HP5 + Ilfosol = Nothing

[Fintan]

Harry we all suffer a failure at some stage or other, be it a film, a developer or a camera etc. It's maddening as hell but theres no guarantees in life.

I'm sorry to read about you guys losing your work. I lost 5 rolls, everything from a trip I did. It was a Kodak developer. Maddening.

I actually think less shops would sell chemicals if there was a lot of fuss over sell by dates. To calculate the life of a developer I think the manufacturer would have to set particular storage conditions and that might be harder for a shop say in Portugal to adhere to than perhaps a shop in Ireland etc. Less and less shops stock chemicals in my part of the world. If a developer failed within the best buy date then it could be implied the shop didnt store the chemicals properly and I'm not sure some of the shops would like that issue.

Just a thought

 

[hka]

That's a bit harsh, harry. Would you be willing to pay even more for chemistry because more would be returned to the manufacturer? I think not, as you've already complained about price, too.

How much more will that cost at the shop.
Price of Ilfosol S, 250ml is about euro 5,50 streetprice. So it wil cost Ilford not more than 1,00 euro or less out of pocket. And in the other way it's also the responsibilty of the shopkeeper to do his job well. If in this case the Ilfosol is priced at 6,00 euro I'am not complaining if I get a fresh not out of date bottle.
But loosing some work, with all the travelexpenses and time (days) I spend cost a lot more. Can I go back to the photographic industry and asked the waisted money back??? Ohhh, no. The answer is; "sorry we are only responsible to replace the product".
That's why I'am so curious.

I use many Ilford products and I've never had a problem. But I date developer myself when I open it. I dump it when it gets too old.

I do the same but I never know how long it's already on the selves. Except films.

 

[riffo]

The same thing just happened to me today Damn Ilfosol S...

However I eventually found the cheapest (and only?) supplier of Rodinal in Australia so hopefully blank rolls will be a one-time thing for me.

 

[Seabird]

However I eventually found the cheapest (and only?) supplier of Rodinal in Australia so hopefully blank rolls will be a one-time thing for me.

I dont mean to hijack this thread, but as another Oz-domiciled Rodinal user, who did you source it from and what did you pay???

Cheers

Carey
http://members.iinet.net.au/~cbird/index.html

 

[John Bragg]

I used and loved Ilfosol at one time, but one lost film is one too many and I now use Rodinal as my prime developer of choice and also HC-110. Both cheap as chips and no such issues with longevity...

 

[accozzaglia]

This is precisely, precisely what happened to me tonight on my HP5+ 120 roll. I'm not sure if I'm more sad about the irretrievable loss or angry. Until I found this thread, I thought I'd done something n00bish and stupid.

/me tosses out the Ilfosol S.

addendum: I went through the remainder of the thread before reading more about what's going on here. I have here batch #72E030 16014100 L99. It was an unopened bottle at my university camera club. About two hours ago, I used Rodinal for some Agfa APX rolls, so I was already in the rhythm of developing.

Hey there,
I went to develop my first 2 HP5 negatives and when i finished developing them...there was nothing!! Nor even a tiny image or border...total transperecy!

Problems with the camera? I used Ilfosol s, bought early this year...it was a litle dark...but i guess even if it wasn´t in good condition it would have to show something!

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

This is precisely, precisely what happened to me tonight on my HP5+ 120 roll. I'm not sure if I'm more sad about the irretrievable loss or angry. Until I found this thread, I thought I'd done something n00bish and stupid.

/me tosses out the Ilfosol S.

addendum: I went through the remainder of the thread before reading more about what's going on here. I have here batch #72E030 16014100 L99. It was an unopened bottle at my university camera club. About two hours ago, I used Rodinal for some Agfa APX rolls, so I was already in the rhythm of developing.

Another excellent argument for performing a "development snip test" before developing an important roll of film.

 

[accozzaglia]

Two things:

1) The default outcome of using a developer is that it works, assuming the person follows development procedures properly. Even when a developer is old, it is default assumed that something will show up. What is not expected is a complete washout-loss, particularly from an unused bottle of a dev stock. That said, I've learnt that lesson.

2) I wouldn't know how to conduct a development snip test without damaging a frame on the roll being processed. It's not something I've ever done before.

3) I lie: three things. Either all rolls are important or none are. I tend to go with the former, unless I'm in a sour mood. I'm still in a good mood today.

