Ilford sheet film availability........5x4" sheet film...120...I

[Tom Smith]

There's some upsetting news on a forum post on another website (photo.net) claiming that Ilford France have issued a statement from the top, that certain Ilford sheet film will be discontinued. Although I'm new to large format, it bothers me because I thought I'd probably never get to do any work on some of their great emulsions.

After doing some research, I settled on using Classic Pan 200 film and placed an order for this stuff. Then I peeked at someone's work in a photolab shot in120 roll film format using Pan F+ which was so crisp and detailed. Really moody zone control, printed to 30x30". With detail like that, I thought it had to be large format but it was printed full frame with the Hassleblad indents so it was probably 6x6cm. It made me think I'd be missing out before the end of this film's run so I'm tempted to get a few boxes. Didn't look like Efke either. Problem is, I phoned around a few places in England and can't find any sheet format of Pan F+.

I'm really frustrated at just coming on board to sheet film and finding that the market is closing up its store front and trading from the backyard instead.

Is there any hope for us without Ilford? Any hope for Ilford?

 

[bmac]

as far as I know, Pan F hasn't been available in sheet film for a long long time if it ever was. I've been playing for LF for about 2 1/2 years and can't remember ever seeing it.

 

[voceumana]

To my knowlege, PanF has never been available in sheet sizes. I have a Kodak darkroom dataguide from the late 1950's that shows Panatomic-X available in sheets, but the early 1960's edition doesn't have it.

Large format ususally requires faster films, as the largest apertures are typically around f/5.6 in the fastest lenses. And with subject motion, you often want shutter speeds that are reasonably fast. So faster films make more sense. And slow films are not usually available in LF.

With the large negative size, the additional grain isn't a problem, and LF images frequently exhibit smooth tonal gradation simply because of their size.

Efke 25 is available in sheets, but I think you'd find Ilford FP4+ or HP5+ to be very fine in sheets. Another option if you want slow, no grain (not that you see grain in a 4x5 or 5x4 negative) is technical pan (while it is still available).

Charlie

 

[Tom Smith]

This is so depressing. I never thought about available sheet film when I decided to take up architectural photography.

Voceumana - this is something I can't quite understand. A lot of people keep going on to me about shooting with a faster film in large format. I haven't used any apertures wider than f16 in large format and I shoot mostly stills, in architecture (sp?) and old buildings. I don't think I need fast sheet film (200 is way too fast

Maybe I should be shooting medium format with a slow grain film to get the kind of tonality available with Pan F+?

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

To my knowlege, PanF has never been available in sheet sizes. I have a Kodak darkroom dataguide from the late 1950's that shows Panatomic-X available in sheets, but the early 1960's edition doesn't have it.

Large format ususally requires faster films, as the largest apertures are typically around f/5.6 in the fastest lenses. And with subject motion, you often want shutter speeds that are reasonably fast. So faster films make more sense. And slow films are not usually available in LF.

With the large negative size, the additional grain isn't a problem, and LF images frequently exhibit smooth tonal gradation simply because of their size.

Efke 25 is available in sheets, but I think you'd find Ilford FP4+ or HP5+ to be very fine in sheets. Another option if you want slow, no grain (not that you see grain in a 4x5 or 5x4 negative) is technical pan (while it is still available).

Charlie

"I have a Kodak darkroom dataguide from the late 1950's that shows Panatomic-X available in sheets, but the early 1960's edition doesn't have it."

In the 1980s I routinely used 8x10 Panatomic X sheet film to make large negatives from 6cm x 6cm Ektachrome Transparencies. I also shot a lot of Panatomic-X roll film and Ilford Pan F (all developed in 50:1 Rodinal).

Currently, I occasionlly use Ilford Pan F+ and Ilford Delta 100 in 120 Roll Film. I also occasionally use Delta 100 in 4x5 Sheet film.

However, my primary roll film is now Efke 100, developed in Pyrocat-HD.

My primary sheet film has become Efke 100 (4x5, 5x7 and 8x10). I develop it in Pyrocat-HD and usually use semi-stand agitation. I also use Efke 25, J&C Classic 400 and Kodak TMY 400 as required by the situation.

 

[voceumana]

This is so depressing. I never thought about available sheet film when I decided to take up architectural photography.

Voceumana - this is something I can't quite understand. A lot of people keep going on to me about shooting with a faster film in large format. I haven't used any apertures wider than f16 in large format and I shoot mostly stills, in architecture (sp?) and old buildings. I don't think I need fast sheet film (200 is way too fast

Maybe I should be shooting medium format with a slow grain film to get the kind of tonality available with Pan F+?

Don't be depressed. There are still some very nice emulsions available in sheet films.

I think you trying to make the point about film speed too complicated. No, you don't need the wider f/ stops. In fact, you need smaller ones for depth of field, sometimes. This means slow shutter speeds, which may be a problem with object motion.

If you use PanF+ at 50 on a bright sunny day, you'll be about f/16 at 1/50 of a second, corresponding to f/22 at 1/25, or f/32 at 1/12.

1/12 of a second is too slow to stop motion of, say, tree branches, on a windy day, so you'll get blur.

