Perceptol lives! [And more news from Ilford representative!]

[Donald Qualls]

Having recently used FP4+ for the first time, as well as having been gifted a pro-pack of Delta 100 and a roll of Pan F+, I have to say I might well try to use more Ilford products in future. I've liked the (I think) Ilford-made, rebranded RC/MG paper I've used most recently, and hope to continue to use Ilford paper.

Budget is always an issue, and the Chinese film products, as well as some from eastern Europe, are sold at better prices than anything made in the USA or England -- surely because of lower land and labor costs offsetting the increase in shipping -- yet I'd like to support Ilford. Hard choices, since it comes to choosing between the cheaper products, or curtailing my consumption, and it's surely only going to get worse as silver-only photography marginalizes.

Large format may be my answer, if I can get equipment a bit better than my plate cameras at accessible prices. However, I'd like to know if Ilford's sheet films are cut in centimeter sheet sizes at all -- I'd love to be able to try FP4+, HP5+, Delta 100 and 400 in 9x12 cm, where my volume is low enough that price is less of a stumbling block. I have these cameras, and use them, and don't yet have 4x5 and no idea when I will...

 

[Aggie]

FP4

 

[Nige]

POSTCARD's... I was delighted ( and amazed ) to receive a POSTCARD today from Australia, in effect probably the most travelled POSTCARD ever produced by this factory ( ie it came back ) A super image of Taradale Anglican Church by an APUG member, from his last box, its on my pin board
and there it will remain, many thanks

ok, who was it? wasn't me, wish I'd thought of doing it!

 

[PaulH]

FP4+ (or Delta 400, but it looks like FP4+ is the clear favorite).

 

[Mick Fagan]

Nige, if you check out my gallery, you'll see the offending picture.

In fact it looks better on the Postcard version as a postcard print, is almost a perfect scale of a 35mm neg.

Mick.

 

[Andy K]

I'm not sure which I'm more envious of, that shot or the fact you have some Postcard paper!

 

[Craig]

I'm not sure which I'm more envious of, that shot or the fact you have some Postcard paper!

I was at my usual camera store today at lunch and they have a bunch of postcard stock on the shelf. Only pearl surface though, which I don't care for.

 

[Aggie]

I twiddle my thumbs as I sit on the last large stash of postcard paper. Mostly pearl coat as well. It is the one thing I did go raid all the stores that carried it for when I heard it was no longer going to be made. I'm down to 18 boxes.

 

[Oren Grad]

If there can be only one film for ULF and other odd sizes, I'd vote for HP5 Plus, though I could live with Delta 400. The speed really matters for me - I like to work at dusk, and by the time you take reciprocity into account the slower films are difficult or impossible to use.

As has been discussed elsewhere, I would be happy to participate if a mechanisms can be provided for special orders so that you don't have to worry about getting stuck with slow-moving inventory.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've got a box left, but I just won a multi-print easel on eBay, so I might just switch to printing 4-up on 8x10" anyway when my postcard stock runs out.

 

[roteague]

I twiddle my thumbs as I sit on the last large stash of postcard paper. Mostly pearl coat as well. It is the one thing I did go raid all the stores that carried it for when I heard it was no longer going to be made. I'm down to 18 boxes.

I remember you buying up a bunch from Looking Glass when I was in CA in May.

 

[foldingcamera]

Dear Simon,

I have been using 35mm HP5 for 30 years, of late, developed in two baths (D23 then Kodalk - sorry!) produces magnificent negatives. However I have recently been trying FP4 in 120 size in a folding camera and was horrified to find that the printing of the frame numbers on the backing paper was so feint that it is almost impossible to see through the red window. do you think that a nice strong print will be on all new 120 stock?

Wish you all success,

Stephen.

 

[wildbill]

I twiddle my thumbs as I sit on the last large stash of postcard paper. Mostly pearl coat as well. It is the one thing I did go raid all the stores that carried it for when I heard it was no longer going to be made. I'm down to 18 boxes.

No one told me it was going to be discontinued. I've got 1/2 a box.

 

[Jennifer]

LF sheet film. Did I read this as that there may be only one emulsion for all sheet film, or just the ULF ?.

If it's all sheet film my vote is for..... HP5+
I use 4x5.

One emulsion for all ?, I'm getting a bad feeling again.....

 

[photomc]

LF sheet film. Did I read this as that there may be only one emulsion for all sheet film, or just the ULF ?.

If it's all sheet film my vote is for..... HP5+
I use 4x5.

One emulsion for all ?, I'm getting a bad feeling again.....

Rest easy Jennifer, the input was for ULF. I think that FP4+/HP5+ and the Delta films in 8x10 and smaller formats is safe. - or at least I hope they don't plan to cut product that is currently available.

