Mystery film in bulk loader...Ilford MP?

[Agulliver]

I took a chance on a bulk loader on an eBay auction last week, which the seller described as having old film inside. He thought it was Ilford FP4 and quite rightly did not offer any guarantee as to it's suitability for using in a camera.

Given that I only paid £7 anyway I was happy to get another bulk loader. But having examined the contents in my dark bag, it seems there is almost a full 100 feet in there. So I discarded the first 1.5 metres or so and then loaded about 70cm onto a spiral reel and processed it as per FP4+ in ID-11 stock. There is very little base fog, I think this film is certainly usable.

I'm not sure what it is though. The perfs look like motion picture film? The rebate does say "Ilford Safety Film" and has the code LB5 A99543 on it. Does anyone know what film this might be?

I've used Ilford HP5+ motion picture film in still cameras with success, it behaves slightly differently to regular HP5+ but it's still nice. I'm curious about using this but would like to know if it is FP4 or FP4+, or if there's a chance it's something different before I try taking photos.

 

[pentaxuser]

An e-mail to Ilford quoting the code may be worthwhile. If it turns out to be very old but is still OK then I am sure Ilford will be pleased to hear about it.

pentaxuser

 

[Harry Stevens]

What about LB5 could stand for "Loaded bulk HP5" and A99543 and pheraps assembled 99 or 95........All just dodgy guess work of course

 

[AgX]

From the data I got I rather would think of the FP4 or FP4-plus.

Inquiring at IlfordPhoto seems the only way to find out.
But seen the likely age of the film, of what value would be such information?

 

[Chris Livsey]

Obviously movie/motion picture from the perfs.
Ilford did make a MkV film as below, but I think yours is more recent.
http://photo-analogue.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/ilford-mk-v-motion-picture-film.html

Some were packed emulsion out, but you will see that, Simon Galley said here ages ago the Ilford emulsions were slightly different as was the base than the still versions.
Ilford did edge mark with "Ilford Safety Film" and have footage numbers your test length 70cm should have revealed all the edge markings, movie film has them well spread out compared to still, and it would be odd not to see footage.

 

[Agulliver]

I've got some known HP5+ motion picture film. It is likewise labelled "Ilford Safety Film" with the rounded sprocket holes. In this case I have the can so I know it's dated 1995. It certainly has footage numbers. Did Ilford make any other MP films, or just HP5 and FP4 (or the + versions) ? My best bet probably is to ask Ilford directly about it. The bulk loader has the film wound correctly for loading still photography cassettes.

The film still appears to be usable, so the information as to what emulsion it is has value because I can better figure out what ISO to shoot it at if I know it's FP4 or HP5 and perhaps have a rough idea of age.

 

[Leigh B]

Run a roll with test exposures over a reasonable range, then develop in Diafine.

Diafine is a two-part developer with 5 minute in each solution regardless of film type.
Determine your proper exposure index based on the results. That will correct for aging.

- Leigh

 

[Agulliver]

My wife would not take kindly to me bringing more chemicals into the house....it's ID-11 or nothing. But the strip I developed in ID-11 showed very little fog and the edge writing is strong....so I suspect ID-11 will be good.

I've written to Ilford and had a reply that the person who read my message feels this could be old film and has passed my message onto someone who is more likely to be able to help with the meaning of the numbers. So far, so good.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Update appreciated, too often these threads never reach a conclusion.

 

[Fixcinater]

I bought a 4-pk of bulk rolls of that same Ilford Mk. V cine film on ebay a few years back. Same perforation shape as yours, the edge code on that reads: SG7 G73446 and it has a similar base fog at this point as what that article mentioned.

I've shot it at 100 and 200, 100 seems to work better but I'll try 50 to see what that looks like now.

 

[Agulliver]

The word from Ilford/Harman.


According to our Finishing Department this is a code for CINE film,
probably FP4 with Double (Negative) Perforation.
Unfortunately, our codes for this long discontinued product are in
storage so not accessible.


I was also sent a couple of links that the helpful person at Ilford found, which I shall look at later.

 

[AgX]

From the data I got I rather would think of the FP4 or FP4-plus.

Inquiring at IlfordPhoto seems the only way to find out.
But seen the likely age of the film, of what value would be such information?

Still unanswered...

 

[Agulliver]

I've finally had time to roll a 12 exposure cartridge and shoot/process it. I shot at 100ISO, developed in ID-11 stock as for 125ISO. The results are generally good so I suspect it is FP4 or FP4+
There is a very low level of base fog but generally the contrast on the negatives is very good.