 

[riffo]

I think from now on I'll take some scissors into the darkroom when putting my film into the inversion tank and snip off a slither of film (120 film) where it's been taped to the black paper where I know there won't be any pictures. For 35mm, you could use the leader.

Can someone tell me what to look for when doing the snip test, or what happens if the developer is dead? I'm assuming you want the film to turn black but I'm not sure what undeveloped black and white film looks like so I'm not sure of what the change should be.

Also, if you've developed and stop-bathed your film (but haven't yet fixed) and remember you haven't done a snip test, and you then do a snip test only to find out the developer's collapsed, are you able to develop again using good developer? Or is it too late?

Carey, I've ordered Rodinal from www.vanbar.com.au. Click on 'shop-online' up the top and search for rodinal. There's 500ml for $18.70 and 125ml for $8.80. The postage is a bit high (around $18) as they can't post their chemicals but rather courier them. Over all, it would be cheaper to buy it locally, but if no one supplies it near you (as is the case with me) or you order in bulk it would work out. Their film was a good price so I bought some 120 film at the same time to validate the postage cost.

 

[Bob F.]

Question: are those with a problem getting clear or totally black film? Or something in between?

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

Whilst I have every sympathy with anyone who loses a film, and snip tests are certainly valid for certain occasions there is in my opinion no need to do snip tests on every roll of film: If you buy a liquid or powder chemistry from any reputable company, and from a reputable supplier it should be ABSOLUTELY fine. The QC test regime from any of the big names are extremely vigorous. I have access to our valid QC issues going back years and on chemistry they are ABSOLUTELY miniscule.

As I have said in this thread, when we get this bottle back we will check it out, WE ALWAYS DO, and we will see if an issue exists with this bottle, its not this batch, its been tested and its 100% AOK. You can be sure I will let you know.

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :



Why, developers from professional companies

 

[Seabird]

Carey, I've ordered Rodinal from www.vanbar.com.au. ... There's 500ml for $18.70 and 125ml for $8.80.

Thanks riffo,

AUD$9 for 125ml is about what I paid at Photo Reisel in Sydney where they had the bottles on the shelves. I agree re that Vanbar's shipping prices are steep :-(

I've never tried Ilfosol (and have no intention of doing so), but most of my other B&W chemicals and paper come from Ilford and I'm pefectly happy with them. I'll probably even have to start using FP4+ when my supply of 5x4 APX100 comes ot an end :-(

Regards

Carey

 

[Trevor Crone]

I've never tried Ilfosol (and have no intention of doing so), but most of my other B&W chemicals and paper come from Ilford and I'm pefectly happy with them. I'll probably even have to start using FP4+ when my supply of 5x4 APX100 comes ot an end :-(

Carey,

Like you I'm down to my last 14 sheets of 4x5 APX100 (a lovely film). It will then be a choice between TMX100 or Delta 100.

FWIW - The new formula Ilfosl 3 film developer is very good.

Trevor.

 

[Seabird]

Carey,

Like you I'm down to my last 14 sheets of 4x5 APX100 (a lovely film). It will then be a choice between TMX100 or Delta 100.

So Trevor, any particular reason why you'd choose a T-grain type emulsion rather than FP4+ or the kodak equivalent as a replacement for dearly departed (5x4) APX100 ????

 

[Trevor Crone]

So Trevor, any particular reason why you'd choose a T-grain type emulsion rather than FP4+ or the kodak equivalent as a replacement for dearly departed (5x4) APX100 ????

Carey,

I simply prefer the 'look' (very scientific) of the T-grain films like TMX and Delta. They seem to give me a much 'smoother' tonal range then FP4 or HP5. Don't get me wrong these are superb films (I use HP5 in both 4x5 and 8x10). Sadly Delta 400 is no longer available in sheet film, or I would be using it. These films also suffer less with reciprocity failure then standard film. This is important to me as I do a lot of low light photography.

Trevor.

 

[accozzaglia]

I had a final thought on this, though irrelevant for Ilfosol S, as it's no longer being manufactured.

If it's known that a chemical formula is known to have a remote possibility (no matter how minute) that something -- a liability, even -- like a "developer crash" phenomenon may occur (or anything which would result in completely unusable results when instructions are followed under manufacturer specifications), this is the kind of information that should find its way to the cautionary section of a product's labelling. This really is not unlike the warning that film kept at a high temperature or high humidity location will degrade it substantially, that taking a pain reliever may interfere with other medications, etc. All are aspects of chemistry and unintended consequences in rare, but repeatable circumstances. This should precede and complement other QC efforts so at least caveat emptor is covered and seller CYAs themselves.

