ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology need ULF feedback

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't see myself using it, but a few attractions would be low light landscapes with less reciprocity correction, landscapes with wind, and natural light portraits.

 

[Donsta]

"Why is high speed film being pushed so hard? Did the high speed fairy get into the emulsion mix? Think slower speed, high quality, multi format, more practical film."

This is the ULF forum - so:
1. Forget multiformat - pretty irrelevant here.
2. Quality - I know of no-one shooting ULF who does not contact print. Fast film is fine for contact printing. I've heard people claim that they can see grain in their Azo contact prints - if they can, I'd hate to know what they see in the mirror in the morning...
3. More practical - ULF introduces depth of field issues which don't exist to the same extent on smaller formats - this often necessitates the need for very small apertures. Fast film can be a great help in getting exposures down to seconds or parts thereof as opposed to multiples of ten seconds or minutes. Faster film is a huge bonus here - simply more practical. If you want a longer exposure for water effects or something like that, you can always throw a ND filter into the mix - but is you need a short exposure to prevent things becoming all "blurry" with movement, fast film is the only answer.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I've heard people claim that they can see grain in their Azo contact prints - if they can, I'd hate to know what they see in the mirror in the morning...

As the "people" who reported that capability early in this thread, I'm not exactly sure what to make of your "comment." Each morning I see in the mirror exactly what a proximate observer would see looking at me, except reversed left-to-right.

Should anyone be seriously interested in exploring this matter further, note that it's only supersharp silver chloride Azo which reveals the grain in TXP contact prints. Silver bromide, silver chlorobromide and silver bromochloride enlarging papers, even graded ones, don't have sufficient resolution.

 

[Donsta]

Sal

I actually never use TXP, but with both HP5 and TMY, I need a 4X loupe to discern grain in my Azo prints - Azo does have amazing resolution, but the negs I have printed onto it show no discernible grain (maybe the result of pyro development?). I'm not sure how much more discernible grain TXP has.

 

[Jorge]

As the "people" who reported that capability early in this thread, I'm not exactly sure what to make of your "comment." Each morning I see in the mirror exactly what a proximate observer would see looking at me, except reversed left-to-right.

Should anyone be seriously interested in exploring this matter further, note that it's only supersharp silver chloride Azo which reveals the grain in TXP contact prints. Silver bromide, silver chlorobromide and silver bromochloride enlarging papers, even graded ones, don't have sufficient resolution.

This has got to be be one more Azo myth. I know in the "Overexposure" book a big hoopla wa smade about paper resolution. I think it was all pseudo science, any paper will have far greater resolution than film, if the grain shows in azo it should show in any enlarging paper graded or VC.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal

I actually never use TXP, but with both HP5 and TMY, I need a 4X loupe to discern grain in my Azo prints - Azo does have amazing resolution, but the negs I have printed onto it show no discernible grain (maybe the result of pyro development?). I'm not sure how much more discernible grain TXP has.

Don, pyro has to be the explanation. The TXP negatives were developed in Xtol 1:3 by me, to a CI of 0.51, then printed on the last batch of Grade 3 Azo developed in Neutol WA. Grain is definitely visible under these conditions, but the same negative printed on enlarging paper doesn't show any. I've not tried this with HP5 Plus, so can't compare it to TXP. FP4 Plus satisfies all my contact printing needs now.

 

[markbb]

Not what you might call ISO -- more EI. Maco is a bit cavalier about the distinction.

Cheers,

R

Point taken Roger. I was merely trying to remind people that 'faster' film was already available, at least in 10x8. Decent 400 iso would be useful in low-light situations, especially for those of us living in counties with a higher population density!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

This has got to be be one more Azo myth. I know in the "Overexposure" book a big hoopla wa smade about paper resolution. I think it was all pseudo science, any paper will have far greater resolution than film, if the grain shows in azo it should show in any enlarging paper graded or VC.

I don't quote "myths" unless I've duplicated the results. See my post immediately before this one for details of what I observed. There's definitely a difference in resolution capability between Azo (and likely whatever other silver chloride papers are out there) and enlarging papers; it's sufficient to be visible when printing standard camera negatives.

 

[z3guy]

Delta 3200 in 4x5 would be in my freezer. I know the question was about it in ULF but I have used it for projects in 120, since that is the largest size available, I would certainly continue on in 4x5.