 

[photomc]

Ok Jennifer, went back and re-read the OP and now I have a sinking feeling

 

[colrehogan]

Dear All,

I have a question....I have been looking at LF and ULF and got some market information, to cover 80% of the sizes requested we would need 10 sizes, this means if I am to progress this to a product range, realistically I can only request one film speed, the question is simple which product...DELTA 100 asa, DELTA 400 asa, FP4 + or HP5+ What do you think ? ....

Kind Regards

Simon.

Simon,
I think that your comment/question as quoted above is confusing to some people here. It seems that they are interpreting it to mean that your one film speed request would also be applied to 4x5, 5x7 & 8x10 film sizes. Please clarify what the phrase "80% of the sizes requested" means.

I believe that it refers to non-standard sizes that have been mentioned, i.e. 4x10, 5x12, 10x12, 7x17, 11x14, 8x20, 12x20, 14x17, etc.

 

[Jennifer]

Yes, I've got that old feeling again....After many detours on getting back into photography, and spending WAY more money than I first planed on, it's time to choose a film. I NEED hp5+. I could live if push comes to shove, with a slower iso on the field camera, but a iso of only 100, or less handholding a graphic is not to my liking. I also admit I've been putting off because I didn't
know who would be left to make film and paper.

Simon...please tell us HP5+ on 4x5 is forever !. I promise to buy at least 400 sheets a year till my time is up !.

Now I won't sleep right tonight......

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have recently been trying FP4 in 120 size in a folding camera and was horrified to find that the printing of the frame numbers on the backing paper was so feint that it is almost impossible to see through the red window. do you think that a nice strong print will be on all new 120 stock?

Count me in on this one, too -- I use more 120 than 35 mm and sheet film combined, and the FP4+ that I used recently was so hard to read through the red window that I missed the first frame. Once I knew what to look for, it wasn't impossible, but many times I've read the counsel to "keep direct sun off the ruby window" and that's the only way I can easily see the numbers on the 120. After processing, I find that the numbers are in fact *gray* (or more likely grey, since it's from England) on a white background. White on black, black on white or yellow, all easy to ready through either red or (on a few rare models) green windows, but gray on white is rather hard, well-nigh impossible in a bad light.

I only own one roll film camera with a mechanical counter -- a Kodak Reflex II, for which I have to trim the 120 spools and take up to 620 -- and even that one requires me to see the number on the first frame to start the counter, unless I'm going to start from the crosswise arrows, set the counter and advance three frames, and then reset the counter to 1...

 

[Simon R Galley]

Clearing Up The Confusion : Simon

Dear All,

I was talking about all the ULF sizes to make in a limited range : All the current sheet films we make, and you buy ( thank you ) are absolutely safe:

Next week I will publish a list of sizes that we will propose to management to manufacture, if this is approved remember it goes to feasability only, so far it seems the sheet film product of choice is FP4+ and HP5+.

An interesting note : Feint numbers on 120 film : yes they are, and they have to be like that or you can get something called wrapper offset, where the numbers can be seen on the film when processed ( not a good thing ) especially on red window cameras, this is incredibly rare, but as always history evolves the reasons for some of the things that may cause you irratation.

Kind Regards

Simon.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Mick,

It was you was it...thank you for my lovely postcard, the board of ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology will see it this afternoon...

Simon.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Simon, thank you for the kind words.

I just hope it conveys to the board, just what those little postcards enable one to do!

Mick.

 

[abeku]

Feint numbers on 120 film : yes they are, and they have to be like that or you can get something called wrapper offset, where the numbers can be seen on the film when processed ( not a good thing )

I've seen this with one brand of 120-film (not Ilford). I had a couple of rolls partly ruined that way and I wasn't using a red window camera. So "wrapper offset" , that's what it's called... Another reason choosing Ilford!

 

[colrehogan]

Dear All,

I was talking about all the ULF sizes to make in a limited range : All the current sheet films we make, and you buy ( thank you ) are absolutely safe:

Next week I will publish a list of sizes that we will propose to management to manufacture, if this is approved remember it goes to feasability only, so far it seems the sheet film product of choice is FP4+ and HP5+.

Kind Regards

Simon.

Thanks Simon!

I think that FP4+/HP5+ are probably going to be the only two films I'm interested in for LF/ULF. Especially if Maco stops making IR in 8x10.

 

[Ole]

An interesting note : Feint numbers on 120 film : yes they are, and they have to be like that or you can get something called wrapper offset, where the numbers can be seen on the film when processed ( not a good thing ) especially on red window cameras, this is incredibly rare, but as always history evolves the reasons for some of the things that may cause you irratation.

I'd still prefer numbers I can see, even if that means a 1:1000 chance of seeing them on the print too...