New Ilford Large Format Film?

[DREW WILEY]

Well, Andrew, just how big is the market for Kallitype supplies? A tiny niche within another tiny niche.

 

[retina_restoration]

What??? Ilford actually did put out Pan-F in 8x10???? Anyone know what Freestyle was asking for a box of it?

$275 USD.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@retina_restoration Thanks!

 

[Craig]

Not super cheap, with the currency exchange the other Ilford 8x10 films are cheaper in Canada.

 

[MattKing]

All the Ilford sheet films are already on PET base, and to my knowledge, never were on triacetate.

Adaptation of 120 roll film would be a whole different ballgame.

Understood, but the engineering necessary to adapt an emulsion from use on acetate to use on polyester is moderately difficult and particular to the type of materials used in that particular film. So a low volume product like Pan F might be an appropriate one to start with and, while they are at it, they may as well add a product that arguably expands the scope of their LF product line.

 

[Lachlan Young]

to my knowledge, never were on triacetate.

Going by Ilford's own data, the pre-Plus FP4 and HP5 were available on thick CTA base. Photocomposition increasingly shifted to digital around the time the 'Plus' versions were being built, so it will have made less sense to coat on CTA for sheet formats.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I still have a partial now useless leftover box of the pre-plus version of FP4. It's definitely PET base. I don't know when the alleged transition was made. But clear back when Cibachrome was introduced (as basically a joint venture between "prior" Ilford and Ciba-Geigy), their key representatives teamed up to give seminars in person, and pushed FP4 as a suitable dimensionally stable (hence PET) masking film. And those early masks of mine happen to still be in perfect register with the early Ektachrome 64 originals, which were also PET (Estar) base.

You seem to have it backwards, Lachlan. CTA is useless for Photocomp work unless one finished the process rather promptly and got it to press before the acetate starts shrinking. This was common knowledge all along. Even more importantly, Dye Transfer printing was still alive parallel to all that, and was certainly not a rapid process. A set of separation negatives might be held for a long time for sake of reuse, but would be worthless on acetate base. FP4 was designed for that kind of application too, so it's hard to figure out when a TCA version of it existed, unless one's own experience goes back that far. FP4 started replacing FP3 in May 1968; my own experience with it doesn't go back that far.
One of the improvements of the Plus version was that it is less sensitive to handling, so no longer needed the thin paper interleafing between each sheet of film.

 

[AZD]

Trying to make the most of this (and get past my own lack of excitement), which areas/styles of LF photography might PanF excel?

Long shutter speeds, reciprocity failure, and limited dynamic range might limit outdoor use, but what about controlled studio light? Still life and portraiture?

One reason I ask - I have 400 5x7 sheets of Agfa Brovira #2 in silk surface just waiting for the right project. Contact prints of portraits on PanF? Huh? Maybe? Maybe not? Try it and see, as always?

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's definitely PET base. I don't know when the alleged transition was made.

Given the markets they were used in, offering both CTA and PET (even if one or other was special order at various points in time) for sheet formats would have made sense. It does not mean they were solely only coated on one or the other in 175 micron base thickness.

CTA is useless for Photocomp work unless one finished the process rather promptly and got it to press before the acetate starts shrinking. This was common knowledge all along.

I'd like to see you try and strip PET film base off the emulsion for assembly of disparate film elements into a new composite (the background assembly plate of which can be PET) or doing cut & butt compositing with PET. You'll very rapidly discover why Kodak kept making most of its older E-6 materials on CTA in sheet form (as did Fuji with Provia). All of this was much earlier in the process than offset seps (or stripping those together). Your composite would get retouched after assembly, then probably a dye transfer made, then that dye transfer extensively retouched, and only then into seps for offset. Photoshop killed most of this almost overnight.

Solvent weldability was one of the reasons cinema prints stayed on CTA as long as they did.

 

[JensH]

One reason I ask - I have 400 5x7 sheets of Agfa Brovira #2 in silk surface just waiting for the right project. Contact prints of portraits on PanF? Huh? Maybe? Maybe not? Try it and see, as always?

Hi,

just out of curiosity, is it BS 117 ("seidenraster")?

 

[GregY]

That's a surprise to me. Pan F is the last film i'd buy in 8x10.
Just seems like a weird choice to me.

 

[Craig]

That's a surprise to me. Pan F is the last film i'd buy in 8x10.
Just seems like a weird choice to me.

Agreed. I can't see any advantage over Delta 100.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Lachlan - stripping emulsion off its base wasn't in my wheelhouse, thankfully. And working on tight shoot to offset schedules wasn't my game either, except occasionally. I still sometime re-print LF chromes I took over 40 yrs ago,
but dread ones from that era when nearly all the choices were on acetate - have to generate the masks all over again due to misregister. The best balanced Chrome film ever finally ended up on a stable base (Astia 100F), and it was the best duplicating film ever too. I made a quantity of master 8x10 dupes with all the masking controls already built in, which in turn still serve to make precision contact internegs from, suitable for RA4 printing, with no need to re-mask. I'm working with some of those now.

