this with overnight courier for $200. Try "Airmail parcel post" or "Global Priority Mail".

kjsphoto · Jan 12, 2007

With Airmail do they XRay the film? I have friend in AUS that sent film via Airmail and it was ruined. What good is that if we need to figure out what is wrong with the film and when they get it it will be damaged. At this point I will just use it and be done with it.

Petzi · Jan 13, 2007

kjsphoto said:
With Airmail do they XRay the film? I have friend in AUS that sent film via Airmail and it was ruined. What good is that if we need to figure out what is wrong with the film and when they get it it will be damaged. At this point I will just use it and be done with it.

I always write "Do not X-Ray - Photo Film" on parcels to overseas. I have not experienced problems so far. I see no reason to X-ray air mail as a routine measure. I don't think they have the resources to screen all parcels. The customs would be more interested in sniffing for narcotics, and they would open parcels anyway when there is merchandize in it.

kjsphoto · Jan 13, 2007

Rght but reember thsi is a opened bow and not new I took out a few shets fro testing. I ma not sure how thins wil be handled especialy when they see a rubber band.

All they have to do in pull a Sept 2008 emulsion run box and test it to see what the deal is.

Has anyone else here had a box of Sept 2008 that uses a densitometer to test film?

Jonathan Brewer · Jan 13, 2007

'Dear Kevin,

Firstly, I am sorry you are having difficulties, when I saw your post I went to the quality department and checked, we have no outstanding Q uality C omplaints or issues on any HP5+ sheet film outstanding, so I am obviously concerned re your problem. Please pack up the unexposed sheets in the original box and send it to me at our address in the UK, marked for my personal attention and I will have it checked out and send back a report to you asap.

Simon Galley, ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :'...........

.........................I LOVE THIS, accepts your word, apologizes in ADVANCE, they find you, you don't have to find them, does some checking.

Simon.................I will buy FP4, HP5, and XP2 till I'm blind or dead, congratulations on showing this much class.

Roger Hicks · Jan 13, 2007

kjsphoto said:
Roger,

Trust me it wasn't the testing. I also have a box of 4x5 from Dec 2007 emulsion and I ran a test of that film just to make sure I didn't make a mistake. The 2007 emulsion was fine and came back as usual with a 200 index with a z8 density sitting at 1.25 and a zone 1 of .11 above base fog using my established dev time of 5 min 45 sec at 20C for normal.

I have been using HP5 for a few years now and I have never had an index of 320 at least not with the developer I use.

Simon thank you very much and I greatly appreciate the support Ilford has shown. From this one gesture I will not be leaving Ilford. Wow... Completely blown away...

Kev

Dear Kev,

Fair enough. Just a thought.

Cheers,

R.

eddym · Jan 13, 2007

kjsphoto said:
With Airmail do they XRay the film? I have friend in AUS that sent film via Airmail and it was ruined. What good is that if we need to figure out what is wrong with the film and when they get it it will be damaged. At this point I will just use it and be done with it.

With all due respect, at this point it is beginning to sound like you would rather complain than find a solution to the problem.
If you really want an answer, send your film to Ilford. If you just want to gripe, perhaps you should move your posts to the Soapbox.

Alex Bishop-Thorpe · Jan 13, 2007

If you have a problem with the material, and from what you've said it seems to be standing and well documented problem, why not send it so they can confirm it? There may be other people out there in a similar position, and Ilford's consistently shown it's commitment to a high standard QC. Help support the companies who support you, in light of recent events I'd think that would be the obvious path.

User Removed · Jan 13, 2007

Kevin,

Just mail it back by the USPS airmail, and it will cost you about $5-10 if you just put it in a padded envelope. Write "DO NOT XRAY! PHOTOGRAPHIC FILM!" on both sides.

If Ilfords finds that the film is indeed as slow as you say, and it was the films fault and not one of the hundreds of other variables that could affect the results, I'm sure they will send you a new box of film in replacement.

It was great that a rep from Iford replied here and made this offer, so take advantage of it. Not many companies would care to do so. By sending it back, you will not only be helping Ilford, but also other photographers who use the film and yourself. By just ranting about it here on APUG, that really would not solve anything.

I'm sure Simon is a very busy man and does not have time to keep replying to PM's and posting here, so I suggest just getting the film in the mail ASAP.

kjsphoto · Jan 13, 2007

eddym said:
With all due respect, at this point it is beginning to sound like you would rather complain than find a solution to the problem.
If you really want an answer, send your film to Ilford. If you just want to gripe, perhaps you should move your posts to the Soapbox.

Eddy pay for the shipping and give me two replacement boxes so I can do the job I have next week and I will send it ASAP. I need the film for a job and this has noting to do with pissing and moaning. I bought the film for a job and I need to do the ******* JOB!

What do I tell my client, Hey dude the film has some issues so you are going to have to wait until I ship my film that I already bought for this job of yours tot he UK for them to get back to me to confirm what I already found out? Dont think so. I am not a hobbiest so I don't have the luxury of waiting a month or two to hear back.

Like I said I don't give a crap. Ill use what I have, rate it at 125 and be done with it. FYI I shot a few more test shot today to make sure I DID NOT SCREW UP and YES it is confirmed 125 is the film speed I am getting out of the SEPT 2008 emulsion while DEC and OCT 2007 gave me 200.

This is not the first time and I am done with it. Time to move to a new film.

MattCarey · Jan 14, 2007

I have to side with Kevin on this one. He knows his business, he has put a lot of time into this film now. We can all assume that Ilford will make this right, but they haven't really committed to it.

That said--Kevin, you sent him a pm. His email address is available. Click on his name and it will pop up. Let him know your concerns. Given the time difference, you should have a response waiting for you when you wake up Monday.

Change the phrase below into a correct email address:
simon Dot galley at harmantechnology Dot com

Matt

eddym · Jan 14, 2007

kjsphoto said:
Eddy pay for the shipping and give me two replacement boxes so I can do the job I have next week and I will send it ASAP. I need the film for a job and this has noting to do with pissing and moaning. I bought the film for a job and I need to do the ******* JOB!

Kevin--
I'm afraid this is your problem, not mine, so I must decline your request for money for shipping and more film.
I do, however, commiserate with your problem. There's nothing worse than having issues with equipment or film when you have a job to shoot on a deadline. I've been there too, and I know you do what you have to do.
But I have to wonder why you started this post to begin with. Did you expect sympathy, or maybe for Ilford to replace your film, or did you just want to complain? Any one is a legitimate reason, and I don't make any judgement on them. But it seems to me from Simon's reply that he, representing Ilford, is concerned about your problem. Maybe you could save just one sheet from the job to send him for evaluation?
Just a thought.

HP5 8x10 film is really staring to annoy me.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency