Ilford Delta 25- Simon R Galley?

[FilmIs4Ever]

a) Given equivalent ISOs, a T-grain or Core shell films tend to have less development latitude than convenitonal grain films. This has been my experience, though I feel the problem is worst when the films are underexposed.

b) Generally, the lower your film ISO the quicker the contrast builds. That's evident by just looking at the published development times.

c) Combining both a) and b), I expect Delta 25 would be more difficult to process vs. Pan F+ which - although it might possess elements of Core Shell technology - is really a conventional grain film. Pan F+ is an ISO 50 film - which suggests contrast should build more slowly than it would for ISO 25 Delta.

That suggests Delta 25 might be a difficult animal to process without very, very good tray technique with respect to consistent development time and agitation. With the near constant agitation of tray development and a need to develop the film for a condenser enlarger, we could be talking really short development times. That never helps consistency.

On the other hand, if you use a Jobo, than agitation rate aceases to be a factor and target development times can be achieved with great precision.

I don't doubt that Delta 25 would offer wonderful sharpness and fine grain, but since I don't intend to be using a Jobo any time soon I'd favor a film that was a bit easier to handle.

But, as I said, I'm open to a counter argument as to why the above may not be true. And though I probably wouldn't use the product - it's darn exciting to see a manufacturer willing to try to make this work.

Well, other than there being a slight disagreement between a and b, I tend to agree. One would think that there'd be more development latitude past the recommended time if t-grain films have less push- and pullability. I have heard that the speed-increasing developers of the '70s tend not to work too well with the new line of Deltas and T-Maxes.

I stand corrected; I thought PanF was available in sheet sizes. IDK. I thought the 25 speed'd not be T-grained, or Delta grained or whatever Ilford's version is.

Slower films tend to be upgraded less frequently than the faster ones due to the diminished need for fine grain with slow films. In Ilford's case though, I don't know of any improvements to their films since the mid-80s, so I'd think it'd be more in their best interests to just cut PanF 50 to sheet film sizes and concentrate their R&D money into improving the faster films. With digital now, IDK if the demand for high speed with fine grain is as great as it once was, but I'd say that's still where you get the most bang for your buck, or GBP in the case of Ilford. The improvements tend to be made in the 400+ ASA films and the improvements then "trickle down" in film improvements of the past.

~Karl

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

In Ilford's case though, I don't know of any improvements to their films since the mid-80s, so I'd think it'd be more in their best interests to just cut PanF 50 to sheet film sizes and concentrate their R&D money into improving the faster films.

Ilford has explained many times that they simply CAN'T coat sheet film support with the PanF+ emulsion. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. They cannot.

It has been said many times here in this forum if you do a little search.

 

[Chazzy]

It has been said many times here in this forum if you do a little search.

It certainly has, and I can understand how someone would tire of hearing it--but I don't think it's kind (or hospitable) to expect that people search what has already been said about every topic they wish to ask or remark about.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Ilford has explained many times that they simply CAN'T coat sheet film support with the PanF+ emulsion. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. They cannot.

It has been said many times here in this forum if you do a little search.

I agree that I think it's a bit arrogant to assume that every photographer here is a slow-speed-philiac, that shoots at least 4x5 sheet film. I haven't shot a roll of B&W in almost a month. I've shot fiewer than 50 sheets fo sheet film in my life, and I shoot almost exclusively C-41. So why is it that you expect me to be well-versed on a product I have no need for? Or has APUG banned color as "too modern" now too? This site has even less knowledge of color films than Photo.net does.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I agree that I think it's a bit arrogant to assume that every photographer here is a slow-speed-philiac, that shoots at least 4x5 sheet film. I haven't shot a roll of B&W in almost a month. I've shot fiewer than 50 sheets fo sheet film in my life, and I shoot almost exclusively C-41. So why is it that you expect me to be well-versed on a product I have no need for? Or has APUG banned color as "too modern" now too? This site has even less knowledge of color films than Photo.net does.

Easy, there. I was perhaps too prompt in my reactions, but PanF+ in sheets is a staple of armchair business managers on APUG, and there has been a bit too many threads on the topic. Perhaps that's something that should be part of an APUG FAQ. So you have my apology for the sour puss words.

As to whether APUG has banned color, that's something you should be able to figure out for yourself.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

It certainly has, and I can understand how someone would tire of hearing it--but I don't think it's kind (or hospitable) to expect that people search what has already been said about every topic they wish to ask or remark about.