If there is no motion to cause you problems, then the slow speed film won't be an issue. Try Efke 25.

Do NOT regret using a view camera for architectural photography. It is unquestionably the best camera for that type of work. And there are plenty of film/developer combinations that give excellent tonality with sheet film, if tonality is your only issue.

What developers are you using? It may be that your film/developer combination isn't right for you.

Also, why do you find 200 speed film too fast?

Best regards,
Charlie

 

[Tom Smith]

Cheers Charlie - have you ever seen a photographer's work and just wilted at the sheer tonal scale of the image? I guess that's what I've been doing lately.

I rarely shoot faster than 1/4s; if the wind blows, the building still doesn't move (I hope). The landscape work I have done on Velvia is all shot at around 1/2s. Lately on monochrome, I've been experimenting with a red filter, polariser and Neutral Density filter x8 to reduce shutter speeds to around 5 minutes. If it takes me 10 minutes to set up the monorail, I might as well spend the same time taking an exposure

Maco UP100Plus in Promicrol 1:14 dilution at 8.5minutes 20C, open tray shuffling. I don't like the results particularly. It seems to come out better in HC110b at 5 minutes 20C and I'm not getting much greyscale. This is just an interim film - I'm waiting for some Classic Pan to arrive. I can borrow some Tech Pan from a pro' photographer, but he's not keen on it, since he thinks I'll waste it just before its discontinued (great to have people who believe in you!) so he recommended some cheaper Eastern European film to start off with.

Cheers,

Tom

 

[voceumana]

Yes, I have. Two of my images have it. (And I've been doing this for a LONG time.) And some others I've seen.

I live in California, and can get to Yosemite Valley pretty easily. It's an overnight trip, go there on day 1, spend a little time there (or Sequoia), and drive back the next day. Ansel Adams gallery there has some of Ansel's prints for sale for reasonable money (about $180 last time). Alan Ross prints them, but they are Ansel's negatives, and Ansel taught Alan. They also have work of other photographers, such as John Sexton. So I know the tonality you're talking about.

My two pictures were done on Tri-X in HC-110 heavily diluted, so you can get the result with common films & developers. I think on these, I just got the exposure right on target and the development just right. I suggest finding one film that seems to give reasonable results, and trying it with a variety of developers.

You sound like you might appreciate the book, Film Developing Cookbook, by Steve Anchell and Bill Troop if you don't have it already. It really helped me understand film & developers & why some combinations gave me results I didn't like. It is well worth the price.

Best regards,
Charlie

 

[fparnold]

I used a little PanX in high school. We shot (photographically) the Homecoming contestants one year using a Yashica 635 and PanX, then printed on 5ft rolls for nearly (or in the case of one girl, actually) life-sized prints. The murals were surprisingly detailed, despite our using Microdol of unknown age. OTOH I moved on to HP5, the Yashica was traded for an F, and I gave up Microdol for ID-11 (though I did have an FG7 phase).

It was nice, but in 120 for normal prints it didn't seem to have much of an advantage over FP4 or Plus-X, though that could have easily been a processing/subject matter issue. Pan-F was nice when I could get it, but I had to drive an hour and search in stores in downtown Elmira for it.

Personally, I'll be somewhat perturbed should Delta-100 go away. Oh well, I got over Brovira, and I'll survive Pan-F disappearing as well.

Actually, what I really miss? 120 roll film at the corner drug store. Always Kodak, but inevitably some Plus-X, some Kodacolor-II, and some Ektachrome-64, daylight. Occasionally some Verichrome Pan, but that seemed to be seasonal, like pumpkin pie. (sorry for the off-topic nostalgia)

 

[Tom Smith]

Hey Charles - what can I say?! If you're living close to the AA gallery, that's a soft spot for inspiration.

I just bought Steve Anchell's Cookbook along with Adobe Photoshop. I don't think I'll ever get around to reading the second one. I thought it might be useful. I don't see Bill Troop's name in the title.

Panatomic was before my time. I've seen some beautiful polaroid negs printed gorgeously. The photographer claimed that the emulsion was similar, but it might have been Pan-F+ or Pan-chromatic or Pan-something which he said. I don't know APX25 to see. Isn't Maco UP25 supposed to be similar to it? There is something that just hasn't let me enjoy Delta 100. It's grain is fine, but its the tonal range or something. What are you developing it in? I do FP4 in rodinal or HC110 and prefer it to Delta 100.

Jdef - sounds like you should stock up on tech pan. Only a few more months before it is officially discontinued, if people don't start buying it all up.

The corner drug store? You might get crack there, but certainly no 5x4", 120 nor 35mm Tech pan in England.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

"...There is something that just hasn't let me enjoy Delta 100. It's grain is fine, but its the tonal range or something. What are you developing it in? I do FP4 in rodinal or HC110 and prefer it to Delta 100."

I develop Delta 100 in Rodinal 50:1 and in Pyrocat-HD. I prefer the results I obtain with in Pyrocat-HD.

However, I strongly prefer the results I get with Efke 100 developed in Pyrocat-HD.

I have done side-by-side comparisons of 4x5 Panatomic-X negatives and same-scene test negatives shot on Polaroid 55PN. I concluded that the two were essentially identical.