 

[alexphoto]

Hi, Delta 3200 in 5x4? Yes please, means I could hand hold a large format camera in low lighting or in better light and be able to stop down.
I also have lenses without shutters so Pan F in large format would be very useful, especially in Half Plate.

 

[PhotoJim]

One bad thing about a 3200-speed film (or 1000... I shoot it at 1000) is that freezing it won't preserve it as well as slower films can be preserved. Cosmic rays will fog it... so people wouldn't have the luxury of freezing it for perpetuity unless they wanted a ton of base fog.

Would I try it in 4x5 (the only large format that I shoot)? Sure. Would I use it a lot? Probably not - I tend to use 100/125 films the most.

I think it's great that Ilford's looking at this, though.

 

[photo8x10]

I would like Delta 400 in 8x10 but I'm very interested in 8x10 3200 iso, I'll buy several sheets

Best

Stefano

 

[TracyStorer]

Just noticed this!
Could be great to have some speedy film in ULF. (we'll all find we have more light leaks than we want to know about, but I'd love to see it.) I'll get some in 120 and take another look at it.
Tracy Storer

Dear All,

We are trying to get feedback from the ULF community on the viability / possibility of making DELTA 3200 in large and Ultra large format, I have posted a thread on the product availability forum and I would appreciate your comments / feedback if you could spare the time

Thanks

Simon :

 

[troutmask]

Sign me up

I would buy the odd box...epsecially this time of year.

 

[technopoptart]

Pan F in 4x5 please ??

I would be interested in Pan F in 4x5, as would several of my classmates. No doubt every university also has a group of hardcore B&W fine grain obsessive’s.

In the mean time I just ordered 2 25-packs of Delta 100, and 8 rolls of pan f 120, btw if you did make pan f in the 4x5 I was planning on buying a 50 or 100 pack.

Just a curiosity, what is the hoped for shelf life of your 4x5? The packs I got are dated Dec 2008, which was a very pleasant surprise; of course I put them in the fridge immediately.

 

[bobherbst]

Mr. Galley,

High speed film e.g. 3200 for ULF is of little interest to me. I shoot 12x20. The lenses I use have mostly ILEX shutters and most are limited to 1/15th second for accurate times. Anything higher on most ILEX shutters is never accurate. Therefore the prospect of using higher shutter speeds is irrelevant for my work. My experience with high speed films of 25-30 years ago did not translate well for fine art photography. I used a lot them during the 70s when I was shooting action sports and candids but abandoned them when I chose to focus on fine art photography. Perhaps it is partially due to my attitude derived from a favorite quote by Minor White, "No matter how slow the film, Spirit always stands still long enough for the photographer it has chosen." And I believe that from personal experience. Concentrate on keeping HP5 and FP4 in production for ULF sizes. Thank you for asking.

Bob Herbst

 

[Black Dog]

I do lots of available light portraiture, so I'd love Delta 3200 in 4x5 and 8x10.

 

[Terence]

I would be interested in Pan F in 4x5, as would several of my classmates. No doubt every university also has a group of hardcore B&W fine grain obsessive’s.

In the mean time I just ordered 2 25-packs of Delta 100, and 8 rolls of pan f 120, btw if you did make pan f in the 4x5 I was planning on buying a 50 or 100 pack.

Just a curiosity, what is the hoped for shelf life of your 4x5? The packs I got are dated Dec 2008, which was a very pleasant surprise; of course I put them in the fridge immediately.

Do a search on this site. Ilford has noted many times that the Pan F emulsion is incompatible with the 4x5 film base, so this is not an option.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

Thanks for all your feedback, much appreciated, I will communicate with APUG on our plans in this area by the end of the month

Simon. ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[jp80874]

Dear All,

Thanks for all your feedback, much appreciated, I will communicate with APUG on our plans in this area by the end of the month

Simon. ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Simon,

Could you juggle the 3200 announcement and the ULF film order dates so we can have a choice? If Ilford can deliver 7x17 3200 in the next six months I would prefer to order that rather than HP5+ or T Max 400 that I now use.

For me it is not about shutter speeds, but reciprocity. I am having trouble getting the dark world that I want to shoot to hold still for HP5 exposures of 1-16 minutes.

Thank you,

John Powers

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear John,

If we do make a fast sheet film, and that is not an agreed project it would take between 14 and 16 months to develop, coat and test.

So it will have to be HP5+ this time around for sure.

Regards

Simon.

 

[jp80874]

Thanks for the clarification Simon.

John