And if I may add just one little thing, one page ago in this thread, Ole has already said that PanF+ won't be made in sheets:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

So yes, just a LITTLE bit of searching would have answered the question. A little.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

As to whether APUG has banned color, that's something you should be able to figure out for yourself.

I was being sarcastic when I made that comment, but I'm sure you get where I was going with that one, the irony of one form of ignorance being acceptable but another, dealing with black and white not so much.

I have honestly never read a thread discussing PanF+ being available or being unavailable in sheets, hence my erroneous assumption that it was. Come on, would I really post suggesting that people use a product that I knew wasn't manufactured?

As far as "staple" for your thread goes, I'd say that Ilford not making 220 has been discussed so close to the point of death that it's become common knowledge.

 

[aldevo]

I was being sarcastic when I made that comment, but I'm sure you get where I was going with that one, the irony of one form of ignorance being acceptable but another, dealing with black and white not so much.

I have honestly never read a thread discussing PanF+ being available or being unavailable in sheets, hence my erroneous assumption that it was. Come on, would I really post suggesting that people use a product that I knew wasn't manufactured?

As far as "staple" for your thread goes, I'd say that Ilford not making 220 has been discussed so close to the point of death that it's become common knowledge.

Well, actually I DID search the topic and noted the response(s) concerning the technical hurdles for producing Pan F+ in sheet film sizes. What I should have done is make it clearer that I thought Ilford would be best off trying to create a support for Pan F+ in sheet film sizes vs. rollout a Delta 25 - if such a thing were possible. I guess it's not.

I didn't make that clear, though, and that's my bad I guess.

 

[aldevo]

Well, other than there being a slight disagreement between a and b, I tend to agree. One would think that there'd be more development latitude past the recommended time if t-grain films have less push- and pullability. I have heard that the speed-increasing developers of the '70s tend not to work too well with the new line of Deltas and T-Maxes.

I stand corrected; I thought PanF was available in sheet sizes. IDK. I thought the 25 speed'd not be T-grained, or Delta grained or whatever Ilford's version is.

Slower films tend to be upgraded less frequently than the faster ones due to the diminished need for fine grain with slow films. In Ilford's case though, I don't know of any improvements to their films since the mid-80s, so I'd think it'd be more in their best interests to just cut PanF 50 to sheet film sizes and concentrate their R&D money into improving the faster films. With digital now, IDK if the demand for high speed with fine grain is as great as it once was, but I'd say that's still where you get the most bang for your buck, or GBP in the case of Ilford. The improvements tend to be made in the 400+ ASA films and the improvements then "trickle down" in film improvements of the past.

~Karl

No doubt, the focus has been in higher speed emulsions. Outside of Photo Engineer I don't think there's been much research into ISO 25 and 50 emulsions lately.

That may well mean worthwhile gains are possible in the area of grain and sharpness using Delta's core shell technology. Although I don't expect I'll have much use for an ISO 25 film, it would be nice to have something on the market in that speed range other than Efke R25 which looks great (when processed correctly) but is awfully fragile.

 

[sanderx1]

No doubt, the focus has been in higher speed emulsions. Outside of Photo Engineer I don't think there's been much research into ISO 25 and 50 emulsions lately.

This is rather one sided view - Fuji Fortia and Fortia SP were both ISO 50 emulsions and the Velvia 50 replacement / reintroduction will similarily be ISO 50. I don't think I would be suprised if more (whetever B&W or colour) showed up.

 

[Petzi]

No doubt, the focus has been in higher speed emulsions. Outside of Photo Engineer I don't think there's been much research into ISO 25 and 50 emulsions lately.

That may well mean worthwhile gains are possible in the area of grain and sharpness using Delta's core shell technology. Although I don't expect I'll have much use for an ISO 25 film, it would be nice to have something on the market in that speed range other than Efke R25 which looks great (when processed correctly) but is awfully fragile.

Have you tried Rollei Pan 25?

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

THose films were both trickle downs of applying high-speed film emulsion technology to lower speed films.

It took Eastman Kodak to updage their 50 speed motion picture film from the EXR generation (late '80s) to Vision-2, which bypassed the vision line completely because they never wanted to bother, so it took over 17 years between versions of this stock as opposed to every 3-4 with the 500-speed films and 4-6 with the medium speed films.

 

[aldevo]

Have you tried Rollei Pan 25?

I have not tried it. Is the emulsion less prone to scratching?

 

[Petzi]

I have not tried it. Is the emulsion less prone to scratching?

I haven't tried it yet, but it is a completely different film (that is made in Germany), so chances are it is not so prone to scratching.