Except the first two frames exhibited the cracking/crazing shown in this attached image. Only the first two frames, the rest are fine. All were shot on the same day (yesterday).

Other details...I processed for 7:30 minutes, two inversions every 60 seconds, fixed in Tetenal Superfix for four minutes, washed for 10 minutes using a wetting agent of my own manufacture. The recipe for this was gleaned from a thread posted here a while ago.

It's basically my usual, go-to B&W film processing regimen and the developer/fixer/wetting agent combo is one I have used successfully many times. Any ideas?

 

[pentaxuser]

I wonder what "long discontinued" means in terms of date of manufacture. I know everyone has a slightly different idea of "long" but there has been so few B&W 35mm films made in the last couple of decades that I can recall. I suspect the film may be much older than 20 years.

pentaxuser

 

[darkroommike]

Obviously movie/motion picture from the perfs.
Ilford did make a MkV film as below, but I think yours is more recent.
http://photo-analogue.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/ilford-mk-v-motion-picture-film.html

Some were packed emulsion out, but you will see that, Simon Galley said here ages ago the Ilford emulsions were slightly different as was the base than the still versions.
Ilford did edge mark with "Ilford Safety Film" and have footage numbers your test length 70cm should have revealed all the edge markings, movie film has them well spread out compared to still, and it would be odd not to see footage.

I think 50 foot cine test rolls were intended to test processors, etc. and sensitometers.

 

[darkroommike]

I've got some known HP5+ motion picture film. It is likewise labelled "Ilford Safety Film" with the rounded sprocket holes. In this case I have the can so I know it's dated 1995. It certainly has footage numbers. Did Ilford make any other MP films, or just HP5 and FP4 (or the + versions) ? My best bet probably is to ask Ilford directly about it. The bulk loader has the film wound correctly for loading still photography cassettes.

The film still appears to be usable, so the information as to what emulsion it is has value because I can better figure out what ISO to shoot it at if I know it's FP4 or HP5 and perhaps have a rough idea of age.

I think I recall Ilford also made a cine version (with BH perforations) of Ilford SFX film. Wouldn't that be nice to get a hold of?

And I found a thread here about cine Pan F.

 

[Leigh B]

I've finally had time to roll a 12 exposure cartridge and shoot/process it. I shot at 100ISO, developed in ID-11 stock as for 125ISO. The results are generally good so I suspect it is FP4 or FP4+

What does the edge imprint say?

That should give you a clue as to what film it is.

- Leigh

 

[AgX]

The rebate does say "Ilford Safety Film" and has the code LB5 A99543 on it.

As you see cine films do not necessarily have an imprint we are used from still films.

 

[Agulliver]

What does the edge imprint say?

That should give you a clue as to what film it is.

- Leigh

Motion picture film from Ilford does not have the same edge imprint as their still film. Typically it says "Ilford Safety Film" and a code number which only Ilford seem to be able to decode. And in this case they say it's a "long discontinued" product and the codes are in storage, and not easily accessible. I cannot blame them for not taking the trouble to access archives in order to please the whims of one customer with one load of old film.

In a totally separate purchase, I bought a 200' roll of HP5+ cine film from my local camera shop in it's original tin. It is dated 1995 so these products were still around in the mid 90s. Likewise it has "Ilford Safety Film", but in this case there are footage numbers rather than a code.

From my brief test, it acts rather like FP4+ in that it gives quite nice images exposed at 100ISO and developed as for FP4+
I might develop one minute longer or expose at 80ISO to get a bit more contrast but it's definitely usable.

Though that crazing/cracking in the image I posted yesterday is bothersome. Any ideas why it is only on the first two frames? The other 8 that I exposed looked fine.

 

[AgX]

Except the first two frames exhibited the cracking/crazing shown in this attached image. Only the first two frames, the rest are fine. All were shot on the same day (yesterday).

From the likely way you spooled your first (12exp.) roll, the parts of the film bearing that artefact were inside the roll, not at the outer end.
That should exclude a storage issue. (Which likely rather produce a black pattern anyway.)

 

[Agulliver]

I didn't spool this. As per my original post this arrived in a second hand 100' bulk loader that I bought recently. I don't know how the original owner came by the film as he doesn't remember. But it is correctly "emulsion in" inside the bulk loader.

What I did was discard about 1.5 metres, then cut off 70cm which I developed unexposed to see if there was any point going further....then spooled off a further 12 exposure cassette. The first two frames of which have this crazing/cracking. Quite odd...and probably not a drying issue since the other frames were not affected.