Ilford film labelling

[swchris]

Hi,

since end of the 80s/beginning of the 90s (I think) we have FP4 "plus" and HP5 "plus".

Why didn't they label it FP5 and HP6? There were FP3 and HP4 films before.

 

[BrianShaw]

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology.html

 

[Sirius Glass]

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology.html

Thank you. Now I have my morning reading assignment to keep me busy.

 

[AgX]

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology.html

This chronolgy does not answer the OP's question.

 

[pentaxuser]

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology.html

I had a look at this as I have before. It is a great diary of events at Ilford and very interesting but I couldn't see where it explained why Ilford did not follow the number sequence as it had done up to that point i.e. why Plus instead of FP5 and HP6?

I suppose the reasoning for the "Plus" may be lost forever because the "Plus" change was introduced by people who are no longer there.

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

This chronolgy does not answer the OP's question.

One needs to read and follow an embedded link. HP5 to HP5+ difference is explained, as well as a thought on why it wasn't called HP6:

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology/HP5+_Photopro_Winter1989-90.pdf

 

[AgX]

I HAVE read it: there is no explanation, but a guess by an author of a photo-magazine.

He guesses that HP-6 would only be chosen once Ilford would be able to develop their HP film up to a point to be on level with Kodak's T-Max 400.

 

[BrianShaw]

I HAVE read it: there is no explanation, but a guess by an author of a photo-magazine.

He guesses that HP-6 would only be chosen once Ilford would be able to have developed their HP film up to a point to be on level with Kodal's T-Max 400.

So what's your point? That seems to be what we have to work with. Isn't that better than nothing??

Having spent a career in the specialty of engineering standards I could venture a guess that the product updates were relatively insignificant and not "worthy" of new number, just a "revision indicator". That's how standards are handled.

 

[AgX]

It is a guess and based on the assumption that Ilford would not introduce in parallel a 2nd range of film, based on a different crystal technology.

 

[BrianShaw]

It is a guess and based on the assumption that Ilford would not introduce in parallel a 2nd range of film, based on a different crystal technology.

Have you a better guess?

Can you dispute that guess??

 

[AgX]

It all depends what the OP considered with "explanation". Let him decide...

 

[BrianShaw]

It all depends what the OP considered with "explanation". Let him decide...

So you have no meaningful contribution. Well, thanks for the intercourse... it was, ummm.. interesting.

 

[cmacd123]

Simon Galley answered that one, it represents the Better uniformity and constancy of their new automated manufacturing system, (the Plus) with the previous formula of the films.

 

[MattKing]

And by using Plus instead of a new model number, there is less likelihood that the people who hate change will find the need to complain .
I expect most manufacturers have internal rationales for differentiating between product updates and entirely new versions.
Kodachrome II vs. Kodachrome 25 (K12 - K14) comes to mind.

 

[faberryman]

He guesses that HP-6 would only be chosen once Ilford would be able to develop their HP film up to a point to be on level with Kodak's T-Max 400.

Why would they aim to develop HP5 Plus to be on level with TMax 400? Isn't that what Delta 400 is for?

 

[BrianShaw]

Why would they aim to develop HP5 Plus to be on level with TMax 400? Isn't that what Delta 400 is for?

I thought so.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why would they aim to develop HP5 Plus to be on level with TMax 400? Isn't that what Delta 400 is for?

You are absolutely correct.