Ilford Delta 25- Simon R Galley?

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

What started the whole Delta 25 rumor anyway?

Not exactly a rumour, more like a work-in-progress by Ilford with no definitive market date. See the following post by Simon:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Daniel_OB]

bravo -ilford-
I am not excited at all by demise of agfa or kodak or forte. I think that Agfa APX100 and APX400 are among the best we ever had in that class and the only competitors to ilford films. But considering what they all were after, it is what they deserved. I think it is good for photography that all of them are gone for it will make more space for ilford and other small (or normal) manufacturers. I also wish to all employees in ilford happy new year and more stable jobs, and do not dream about China or giant company dealing within art, and all will be fine.

www.Leica-r.com

 

[User Removed]

The roll spends less time in the camera, so it can get souped sooner.

Simple solution to that....

SHOOT MORE PHOTOGRAPHS!

 

[Nick Zentena]

For 220, it'd need to be a bit of a different arrangment, but I think there'd be a market for people who'd be willing to buy plain strips of 220-length film sans paper, sans spool, in a light-tight pouch ("darkroom-open only" packaging, which seems to work OK for sheet film).

Why not stick it in a 70mm can and sell in 100' lengths?

But I wonder if they'd want an extra sku.

 

[Black Dog]

WHAT a shame about APX 100 and 400......I still have a big pile of 400 but looks like I'll have to stock up on Forte as well

 

[Chazzy]

Why not stick it in a 70mm can and sell in 100' lengths?

But I wonder if they'd want an extra sku.

Well, if Ilford offered perforated 70mm, I would probably buy a Cine-Rollex, but that strikes me as something that they are unlikely to do. I'm still crossing my fingers for 220. Surely there has to be somebody in the world who can add the paper bits if Ilford supplies the film in bulk.

 

[r-s]

Why not stick it in a 70mm can and sell in 100' lengths?

But I wonder if they'd want an extra sku.

220-length strips of thin-based film are very unwieldy without a bulk loader -- and there's no such critter as a bulk loader for that kind of film. (70mm bulk loaders are available -- at lofty prices -- but, they won't work for this sort of application, so that's moot.) And remember, 120/220 stock is thinner than 35mm or 70mm or other "cine"-format film bases.

On the other hand, I still miss the old 27 1/2 foot lengths of film that Kodak used to sell (I think they only carried the "top three" emulsions in 35mm). It sure was nice to be able to hand-load (with no bulk loader) 36 exp. rolls of film as-needed, without having to worry about getting the lengths right. They even had the tongues trimmed! All you had to do was wind the film into a cassette until you felt the notched area, and then tear it!

220 film doesn't use a tongue, but it still might be possible to put a pair of small notches on opposite edges at the appropriate length, and then put "pizza perfs" between the notches, so that the film could be easily torn by hand without having the tear run up the length of the film.

As to SKUs, I'd think they could do something like Kodak's "SO-" system, at least for the initial trial run. For a promotional/evaluation run, it shouldn't require a whole bunch of accounting overhead.

If it does fly, they can start figuring out "real" packaging ("production grade"), promotion, and so forth at that time.

If if doesn't fly? Well, it'd be a very cheap experiment, which would at the very least engender lots of goodwill with the customers.

 

[Cooki]

I would certainly like some here too. Heck I'd even stock it and sell it to others in town. 35mm or 120 or both.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Well, if Ilford offered perforated 70mm, I would probably buy a Cine-Rollex, but that strikes me as something that they are unlikely to do. I'm still crossing my fingers for 220. Surely there has to be somebody in the world who can add the paper bits if Ilford supplies the film in bulk.

I think they said they don't have a perforating machine. But if you're shooting LF plenty of old Graflex 70mm backs around. No need for perforations.

 

[Nick Zentena]

220-length strips of thin-based film are very unwieldy without a bulk loader -- and there's no such critter as a bulk loader for that kind of film. (70mm bulk loaders are available -- at lofty prices -- but, they won't work for this sort of application, so that's moot.) .

I wonder if you mounted the stuff on some sort of 70mm spool if it could be fitted to a 70mm bulk loader. Won't happen because it would mean a custom spool.

I don't understand why cutting to length off a 100' spool and then dealing with it would be harder then having it precut?

 

[r-s]

I don't understand why cutting to length off a 100' spool and then dealing with it would be harder then having it precut?

Because it's so phyically unwieldy, due to the length of the strip, the width of the film, and the thinness of the base.

Unless someone builds a jig and walks the roll down the line, laying the strip out onto the jig before cutting it, it's almost guaranteed to be a disaster. Look at the problems that so many folks have with (by comparison) trivial "in the dark" tasks like loading a roll of 35mm film onto a reel.

If people are going to be juggling bulk-sized rolls of 120/220 raw stock, trying to measure and cut (at this point, nevermind even loading it onto the backing), I forsee lots of complaints about scratches, dust, "crescent moons", fingerprints, and so forth. So many complaints that the product would get a bad name. (Bad news always propagates faster and further than good news.)

It's been a while since I've developed any 220 film, but I recall it being a very long strip of film, more than "double arm's length". Once you get to something that's literally too big to hold in your hands, the outcome will be predictable when large numbers of people try to do exactly that. (And realistically, how many people are going to ignore (if they even read) "important notice" text telling them to construct a jig, and not try to measure the film out by hand?)

But, if the film were to be notched/perfed ("pizza-perfs", not sprocket holes), then it would be fairly easy (and safe) to hand-spool a single roll's worth of film from the master roll, without using a jig, or loader. Just roll it from the master roll into a smaller roll (holding by the edges), and then when you get to the notches, tear it off, put the master roll back in the can, and tape the leader/trailer onto the strip as you wind it onto the spool.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

Interesting thread....we used to finish certain products to 70mm ( Aerial mostly ) some was perfed some was not.

