Losing confidence in Ilford.

otto.f · Mar 21, 2022

radiant said:
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.

This thread was about reliability. Personally I have never seen HP5+ unreliable, you’re right there. The rest is taste.

faberryman · Mar 21, 2022

markbau said:
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?

There are a fair amount of threads here about older cameras with red windows, so I think numbers on the backing paper remain relevant.

MattKing · Mar 21, 2022

Helge said:
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.

I had to laugh when I saw this.
There is an old thread on APUG where someone bought a camera that was the camera that introduced 120 to the world over 100 years previously.
They were complaining bitterly of planned obsolescence because Kodak had at that time, in the midst of dealing with the wrapper offset problem, the temerity to remove the line of numbers from the backing paper that that camera (and potentially very few others) had used as a reference.
How dare they make his 100+ year old camera obsolete!?

Sirius Glass · Mar 21, 2022

All film companies which produce 120 film had the paper backing problem a while back. None of the companies: Ilford, Kodak, ... are bad guys, they all were victims and have addressed the issue.

sruddy · Mar 21, 2022

Did I miss the samples and explanation of the defect?

Helge · Mar 22, 2022

MattKing said:
I had to laugh when I saw this.
There is an old thread on APUG where someone bought a camera that was the camera that introduced 120 to the world over 100 years previously.
They were complaining bitterly of planned obsolescence because Kodak had at that time, in the midst of dealing with the wrapper offset problem, the temerity to remove the line of numbers from the backing paper that that camera (and potentially very few others) had used as a reference.
How dare they make his 100+ year old camera obsolete!?

You really like that story. ;-)
You know, I feel like we’ve developed a bit of a connection over the last couple of months. A one way connection mostly, but still.

StevieB · Apr 4, 2022

MattKing said:
I had to laugh when I saw this.
There is an old thread on APUG where someone bought a camera that was the camera that introduced 120 to the world over 100 years previously.
They were complaining bitterly of planned obsolescence because Kodak had at that time, in the midst of dealing with the wrapper offset problem, the temerity to remove the line of numbers from the backing paper that that camera (and potentially very few others) had used as a reference.
How dare they make his 100+ year old camera obsolete!?

I kept having to send David Parker back his Satin Snow ground glass and eventually sold the camera. I must have done it 3 times. Every ground glass I put on the camera was broken, and showed an inverted and flipped image. I realized after the third focus panel the lens and camera was broken and sold it to someone else, I didn't have the time to fix it. Every once in a little while I get a post card from the person I sold it to, seems he was able to fix it.

Marcelo Paniagua · Apr 4, 2022

markbau said:
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?

I use a Kiev 88 on a regular basis, as well as other folders (Moskva, Super Ikonta, etc.) . Same for a couple of TLR. Yes, people still uses those numbers.

pbromaghin · Apr 4, 2022

MattKing said:
There is an old thread on APUG where someone bought a camera that was the camera that introduced 120 to the world over 100 years previously.
They were complaining bitterly of planned obsolescence because Kodak had at that time, in the midst of dealing with the wrapper offset problem, the temerity to remove the line of numbers from the backing paper that that camera (and potentially very few others) had used as a reference.
How dare they make his 100+ year old camera obsolete!?

This is why I can no longer shoot Kodak film in my Voigtlander Bessa I and it pisses me off! After all, the camera is only 70 years old. Learning this only by winding on a new roll was not a happy event.

grat · Apr 11, 2022

pbromaghin said:
This is why I can no longer shoot Kodak film in my Voigtlander Bessa I and it pisses me off! After all, the camera is only 70 years old. Learning this only by winding on a new roll was not a happy event.

Really? The Kodak numbers were more difficult to read for me compared with the Fuji numbering, but a small LED flashlight provided more than enough clarity to advance to the right number on mine. This was a roll of Tmax 400 from about 18 months ago.

pbromaghin · Apr 11, 2022

MattKing said:
I had to laugh when I saw this.
There is an old thread on APUG where someone bought a camera that was the camera that introduced 120 to the world over 100 years previously.
They were complaining bitterly of planned obsolescence because Kodak had at that time, in the midst of dealing with the wrapper offset problem, the temerity to remove the line of numbers from the backing paper that that camera (and potentially very few others) had used as a reference.
How dare they make his 100+ year old camera obsolete!?

You will be deeply saddened to learn that thread has disappeared in the latest upgrade.

tommyfilmist · May 30, 2022

youve foYet another of the universe's fundamental truths:

Nicholas Lindan said:
"One awshit wipes out a thousand attaboys."

err youve forgotten more fundamental truths..

1. one feels mighty "badassed" flying a hurricane in cliffs of dover blitz until the game sends you 20 BF109s to play with

2. one feels mighty "badassed" playing il2 sturmovik tank crew while riding inside a tiger tank until one sees ones ammunition bouncing off of a target sherman tank

Agulliver · Jun 16, 2022

markbau said:
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?

Yes. Plenty do. I use 6x6, 8x9 and occasionally 6x4.5 with cameras that have ruby windows and no frame counting mechanism. I am sure many do. And as those numbers on the backing paper are part of the 120 film standard, a user has every right to expect them.

I note that OP hasn't ever come back with a description of the problems claimed with their films. Nor with any explanations of the circumstances of any refund or replacement.

I come to the reluctant conclusion that OP has an axe to grind with Ilford.

snusmumriken · Jun 16, 2022

Agulliver said:
I note that OP hasn't ever come back with a description of the problems claimed with their films. Nor with any explanations of the circumstances of any refund or replacement.

I come to the reluctant conclusion that OP has an axe to grind with Ilford.

Maybe he's given up photography altogether?

Andrew O'Neill · Jun 16, 2022

I don't think so... He's still posting.

snusmumriken · Jun 16, 2022

Andrew O'Neill said:
I don't think so... He's still posting.

Oh yes! Considering making his own film. Logical way to go if you are not satisfied.

Losing confidence in Ilford.

otto.f

faberryman

MattKing

Moderator

Sirius Glass

sruddy

Helge

StevieB

Marcelo Paniagua

pbromaghin

grat

pbromaghin

tommyfilmist

Agulliver

snusmumriken

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

snusmumriken

Losing confidence in Ilford.

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency