• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Losing confidence in Ilford.

BrianShaw said:
No matter what the specifics may be, it seems that professionals still using film have both risks and challenges to accept. The good old days are quite far away in the rear view mirror.
Click to expand...


Is nothing sacred? You're making me cry.
 
If you think there weren't problems back in film's heyday, you are overly optimistic.
But it is true that the distribution channels were much better, and the faster throughput meant a lower rate of incidence, and the lack of internet based communication meant that problems weren't communicated as "efficiently".
Film is a relatively fragile, perishable product, and things go wrong sometimes.
Particularly in the shipping and distribution channels, and particularly in these last two years.
There is a very real chance that if the OP had been able to pick up his/her film direct from the factory, there would have been no problems whatsoever.
 
otto.f said:
My box of TriX 2003 4x5” was more consistent and reliable than my 2019 box in 2020.
Click to expand...
Care to share more? I'm asking because I'm trying to persuade myself to go for a box of TXP in 4x5 instead of Ilford despite the massive price difference, however not getting an immaculate product out of the super expensive yellow box already puts me off. Thanks.
 
Two boxes of film is not a sufficient sample to make generalisations of production quality. As @MattKing notes above, the grass was not necessarily greener in the past - variations happened to all producers.
In the 80's a teacher of mine would annually order large amounts of sheet film from Kodak pulled from the same batch, and test for actual ASA rating (yes, sensitivity change from batch to batch) and possible batch errors every time he ordered. It was not common, but not unseen that a batch was returned due to defects.

If I am not mistaken, both Kodak and Ilford still offers matched batches for larger orders, at least with sheet film, and if your work is truly critical you can mitigate the risk by pre-testing your material. Both Kodak and Ilford will replace the film if defective.
I am not defending the implied push of QC to the customer, but this has not changed for half a century or more.
 
Never a problem with Ilford film either here. The OP should consider if the problem is local, or alternatively might be connected to certain batches or shipments.
 
One box, to be precise, and I wholeheartedly agree, however I'm still interested in otto.f's experience, hope he will share it. As for my work, far from being critical, I take photos for my pleasure only, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to plunk down 200 eur for anything but an examplary product.
 
otto.f said:
I wouldn’t be so sure that Kodak wouldn’t have come up with faults either in the meantime. My box of TriX 2003 4x5” was more consistent and reliable than my 2019 box in 2020.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that in 2020 you exposed and processed TriX sheets, one batch manufactured in 2003 and one in 2019 and the old batch was more consistent (whatever you mean by this) than the new batch?
 
MattKing said:
There is a very real chance that if the OP had been able to pick up his/her film direct from the factory, there would have been no problems whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Well, that is an option. He is only just across the water in the Netherlands. Alternatively he can order direct from Ilford online.
 
Unfortunately we know almost none of the answers to our questions from haliderollei as yet. This thread in terms what has happened so far seems to have a lot in common with another thread of maybe a few years ago when we had a member who clearly had issues with Ilford who was seeking to form a pressure group to get Ilford to address the problems that he was convinced were all Ilford's

So I await with interest some information from haliderollei on our questions to see if we can help

pentaxuser
 
snusmumriken said:
Well, that is an option. He is only just across the water in the Netherlands. Alternatively he can order direct from Ilford online.
Click to expand...
For me, the HP5+ rolls that have exhibited mottling all came from trusted retailers. I am not sure that mishandling would occur on their end, it could be in shipping from Ilford or the U.S. distributor. I try not to buy from distant retailers during times when I might suspect the film could sit in a hot truck or warehouse on its way to me. It seems that Ilford's films may be more sensitive to high humidity and temperature than other manufacturer's. Another factor would be the conditions once the film is loaded in the camera.I have yet to see anything like the mottling from Kodak film or from what little Fuji I have shot. I am also perplexed that humidity could penetrate the sealed foil wrapper of each roll. Theoretically the probability of getting problematic film directly from Ilford should be zero.
 
Perhaps there is nothing wrong with Ilford Films, but your photography and processing.
 
Yeah, that's why it shows up on everything I shoot. Maybe it's art. And same goes for everyone else that has experience the mottling, and the Ilford techs who replace the film.
 
Pieter12 said:
It seems that Ilford's films may be more sensitive to high humidity and temperature than other manufacturer's.
Click to expand...
Perhaps presently, although others may be due to take over that position.
In theses times when everything is in flux, constituent parts are constantly having to be sourced from new suppliers, materials are changing very slightly because of those changes and because of the absolute unavailability of some components, and shipping and distribution channels are in disarray, then the interaction of all those factors leads to unwanted variability.
When Kodak had all their problems with the backing paper, it was due to the fact that they finally (after several years) ran out of the inventory of the material they had produced (before shutting down that manufacturing capacity), they couldn't source an exact duplicate, and the various changes that their films underwent in the intervening years meant that the current films interacted unpredictably to the paper and ink that was by that time available.
Harman - and every other film manufacturer - has been struggling with uncertainty of supply of the things they need to buy for at least the last two years. Even before Covid, the suppliers to the industry were in rapid flux.
120 film is more susceptible than most to problems because of the backing paper. And all the current variables make that harder to deal with.
 
I never have problems with film. I shoot a lot of 120. Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, never a problem.

I buy film from B&H and Unique Photo, buy in cold months, no hot trucks. Refrigerator until I use it.

Treat film like fine wine.
 

- there were a bunch of dark speckles and spots on the fresh TriX which could hardly be attributed to my workflow because I did the same shooting with 2 other films. The fresh TriX was done in HC110 just as the old Trix sheets which were clean. The other was Berrgger in a different developer, also clean.
- my experience with 35mm TriX is since around 2010 disappointing because of the very curly drying which I could not prevent in anyway, as well as more susceptibility to chalky stains. With other film I didn’t have this.
- I changed to ADOX films and developers. The CHS 100 ii is a marvellous film, very clear, very nice tonal scale, etc. At 400 ASA I tried Bergger PANCRO but I hate the high base+fog. I see at the Large Format Forum many good examples of Fomopan 400 with ordinary traditional developers like HC110 too. Also from Fomopan 200 but this seems to require some work to find the true ASA. But what is more nagging, some extra testing or every time inpredictable results?
- Kodak has become ridiculously expensive this year.
- I presume all these arguments are hardly any different for 120 film
- I don’t know whether these disappointments count also for Tmax, did not see it on forums as much as from TriX. My recent experience with 35mm Tmax 400 in FX39 ii was very good.
 
AgX said:
Do you mean that in 2020 you exposed and processed TriX sheets, one batch manufactured in 2003 and one in 2019 and the old batch was more consistent (whatever you mean by this) than the new batch?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Both in HC110 B coming from the same stock solution
 
To be clear: I am just sketching my own journey and choices and do not pretend to have given waterproof evidences. If I really need handheld 400 ASA nowadays I do not pick my once dearly loved TriX anymore. I did not find my way with HP5+ yet, I’m just not impressed. So I would go for Tmax400 if I could afford it and invest some time in Fomopan 400 in the long run.
 
Thanks. Appreciated.
 
Makes you wonder why they even put the frame numbers on the backing paper, I mean does anyone still use cameras that have the window that you see the frame numbers through?
 

Out of curiosity; why haven't got into HP5 yet? What is missing?

Also you are talking about very different type of films in same response. Tmax 400 is totally different than Tri-X. Also mentioning Foma 400 in same sentence .. I'm bit puzzled what look you are after. You cannot mention Tmax400 and Fomapan 400 in same sentence, I think You get very very different look on these films.
 
BrianShaw said:
Indeed! Some people use them almost as much as cameras with automatic indexing.
Click to expand...
Super reliable.
You just need a light when you shoot in dark circumstances (smartphone is a lifesaver there). And you need to shield it with your body in blazing sun.
But that’s about it.
You never ever need to worry about indexing being too tight or off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register