Ilford Simplicity - new processing system from Ilford

[pbromaghin]

This just posted today on YouTube:

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's great! And you could reuse the stop quite a bit, and a few more runs with the fixer, I suppose.

 

[Peter Schrager]

good to promote film and get beginners started

 

[Pioneer]

Hope it works out for them.

 

[Oren Grad]

Reminds me of the old Kodak Tri-Chem pack, though that was for paper.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for that and well done, Ilford. They may not be the same as the old Harman-Ilford whom we loved but they are innovative and clearly thinking about the marketplace and newcomers to it

pentaxuser

 

[Fujicaman1957]

Reminds me of the old Kodak Tri-Chem pack, though that was for paper.

Oren, that was just what I was thinking....a Tri-Chem pack for the 21st century!

And you could develop film with a Tri-Chem pack....it had times for most Kodak films in the box as I recall. First roll I ever developed was with a Tri-Chem pack.

 

[AgX]

It is not a "new processing system" at all.
But a (for Ilford) new sort of packaging with packed volumes of concentrates to make exactly the volume of working solution for a certain tank.
Saving the hassle of calculating and measuring. Only thing to do would be to put a mark for the final volume at the beakers.

 

[AgX]

More information here:

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/simplicity-starter-pack

Manual:
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/2084/product_id/1568/

 

[warden]

Very nice. Two thumbs up.

 

[David Allen]

Ilford has recently released a film about their basic starter kit:

Firstly, I very much do commend Harman Technology / Ilford for promoting use of analogue materials and providing this ‘all in one’ film developing pack and am very heartened that they have gone for the 600ml chemical quantity as being the best for Paterson tanks.

Nevertheless, it would have been much better if they had specified that all chemicals should be at 20˚C and it does not explain how you should wash your films.

I and my father (Brian Allen who founded the UK’s first ever private school for photography in 1972) tested the Ilford short washing technique in the 1970s during the countrywide drought in the UK when Ilford had developed the system and found it to be lacking in archival effectiveness. Because my Dad always created his very much cheaper kits for developing Cibachrome (which Ilford could not understand how he did it so quickly), we were invited to Ilford to meet the technicians.

I stated that, following extensive tests, I found their their newly developed ‘archival’ washing technique was not appropriate for archival techniques but they insisted that it was. Then came the situation where the technicians processed a film in front of us as we were there and the solution became clear. What they had forgotten to explain was that they took the film out of the fixer and put it into a bath of plain water whilst they thoroughly cleaned all parts of the developing tank. What my Dad and I discovered was that when you introduced this stage to the Ilford process you could much more quickly and with much less water wash a film to archival standards.

I now recommend, on the basis of my visit to Ilford the following, take the film out of the tank and place it in a holding jug (this also helps to reduce the pink dye on the film), once the tank is completely clean put the film back in it’s spiral and add 600ml of plain water. You then follow the following sequence: fill with plain water at 20˚C and invert 10 times, pour out and fill with plain water at 20˚C and invert 10 times, pour out and fill with plain water at 20˚C and invert 20 times and pour out and fill with plain water at 20˚C and invert 20 times. Finally place into a jug with Distilled water at 20˚C and leave for 2 - 20 minutes.

I can guarantee (following extensive testing) that this quick and water-less process will produce clean negatives that exceed all tests for archival qualities.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[AgX]

It would have been much better if they had specified that all chemicals should be at 20˚C and it does not explain how you should wash your films.

People at Ilford Photo still expect consumers to read. To read their manual. They would need it anyway to find out about the developing times.

"Preparation
A developer temperature of 20°C is assumed, however in warmer climates 24°C may be easier to achieve. Developing times for both scenarios are included.
...
Washing
The following sequence will wash your film adequately and use very little water: Fill the tank with fresh water at approx. 20°C/68°F and seal the lid. Invert the tank 5 times, pour away the water. Fill the tank again with fresh water, seal the lid and invert the tank 10 times, pour away the water. Fill
the tank a final time with fresh water, seal the lid and invert the tank 20 times, pour away the water."

Obviously the video is not intended as user guide, but to give an idea about the ease to use their premeasured concentrates.

 

[Oren Grad]

Nevertheless, it would have been much better if they had specified that all chemicals should be at 20˚C and it does not explain how you should wash your films.

Ilford's information sheet for the Simplicity product addresses this:

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/2084/product_id/1568/

 

[Wallendo]

It's an interesting product. I wonder how many people would buy it more than once or twice.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Great for on the road, too.

 

[AgX]

As I indicated small packages of concentrates are NOT new.

Tetenal offered several developers in small glass phioles and still do so with their Neofin Blau, now though in tiny glass bottles instead of phioles.

However they never marketed them the way as Ilford-Photo do.

Tetenal offers several concentrations and the respective time table. One just choses the apt volume for ones tank from 300ml onwords, if the voume is too big one easily can pour off a bit. In contrast to Ilford in this case one needs a second mark at the beaker for the final volume.
But then one can use instead any tank. From 300ml onwards. Ilfords packaging just yields 600ml.