The real problem with suppyling unfinished perfed or unperfed bulk lengths is the volume that would be used, honest guys it is tiny, and you have to step back to the slitting stage, you would have to have minimum 610m lengths to slit down this would have to be done manually ( obviously in the dark ) and
r-s hits it on the head, how could you have a valid QC process if users were 'onward handling' raw film...static especially.. it would be very, very problematic. As to getting resellers to stock it...no chance...

So I think the honest reply is that we would never add this as a SKU, I have also just spoken to our finishing manager...in 5 minutes he has come back to me and said he has costed it ( excluding the cost of the tin ) at between 2 x 2.5 times the cost of a finished ( Automated production ) 120 film..

Sorry

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[ajuk]

Balls, we want the finest grains available to humanity, we want them here, and we want them now!!

 

[JanaM]

Delta 25 must beat the competition

Dear Simon Galley,

first of all thank you very much for your open-minded communication with this community!

An Ilford Delta 25 film would be a very nice option for a lot of photographers, if.......

yes if this film delivers a significantly better picture quality than its competitors and than high quality digital sensors.

The benchmarks are:

1. The Agfa APX 25, Kodak T-Max 100, Fuji Neopan 100 and the Delta 100. All these films have resolution values in the range of 160-200 Lp/mm (contrast 1000:1), and the values for grain are RMS 7-8.

To be attractive for photographers, a Delta 25 must have significantly better values, both in resolution and grain. Otherwise most photographers would either prefer a higher speed film like the above mentioned 100 ASA films, or the excellent microfilm based options like Spur Orthopan, Rollei Ortho 25 or Kodak Imagelink.

A Delta 25 with a resolution of 250 Lp/mm and RMS 5 could be attractive for enough photographers, making a production economically possible.
Such a film could also be attractive for a lot of digital photographers searching for high resolution and extra big enlargements.
And then this film could be directly advertised to digital photographers who want the "extra kick". With such a film even a Canon 1 Ds Mk II with 17 MP has to give up, and Ilford could extend his market from only film users to digital users searching for highest quality.

I think the future of film is on the one hand preserving the classical emulsions like Pan F, FP4, Hp 5, Tri-X etc., and on the other hand to improve significantly the picture quality of the modern Films like the Deltas, Acros and T-Max to compete with the improvements in the digital field.

Best regards,
Jana

 

[reub2000]

Well hopefully the film will be something that will produce good results in 35mm. Something that is good for macro photography.

Reciprocity failure should receive a lot of attention. One could easily have an exposure in seconds or minutes when using an ISO 25 film. Especially when doing a macro where one loses about 2 stops of light, plus uses an f/11 or f/16 aperture to get a good depth of field.

 

[Maine-iac]

Dear Braxus,

I did indeed say we would be looking at 2007 projects around now, but we are very busy ( in all respects ) I would expect now a mid february review of new projects.

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

While you're reviewing, Simon, would you please at least raise the possibility of coating your Warmtone emulsion on a white (less yellow) base? It's such a great emulsion, but the paper base just is too warm for a wide range of subjects.

Larry

 

[3Dfan]

If Delta 25 runs well at close to box speed in the DR5 process, I'll use it.

 

[Chazzy]

While you're reviewing, Simon, would you please at least raise the possibility of coating your Warmtone emulsion on a white (less yellow) base? It's such a great emulsion, but the paper base just is too warm for a wide range of subjects.

Larry

I thought that it already was very white? I want something more like cream.

 

[Black Dog]

Perceptol in 5 litre packs would be great too.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Not trying to rain on the parade, but isn't PanF-50 slow enough, especially since you can rate it a stop slower anyway to "burn in" the information and develop regularly anyway for finer grain than PanF50 at EI 50?

Especially in 4x5 50 is damned-fine grained to begin with. Even the slowest movie stock is 50 speed. 25 can have no discernable difference compared to 50 unless we're talking about miniature films or extreme closeups of big big prints made from medium format or larger.

 

[Ole]

PanF isn't made in sheet film, and won't be made in sheet film either. That's part of the reason why we want Delta 25.

Another thing is that I actually prefer slow films - the slower, the better.

 

[wirehead]

You know, I doubt that you'd have any quality difference between 4x5 with Delta 100 or Acros 100 and a 4x5 with PanF or a potential Delta 25. Excepting, of course, any changes in tonality.

I prefer slow films, but I grew up in the age of T-grain films, so I consider 100 to be nice and slow.

 

[aldevo]

You know, I doubt that you'd have any quality difference between 4x5 with Delta 100 or Acros 100 and a 4x5 with PanF or a potential Delta 25. Excepting, of course, any changes in tonality.

I prefer slow films, but I grew up in the age of T-grain films, so I consider 100 to be nice and slow.

Personally, I'd much rather see Pan F+ in sheet film sizes vs. a Delta 25.

Even accouting for Delta's core shell technology being easier to handle in processing vs. Kodak's T-grain technology, I suspect that an ISO 25 speed film with this technology would be hard to process in much of anything other than a JOBO.

But I'd certainly be interested in thoughts as to why it might be otherwise...

 

[Lee L]

Even accouting for Delta's core shell technology being easier to handle in processing vs. Kodak's T-grain technology, I suspect that an ISO 25 speed film with this technology would be hard to process in much of anything other than a JOBO.

Well, you've got me curious... can you lay out what principles lead you to that conclusion?

Thanks,
Lee

 

[aldevo]

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.