Already seen it, cheers!Lachan, if you haven't see it already, Ilford have now made, on the much earlier Polypan F thread, a definitive statement on the subject. Well it is definitive in my book and should be the end of the matter but I fear the "bee will remain in some bonnets forever" That remains their problem.
pentaxuser
Nice to hear about - but let me ask : "your Neofin Doku was in addition a little expired too ?"
I tryed to by Neofin Doko 2007? 2008?
as I can remember correct it was still discontinued to that time.
Yes the pack of Doku I have (now 4 bottles left) must be at least 12 years old, but it's still crystal clear and not discoloured. It still works fine, and lacking any Technical Pan I thought I would try it with Pan F+, as the instruction leaflet gives development times for that film, along with Agfa APX 25 and 100.
I'd be interested to know if anyone has any idea of its constituents?
Yes that are quite good facts against any theory of a possible accordance of the emulsion backing between PanF and PolipanF.Pretty much everyone has found it to be quite different to Pan-F, not least in terms of hardening, and a range of other aspects including grain size. Of course, most traditionally made slow films will have similar-ish basic characteristics. If it's less than 13+ years old it will definitely not be Pan-F plus - Harman have been explicit about not offering Ilford brand materials under 3rd party labels. Much more likely to be a cinema technical film possibly involving Filmotec & whoever was contract coating for them. Whoever wrote the numbers on the can was probably a native German speaker. I know you are desperate to implicate Ilford/ Harman in your interminable conspiracy theories, but the reality probably lies somewhere in central Europe.
So we have a situation (since a couple of years) that no film manufacturer is willing
the simple state : Yes we have made this stuff on basis of following (obviously old)
emulsion....xxx.
"Pretty much everyone has found it (Polypan F) to be quite different to Pan-F, not least in terms of hardening, and a range of other aspects including grain size."
No, not me: besides a slightly longer dev time needed for the same contrast and the missing halo protection of the clear light blueish PET base I can't distinguish one from the other. I made a side by side comparison developed at the same time in the same tank:
https://flic.kr/p/oLxffw vs https://flic.kr/p/oLxzKk look for the biggest file
"OR the manufacturer is unwilling to admit that its film is being repurposed."
That`s exactly my estimation and would fit to the recent Harman philosophy.
Polypan F was distrbuted in Germany by lumiere (lumiere-shop.de).Most cans (if not all) of 90 and 152 metres were sold by them for some years. They didn't sell any other sizes nor 135 canisters, Maybe he bought the whole batch from the manufacturer. I bought a 90 m can and one of the very last 152 m cans (expiring date 12/2015) on a photo market, where I could talk with the luniere-owner. Of course I asked him who made this film and he said that it's a cine copy film made by Ilford. But one batch would have been unusable for the original purpose (missing border printing?). It would also explain the 90 and 152 m sizes only, all 135 canister packaging may have been made from these by others.
But it's of cours an academical discussion. Polypan F is not available anymore at reasonable prices. Should I auction the untouched 152 m can at Southeby's and by a car from the avails? 4-digit offers (€ or $) via pm welcome
Which problem? I enjoy using this film as much as I can encourage people to develop Ilford Pan F+ in Parodinal with excellent results.should be the end of the matter but I fear the "bee will remain in some bonnets forever" That remains their problem.
Dear Gerald, may I quote your own words a second time?
"OR the manufacturer is unwilling to admit that its film is being repurposed."
If I would be Ilford, I also wouldn't admit it.
I can not proove that the film was made by Ilford. But I can confirm from my very own experiance, that Pan F+ and Polypan F are very similar, not to say undistiunguishable under many conditions regarding the results. Did you ever shoot a single frame on Polypan F yourself, not to speak of comparing both films side by side?
m-LU bhf-polyf-parod by Imagesfrugales, on Flickr
Two posts by people from Ilford that they do not and never have manufactured Poltpan F. If that doesn't nail the rumor for what it is a baseless rumor then what else can. As I pointed out before Ilford hasn't made any cine film for many years. Does Ilford have some secret plant in the Schwartzwald manned by elves?
The problem I was referring to was the one where some people are convinced or seem to be convinced that despite what Ilford say, Polypan F is in fact Pan F+. The belief seem to be, as I said that while Ilford hasn't lied in its answers, It hasn't told the whole truth by its clever phrasing. If you believe that it is Pan F plus and it is not a problem for you that Ilford is not admitting allegedly that Polypan F is allegedly Pan F+ then fine we can move on. I was making no comment about Polypan F's qualities.Which problem? I enjoy using this film as much as I can encourage people to develop Ilford Pan F+ in Parodinal with excellent results.
The problem I was referring to was the one where some people are convinced or seem to be convinced that despite what Ilford say, Polypan F is in fact Pan F+. The belief seem to be, as I said that while Ilford hasn't lied in its answers, It hasn't told the whole truth by its clever phrasing. If you believe that it is Pan F plus and it is not a problem for you that Ilford is not admitting allegedly that Polypan F is allegedly Pan F+ then fine we can move on. I was making no comment about Polypan F's qualities.
pentaxuser
Dear Gerald, may I quote your own words a second time?
"OR the manufacturer is unwilling to admit that its film is being repurposed."
If I would be Ilford, I also wouldn't admit it.
I can not proove that the film was made by Ilford. But I can confirm from my very own experiance, that Pan F+ and Polypan F are very similar, not to say undistiunguishable under many conditions regarding the results. Did you ever shoot a single frame on Polypan F yourself, not to speak of comparing both films side by side?
m-LU bhf-polyf-parod by Imagesfrugales, on Flickr
Pan F+ for me: Low contrast scenes, ISO 25 exposure and either Perceptol 1+2,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?