Futhermore Tetenal still offers processing concentrates as tablets, for commercial use.

 

[OptiKen]

I wonder what the price point will be to develop 2 rolls of 35mm or 1 roll of 120 film?

 

[AgX]

Paterson once offerd a universal calour developer kit in tiny bottles. And the longer I think the more come to my mind, though only faint.

 

[Pentode]

I suspect that the price per roll will be higher with this system as compared to simply buying chemicals, but that's the price one pays for convenience. If it gets people to try developing their own film who might have been intimidated to try it otherwise then I think it's a big win, not just for Ilford but for film in general.

 

[AgX]

Of course the price per development or per liter will be higher. First, the actual costs are higher and furthermore such premium product makes it easy to add a premium on it.

Is it handy? Yes. (But see my remark above on Tetenal Neofin Blau)
Is it necesssary? No (seen how most of us started).

The actual advantage is that of storage for those who only scarcely process. And then, unless using Rodinal or so, it even could be more economic.

 

[aoresteen]

I agree with Pentode & David Allen. Temperature control, wash, & cost. Three big factors that will impact long term sales.

As Andrew O'Neill said, if I were traveling and wanted to see the negs right away, this might be a solution but it would have to go in checked luggage. I don't think TSA would let you carry it on board.

Kudos to Ilford for selling it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well clearly there will always be debate on the Ilford wash routine of 5,10 and 20 inversions and dumps.David Allen's sequence is different and involves more water but is still relatively economical on water. The only real addition is the distilled water which (a) requires distilled water to be purchased which many people may consider unnecessary and an added expensive in both time and money.

I have in more recent years adopted a quick rinse and dump which might be the equivalent of Davids description of cleaning the tank which Ilford did but chose not to make part of its published routine for washing and have added a 15 and extra 20 inversions and dump on a "just for luck" hunch

I have films that were washed using the Ilford sequence which are now 15 years old and showing no signs of problems. Will they stand the test of time, as in say 20+ years? I don't know. Will I or anyone else care if they don't stand this test of time in the sense that I will want to print from those early films - unlikely. What about anyone else? Not a hope in hell is the frank answer. When I go my whole kit goes.

pentaxuser

 

[Vaughn]

Wash-aid on the reels means a very good cleaning afterwards should be done. More plastic containers, too, but would be nice travel pack for road trips. I wonder if they have a size for developing 11x14 film, tho I have never used Ilfosol 3. (just joking).

But as an introduction to developing and avoiding buying large amounts at first -- makes good sense. I wonder if it is in responce to recent surveys.

 

[Down Under]

Ilford in its time has had many such 'quick use' kits. I recall, in the 1980s, a 'Universal' kit which I believe could be used for both films and paper processing. If memory serves me right, the developer was PQ Universal which I found wasn't the best for most films, so I bought two kits and then went back to my own home processing technique (which IIRC involved ID11 - I now use Kodak D76 as it's more easily available and somewhat cheaper to buy in Australia and Asia).

This 'simplicity' (whoever says film processing is "simple" is guilty of hope over experience) kit I would never use at home for my processing as I have a makeshift permanent darkroom with ample space for chemistry and a large fridge to keep all my mixed solutions nice and cold. On the road, well, it could be useful - but I never process when I'm away, preferring to hoard my films and tackle them when I eventually return home for some R&R.

It may be just me, but I've never been able to keep concentrated Ilfosol 3 for any period of time. Even unmixed. It seems to deteriorate quickly. So I've avoided buying it. ID11, D76, home brewed Thornton's two bath (the AA mix) suit me just as well. Refrigerated, all these mixed developer (stock) keeps indefinitely. When travelling I would tend to process and dump anyway, so longevity isn't an issue. (Yes, I did say I never process when I'm away, so this is an "in principle" comment.)

The Ilford quick washing technique (evolved after much practice to my own, essentially similar to David Allen's) I've made use of since the 1980s. My negatives from that era remain in pristine condition with absolutely no fading, so I'm satisfied that it works. Kudos to Ilford and to Dave for their positive input into our processing successes.

I've also used distilled water as a final rinse for many years. I buy a one liter bottle of it (for +/-A$1.50, going by the price tag on the last bottle I purchased at our local supermarket), mix it with Photo Flo, and use it for three months. In-between processing sessions it rests safely in the fridge. I make sure to check it for 'deterioration' before each processing session. So far, entirely good. It's a small expense (I've had the Photo Flo concentrate bottle since around 2003 and it's still far from empty) for consistently good drying results.

Overall, good info in these posts. We need more of these threads.

 

[wyofilm]

Well done Ilford. It takes away much of the confusions of selecting which developer, stop, fixer to buy for the new or returning film photographer. Even more evidence that there is an uptick in film photographers.

By the way, Ilford's instruction sheet is fantastic and again geared towards the novice user.

Would I use it on the road? Hmmmm... not sure.