It appears that the Ilfosol S "crash" was previously known, and possibly a motivator for Ilfosol 3 to be formulated as its replacement. That said, the Ilfosol S I used belonged to the university, and shipping back an open bottle of chemicals overseas would not only be a dodgy thing to do, but probably with a lot of unintended consequences. And expensive! Thus, this is why I emptied it in the exhausted dev container.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Accozzaglia

I read your post with interest, and take your point, but no one in the industry does this to the best of my knowledge.

As per, ILFOSOL S 'Crash' we have no such evidence that this has occurred in sealed new make chemistry, shipped and stored correctly, I made a logical statement in that it 'could' have happened, because saying it could 'never' happen is crass and arrogant and I hope we are not. ILFOSOL 3 has 'improved' keeping qualities especially after being opened, but we have sold hundreds of thousands of litres of ILFOSOL S over many years and I believe it to have been a very popular and successful product.

I do not like to see any customer unhappy, ever, and we cannot now check the dev, pm me your address and we will replace your film free of charge as a goodwill gesture...

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[railwayman3]

^^^Gundus.

Just coming in with a rather late thought...is it conceivable that your bottle could have been interfered with, or part used, by someone before you used it?

Seems a long shot, but I have known it happen (not deliberately) in a Camera Club darkroom. It does seem strange that a developer can deteriorate so completely as to give absolutely no trace of an image on the film.

 

[accozzaglia]

Simon --

Thank you immensely for your candour and rapid reply. Personally speaking, I see no need to be compensated with film arising from this incident. The one-time, chance events captured on that roll were lost forever, and what happened with the Ilfosol S is wholly independent from my continued satisfaction with HP5+ stock, which I've used for years and hope to use for many, many more.

What will not change, however, are my feelings on using Ilfosol S as a developer solution: in any event which I could face another incident like that, I would rest better working with a developer which will yield an image regardless, even should the developer chemistry be somehow unknowingly compromised for whatever reason It's a matter of chemical trust, which others on this thread have expressed more eloquently than I have. And therein I think lay the crux of this concern: there is a difference between expired or degraded chemistry producing some kind of image versus the remote possibility of a complete wipeout -- the latter demonstrated with this product's chemistry. This latter possibility, QC matters notwithstanding, warrants notification in the legalese/product documentation so that the buyer of that product knows well in advance what has been known to occur, even when that possibility isn't likely to repeat with a successive chemistry revision (like Ilfosol 3).

And perhaps this is a point of irreconcilable disagreement. Still, I absolutely love other Ilford products and see no reason to change my buying habits for those lines. But I'll stick to Rodinal, D-76 and others for developing. Ilford still have my devoted loyalty elsewhere, be it film, paper, or Ilfochrome processing.

P.S.: On the matter of how no one in the industry manages cautionary labelling along these lines, that is no reason to necessarily wholesale dismiss breaking with the current of industry and setting the bar even higher. Customers notice this extra care, and to apply a demonstrative effort to mitigate nervousness with customers who've experienced scary moments (like some who've written on this thread), it goes a healthy way to re-earn trust and foster a positive reputation.

 

[Gundus]

My quimicals are used only by me...so he couldn't have been interfered...

Everyone wants the best quality with the lowest price...and we all know that nowadays it's very difficult :/
About all of this...i think we (consumers) need to support "our" company's and the company's need to give us the best quality products,the best prices,honesty,dialogue...as we as clients expect. We need to support each other.
We need them and they need us...The best thing that can happen to a company, is a satisfying client...and the best thing for a client is receiving a good quality service with a honest price...

By saying this...even with this problem of a lost of 2 films..i will support Ilford.I've learned a lesson, Ilford also lost a Ilfosol S consumer...but i will support them on the other quimicals,films,paper...

FP4+ and HP5+ are fantastic films,LC29 is a fantastic developer as also their fibre based paper!

We as consumers need to talk and express our dislikes and likes...because we are who pay for them.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Accozzaglia,

Thanks for your reply, it is appreciated and thank you for using and valuing ILFORD Photo products :

Regarding cautionary labelling I take your point, about raising the bar, and have passed on your comments to our technical and marketing teams, when I get a reply from them I will let you know what they have said as to the possibility / practicality of doing this.

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited