Pan 100 bulk

[whojammyflip]

Hi just though I would share that I am about to load up some Pan 100, having been using Pan 400. The Pan 400 looked pretty much like HP5+ to me. Fingers crossed the same goes for Pan 100. It amazes me that bulk film is not more popular. Its easy to load and use and the results are the same. Not sure what I am missing here.

 

[distributed]

I have considered bulk loading but unfortunately it is not worth it for me. For example in my usual shop in Zürich, a single roll of FP4+ costs CHF 8, in a pack of 10 it costs CHF 7.20. A 100 foot rolls sets me back CHF 118. If you assume 18 rolls out of that, it works out to CHF 6.55 per roll. I'm probably going through less than 100 feet of 35 mm a year, I use more than one film type and I don't have a bulk loader. Considering these financial aspects as well as the risk of damage in rolling your own and the convenience of using factory confectioned film, I will not bulk roll.

The small price difference is a shame, though, as bulk loading has more than economical advantages.

 

[gorbas]

Hmmmm, just wondering how different Pan 100/400 films are from Kentmere 100/400 and Fp4/Hp-5?? I only saw and heard of Pan Film offered in some "3rd world" countries until now. For the last few years I'm happy user of Kentmere 100.
I'm bulk loading since 1977 with out plans to stop unless prices of bulk rolls become ridiculous as in this example from Switzerland.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

In the 1960s - the last time I did a lot of bulk loading - the cost for bulk was 1/2 the cost of factory rolled.

 

[Lachlan Young]

the cost for bulk was 1/2 the cost of factory rolled.

Process automation has dramatically cut the cost of packaging 135 in canisters (and made it a largely non-darkroom procedure) - whereas bulk rolls require darkroom/ manual operations for packaging. There has been extensive commentary on this over the years from various manufacturers both on here and elsewhere. I've tended to find that many of the defenders of bulk-rolls often have pretty low qualitative aims in terms of scratches, dust etc - and poor enough process controls/ qualitative standards that the real differences between many emulsions are largely rendered irrelevant. There are really no good reasons to use bulk rolls from a qualitative standpoint today - unless the emulsion is otherwise unavailable in canisters, you are loading in an adequately clean/ low dust darkroom and the camera you are using will accept labyrinth type canisters.

 

[Don_ih]

I bulk roll all the time. But, last I checked, it was actually more expensive to bulk roll Kodak films. Maybe that has changed. Ilford film used to be considerably cheaper to bulk roll than it is now - fp4+, for example, has almost doubled in price for a bulk roll over the past 5 years. I think the manufacturers are pushing all their effort to get film sold to new users - people who will buy a few rolls to try out in Grampy's camera - and those people won't buy bulk.

 

[MattKing]

Hmmmm, just wondering how different Pan 100/400 films are from Kentmere 100/400 and Fp4/Hp-5?? I only saw and heard of Pan Film offered in some "3rd world" countries until now. For the last few years I'm happy user of Kentmere 100.
I'm bulk loading since 1977 with out plans to stop unless prices of bulk rolls become ridiculous as in this example from Switzerland.

Way back when, Simon Galley did confirm that the Pan films, the Kentmere films and the Ilford films were different emulsions, manufactured for different markets.
All bets are off about the Kentmere and Pan films, but the last time I asked Harman/Ilford they confirmed explicitly that they don't sell any of the Ilford branded films with any name under any other name.
I still bulk load from my cache of Kodak rolls in the freezer - I like the flexibility of choosing my roll length.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've never heard of Pan 100 or 400 films. Is it readily available?

 

[Don_ih]

I've never heard of Pan 100 or 400 films. Is it readily available?

Doesn't seem like it. As soon as I saw this post, I tried to look for it. It's not at the official Ilford supplier for Canada (Amplis).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Doesn't seem like it. As soon as I saw this post, I tried to look for it. It's not at the official Ilford supplier for Canada (Amplis).

Thanks! It would have been neat to try out the 400 and compare it to HP5.

 

[MattKing]

From 7 years ago: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...not-available-in-the-usa.116064/#post-1534858

 

[gorbas]

Matt, Simon Galley was here very long time ago and back then Ilford company was under different ownership.
Why Harman/Ilford should tell you the truth?
Pan's are still film produced by Harman/Ilford so everything is OK, it's just marketed on different markets and all the sudden it's sold on UK market?
I only saw Pan's films for sale in Serbia and some other east European countries. Never in North America as far as I could see.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Matt, Simon Galley was here very long time ago and back then Ilford company was under different ownership.
Why Harman/Ilford should tell you the truth?
Pan's are still film produced by Harman/Ilford so everything is OK, it's just marketed on different markets and all the sudden it's sold on UK market?
I only saw Pan's films for sale in Serbia and some other east European countries. Never in North America as far as I could see.

I believe Simon retired around 2015. Not "very long time ago"...

 

[MattKing]

Why Harman/Ilford should tell you the truth?

Well, what would benefit them from not telling the truth?
The specific communication was almost exactly two years ago. At that time they essentially said "no comment" about whether or not they sold the Kentmere film stock for re-branding, but that their policy was to only sell the Ilford branded films under their own name. And if the Pan films were cheaper back then, why would they sell more expensive Hp or Fp films under the cheaper brand now?
The question being, of course, whether the Pan films are cheaper to produce and therefore potentially lower in cost for consumers.

I believe Simon retired around 2015. Not "very long time ago"...

About one year after that post!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hmmmm, just wondering how different Pan 100/400 films are from Kentmere 100/400 and Fp4/Hp-5?? I only saw and heard of Pan Film offered in some "3rd world" countries until now. For the last few years I'm happy user of Kentmere 100.
I'm bulk loading since 1977 with out plans to stop unless prices of bulk rolls become ridiculous as in this example from Switzerland.

Hi gorbas,
Kentmere400, Pan400 and HP5+ are different films.
HP5+ is the best one: no surprise.
Pan400 is based on old HP5 (no +), so it's just a little grainier than HP5+, but equally pushable: that's why Ilford sell it as their main ISO400 film here in the third world. Ilford have said it's better for hot and humid countries.
Kentmere400 is different: present grain, a touch softer and less sharp than HP5+, but usable at EI800 with great tone. At 1600, HP5+ is clearly better.
Kentmere400 is a very good film at 200 both in MQ and M developers, but it's not made in 120.

 

[relistan]

Ilford PAN 100 and Kentmere PAN 100 remain different films. Just look at the dev times. It's not just developed to a different contrast, either.

I've never heard of Pan 100 or 400 films. Is it readily available?

It was always targeted at low price markets but has recently become available in the UK. There are (where aren't there) rumors that it has also been discontinued and they are selling off the last stock. This may also be why Kentmere was rebranded Kentmere PAN recently.

I've tended to find that many of the defenders of bulk-rolls often have pretty low qualitative aims in terms of scratches, dust etc - and poor enough process controls/ qualitative standards that the real differences between many emulsions are largely rendered irrelevant.

Not sure why you would make this point on a thread where someone is happy with their bulk rolling. It's easy to make such a generalization about other people's processes. If you don't like it and don't like the quality you get, you can suggest that without insulting anyone. I am pretty particular and in general don't have a scratching problem when bulk rolling. I'm also able to tell the difference between different emulsions.

Cost savings on bulk rolling depends entirely on which film you are loading. Delta 100 saves about €1.40/roll to bulk roll it. Subtract €0.12 for a clean canister and it's still €1.28 in savings per roll. I can load them sitting in front of a TV show I was going to watch anyway, so the time is effectively free to me.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If there were no bulk rolls of 35, I wouldn't have a film photography component in the course I teach. Even though the price of HP5 went up 20 loonies, it's still economical. I like the fact that I can do short rolls of only about 6 to 8 exposures for the kids, depending on the project. If I shot the stuff for my own work, I'd definitely roll my own.

 

[gorbas]

It was always targeted at low price markets but has recently become available in the UK. There are (where aren't there) rumors that it has also been discontinued and they are selling off the last stock. This may also be why Kentmere was rebranded Kentmere PAN recently.

Thank you Juan for explanation!
It totally make sense to tighten assortment of films produced and merge Pan and Kentmere lines to one.
Just before New year I bought 2-100ft bulk rolls from B&H and one came as Kentmere 100 and other as Kentmere Pan 100. I was thinking that when you buy 2 rolls of bulk film they will try to send you the same emulsion? Well... Lets hope that only difference is with just the name on the box?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I remember reading Simon Galley (or a previous Ilford guy?) talking about Pan400 being a better film than Kentmere400 because Pan400 is a real pushable ISO400 film. To me that's the biggest difference too.
If Pan400 is dropped, Kentmere400 should be changed and made better in that regard.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Not sure why you would make this point on a thread where someone is happy with their bulk rolling. It's easy to make such a generalization about other people's processes. If you don't like it and don't like the quality you get, you can suggest that without insulting anyone. I am pretty particular and in general don't have a scratching problem when bulk rolling. I'm also able to tell the difference between different emulsions.

Cost savings on bulk rolling depends entirely on which film you are loading. Delta 100 saves about €1.40/roll to bulk roll it. Subtract €0.12 for a clean canister and it's still €1.28 in savings per roll. I can load them sitting in front of a TV show I was going to watch anyway, so the time is effectively free to me.

If bulk loading makes you happy, that's fine. And if you really care about saving a few pennies on film above all else, so be it. But if you have other costs riding on the result, is a Euro and a bit worth it if you have to spend time/ money/ effort on retouching scratches etc afterwards? Good process controls include taking steps to minimise wasted time/ effort on (what should be) minor details and expending maximum effort on the two bits that matter - the image and the print.

 

[mgb74]

Another consideration is storage. A 100 ft roll takes up far, far, less room in the freezer.

 

[mshchem]

I just bought a 50 foot roll of HP5 in 70mm from B&H. Holy Samolians $230. Cost to play . 70mm is offered again this year in the ULF campaign. God Save Ilford!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Last time I bought Eastman 5222, I bought three 400' cans which went in the freezer no problemo. Try fitting 240 rolls of film in the freezer. Good luck with that....

I've been bulk loading ever since I started photography 3 decades ago. At first I did it because it was cheap and I was young. Now I do it because it is more efficient. I can buy a bunch of film at one time and I don't have to worry about not being able to get it again in the middle of something. On top of that, I like to load up 42 frame rolls. Much more efficient making photographs with long rolls. You can stop and reload, I still have six to go.

I do it while watching a movie usually, so it doesn't cost me any time.

And for the naysayers with the high fallutin' scratches argument. No, I don't get scratches. People that get scratches bulk loading will also get scratches doing everything else related to handling film.

 

[relistan]

If bulk loading makes you happy, that's fine. And if you really care about saving a few pennies on film above all else, so be it. But if you have other costs riding on the result, is a Euro and a bit worth it if you have to spend time/ money/ effort on retouching scratches etc afterwards? Good process controls include taking steps to minimise wasted time/ effort on (what should be) minor details and expending maximum effort on the two bits that matter - the image and the print.

Good thing you are here to tell us all what good looks like and what we should be doing . I don't have scratches on my negatives. Yes, I print in the darkroom. You do know that a large portion of the best images taken and printed in the 20th century were on bulk loaded film, right?

I agree with @Patrick Robert James ... if you are careful in your process you don't scratch film, bulk loaded or not.

 

[AgX]

I neither had scratches ever.