Kodak verged away from PET in terms of color sheet film itself for about a decade, and then wisely returned to it.
If one ordered up a pin bar for an extant punch from Stoesser or Ternes Burton, the stipulation is that the punched sample either be on a mylar/PET strip or else thin brass stock; there's an obvious reason for that - dimensional stability. B&W sheet films were predominantly PET for a long time. Ever try registering set of old acetate separation negs? - it was darn near impossible until recent 'snap together' digital apps.

Cine films and other films tightly spooled and subject to tension needed to be thin acetate to prevent gear failure, as well as for cementing purposes. No wonder so many flicks seem to have been made by glue sniffers!

But yes, the advent of scanners resulted in a gigantic shift in comp and publishing workflow quite a bit earlier than consumer-oriented PS, and precipitated along a lot of Art Dept & Pre-press employee layoffs - kinda like the Permian mass extinction event, while the impending arrival of AI is about to become the equivalent of the Cretaceous asteroid extinction event.

But since this thread is apparently about PanF sheet film, let's see what kind of hoops people have to jump through in order to get it to work optimally for their own specific purposes.

 

[GregY]

Agreed. I can't see any advantage over Delta 100.

My experience with 8x10 .... even though i really like Tmax 100 & Delta 100...... i was more than satisfied with a combo of FP4+ (which remains one of my very favourite & reliable films) & Tri-X .... 80 sq inches of film .....there's never a problem with sharpness or resolution.

 

[retina_restoration]

Agreed. I can't see any advantage over Delta 100.

I honestly can't imagine why someone would choose Pan F over Delta 100. I just don't perceive there being any advantage.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pan F has a particular "wire sharpness" look all its own. How that might be developer tinkered with in LF applications would be an interesting challenge. Speed and contrast issues can be handled via studio lighting ratio and strobe options. But out in the field, your odds of a correct shoe fit aren't as high.

 

[MattKing]

I honestly can't imagine why someone would choose Pan F over Delta 100. I just don't perceive there being any advantage.

perhaps it is easier to re-engineer for PET base.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I honestly can't imagine why someone would choose Pan F over Delta 100. I just don't perceive there being any advantage.

I'm not super sure either but the actual ISO of Pan-F in most people's usage is around 32. If you have a 135/3.5 Planar or 150/2.8, you quickly discover that the Copal 1 shutter is a bit limiting in many lighting situations. At least you can get down pretty low without needing to ND I suppose. But in general I believe both Delta 100 and TMax are finer grained and have much more forgiving contrast.

I would want to do a lot of zone system style testing before I started working with Pan-F on the regular. Of course, you also have to consider it's unstable latent image.

 

[mshchem]

perhaps it is easier to re-engineer for PET base.

So, isn't every Ilford sheet film on a PET base? Like Kodak?

 

[MattKing]

So, isn't every Ilford sheet film on a PET base? Like Kodak?

But not every roll film is.
So if Harman, like Kodak, are looking at moving roll films to PET, they need to do a lot of engineering to make it happen.
Perhaps Pan F is suitable as a starting point, and dosing the necessary engineering for sheet film at the same time makes sense.

 

[mshchem]

But not every roll film is.
So if Harman, like Kodak, are looking at moving roll films to PET, they need to do a lot of engineering to make it happen.
Perhaps Pan F is suitable as a starting point, and dosing the necessary engineering for sheet film at the same time makes sense.

Got ya. Sometimes, mostly, I'm a little thick.

 

[AZD]

Pan F has a particular "wire sharpness" look all its own.

Any chance you can elaborate? Is this an inherent characteristic, or one which appears more/less with different development?

If there’s something unique here I’d be interested in trying some 35mm or 120. I still have a roll of 35mm I bought three years ago and haven’t used, vs much HP5 and Kentmere 100.

 

[Craig]

80 sq inches of film .....there's never a problem with sharpness or resolution.

There can be problems with dust when enlarging! It's really hard to keep that much film clean ( and glass in a glass carrier).

 

[AZD]

Hi,

just out of curiosity, is it BS 117 ("seidenraster")?

BW117. I want to say the difference is in the base tint perhaps? BW117 is clean white.

Not to distract too much from the main topic, but it apparently came from a refrigerated lot of film and some paper belonging to a retired pro photographer. Lots of Agfa in the mix, including this paper, a 50-roll case Optima 125-120 of which I bought a bunch, and some Arista 100 bulk rolls of rebadged Agfapan circa 2004. I bought what I could afford at the time. There was also 5x100 feet of PanF (no plus) that I passed on, so you see my preferences.

Anyway, this paper prints beautifully in LPD and presents mid-tone details in a pleasant way, which makes me think studio-type light and PanF could possibly add up to something unique.

 

[AnselMortensen]

People using fast barrel lenses, i.e. Aero Ektars, Buhl projector lenses, etc. will probably love Pan F for its slow speed...allowing use in brighter lighting without ND filters.