 

[aldevo]

I thought that the Rollei 25 was just Agfa Ortho 25/Maco Ort 25 under a different name. At least there have been numerous suggestions on the web that this is true.

I wouldn't know though, as my entire experience with ISO 25 film is with the Efke stuff.

 

[Petzi]

I thought that the Rollei 25 was just Agfa Ortho 25/Maco Ort 25 under a different name. At least there have been numerous suggestions on the web that this is true.

Rollei Pan 25 is not like Agfa Ortho 25 nor is it like APX 25. It is made by someone else (Filmotec in Germany).

 

[aldevo]

Thanks, Petzi, that's good to know!

 

[Curt]

Yes I have not only tried but used Rollei Pan 25. I shoot at EI 25 and develop in Rodinal 1:50 for 15 minutes. Pre soak in water for X number of minutes, it's up to you. Initial agitation for 1 minute, then agitation for 30 seconds at 5 minutes and at 10 minutes and 15 minutes. No stop chemicals. Fix, hypo clear, and wash. Don't over agitate. My result is extremely clean negatives and very sharp. I guess this would be called a semi stand, I don't know but it produces some nice negatives that are a joy to print.

The down side; cost. The film is about $5.00 a roll. Ilford Pan F is about $3.05 a roll. Quite a difference. I use Ilford Pan F at EI 40 same development plan it they are beautiful. I actually like the Ilford better now than the Rollei. I guess I am coming around. I used to use Kodak Panatomic X exclusively.

I am talking about using it in a medium format and 120 roll film only.

Oh to use the Pan F in 5x7, dig, dig, dig,

 

[acroell]

Rollei Pan 25 is not like Agfa Ortho 25 nor is it like APX 25. It is made by someone else (Filmotec in Germany).

This is correct. Rollei Pan 25 is made by Filmotec in Wolfen and is based on the Orwo NP 15 (GDR times) film, aka Orwopan 25 (the name from about 1990 to the closure of the Orwo plant) made by Orwo in Wolfen. The standard development times (D-76 straight) given by the manufacturers for Rollei Pan 25 and Orwopan 25 are quite close, too, and certainly different from the APX 25 times.

 

[Fotohuis]

Latest info is pretty correct.
Here is the latest Rollei PAN25 info:

Dead Link Removed

There is a small production change in the Rollei PAN 25 films up from December 2006. The effective DIN/E.I. has gone down from iso 32 to 25 now in favorite of LESS grain.

Because overall changes are very small most users will not have noticed this small modification. Overall the grain of this modified NP15 OrWo technology film is slightly better now than the Efke 25 film.
We have done some new sensiometric tests on the Rollei PAN 25 film. I think Filmotec has done an excellent job for Rollei/Maco .

Best regards,

Robert

 

[Aurelien]

Robert, where are the rollei film coated? Do you know?

 

[Fotohuis]

Rollei can coat at the Gevaert plant in Mortsel (Belgium) the former Agfa R&D lab.
Filmotec have also some coating facilities.

In the past OrWo/Filmotec had also some exit in Hradec Kralové in the Czech Republic. I will hear the whole story on Friday when I am there to discuss the possibilities together with Bergger,Moersch,Foma and our Fotohuis in the nasty Forte situation in Vác, Hungary.

Best regards, cordialement,

Robert

(Nice web site and photos you have published )

 

[Aurelien]

My website? You like it?

 

[Aurelien]

I think if you have financial problems, you can launch a ssubscription : Forte lovers will help you

 

[Fotohuis]

My website? You like it?

Yes I do. I have written yesterday on my best French some remarks in your guest book in case you've not noticed it yet.

I think if you have financial problems

I do not have financial problems, unfortunately Forte has.....


In case you would like to start up an operational fund for Forte I will not support this openly due to the fact we are operating in a commercial way and this could influence our negotiations with Forte Invest. However an extra financial back up from APUG members would certainly help to maximize the change to have Forte PW papers and maybe film in the near future. Without any external help the situation in Vác seems to be hopeless. Our contribute will be of limited weight because I am not going to invest over 500.000 euro's in an old fashioned factory and a market which is not stable at all. Our partners have different market and market sizes and therefore there will be different interest in buying the Forte factory and or the Forte name/patents. However we are willing to cooperate with Berrger, Moersch and Foma to maximize the change to have some products saved from disappearing. I am sure other companies would like to see Forte gone away because they are able to fill in their market share in the falling business

I hope to be very clear in this statement.

Best regards, cordialement,

Robert